The article essentially suggests that art and sciences have long been linked, even in the 20th century where it is rare to fine people participating wholly in both areas. After all, art is supposedly more emotional while science is supposedly more logical. This is in spite of the fact that there are many artists who create logic-based art (M.C. Escher, for example) and many scientists who made discoveries based on intuition (such as Newton).
Kelly found that artists and scientists both described working best when in a mental state as opposed to working in a particular location or during specific times. She was also able to connect that both believe that the other needs to continually work on the same processes every day even when there are no "positive" results. There was also the similarity in that both believed the other needed to think differently in order to be great at what they do. Her final conclusion, however, was that art is what happens after science is learned. In other words, science is about learning rules and adapting them, and art is about breaking these rules and forging into unknown lands.
The point for art-lovers? That art and science are not only linked in some very key ways, but also that one leads to the other. Art has value because it takes science to the next level.
Click here to see how art can motivate you to make better decisions.