For a survey of what scientists are interested in with respect to their "art", read survey literature in the Philosophy of Science.

As this is my specialty area, I can tell you that scientists are interested in creating abstract models that account for observations. Today they know that they work with models (maps), as even a cursory review of the philosophy of science will show. The phrase "the standard model" is ubiquitously referred to in physics literature. They do NOT worry about "similarity of structure" between their model and the territory, because there is no independent way of obtaining information about "the territory"; all ways of "knowing" involve maps. Models are evaluated on the basis of their predictive power. "Did I get it right?" only means that all the predictive tests that we can think of and execute came out as predicted (not disconfirmed) so far. Only the religious and the mystical believe that "God" or anyone else can "know" directly what "is", and that province is outside the realm of Science. Popper's philosophy of science is still principally the accepted view.

There are two major problems with the notion of similarity of structure - one from an epistemological point of view and the other from metaphysical point of view.

Non-similar Structure discusses the epistemological problem - how we might know.
On Similarity of Structure discusses the metaphysical aspects in the context of general semantics ideology.

A major difference, it seem to me, is that scientists use prediction and corroboration to check out their model creations, discarding the models when the predictions fail. "Artists" on the other hand seem to have a much looser mapping from any "inspiration" territory to their creations, and their creations don't get discarded because a prediction fails. Artists models don't make predictions, most of the time. The artist may "predict" that "this model" will "go over" with people, but the model itself does not contain predictions. Artists creations are rarely willingly disposed of by the creator because a single prediction failure occurs. Science keeps only the latest models active. Artists accumulate past models - often they are more revered than current ones.

Both study; both create; scientists predict and discard; artists show and keep.

Science seeks a single coherent model.
Art seeks multiple varied models.

For a long time the engineering and the practical application of any skills has been considered an "art".

"Science and art", in the context given, it seems to me, represents the theory and practice of scientific knowledge.

I consider myself much more a scientist than an artist, but I don't react to high tension wires that way. I wonder if or when we'll find a better way to transmit power. Often, I see the graceful form in the structure of the towers and the catenary of the lines. I see where the engineers have designed a modicum of aesthetics into the towers, the method of suspension, etc. Good engineering has its own aesthetics. I think propagating simplistic stereotypical judgements as to what "scientist" or "artists" see and to judge the presence of technological artifacts as somehow automatically detracting from the scene, very presumptuous as to what values to choose.

I think the view presented is stereotypical and pejorative.

I think "art" enhances the vision of the scientist, bacause we have found, in science, that the more elegant formulae and theories generally work better. Functionality and form seem to be related in a way that correlates elegance, simplicity, etc., with better function. So if we see an "ugly" formula or construction, which is governed by our artistic sense, we think there may be something radically wrong with the function or construction.

You cannot speak Roman Numerals?

The Romans called everyone who could not speak Latin (including Roman Numerals) "barbar" - the root of the word "Barbarian". ["A Greek word adopted by the Romans to refer to any people who did not adopt the Roman way of life. It is said to have come originally from the sound bar-bar, which, according to the Greeks, was supposed to be the noise that people made when speaking foreign languages."] [Google-Define:barbarian]

We don't have a "scientific" brain and an "artistic" brain, in spite of the fact that we are trained by the environment. Science intuition involves emotion, although many would deny that. At the core of learning is the positive reward that is experienced as emotional pleasure. It can come in a flash, as in the "ah ha!" experience, or it can be the immense satisfaction for finally completing a difficult proof. Knowing we "got it right" is inextricably bound up in the Hedonic Response in Problem Solving. Also see Jeff Hawkins On Intelligence.

Universal? Now that's a mighty big "all".

Milton wrote Science -- A human activity that strives to create maps that structurally most accurately represent territories mapped.

Because we cannot "know" the territory except through the maps we create, I would "modify at will" the above as follows.

Science -- A human activity that strives to create maps that are not disconfirmed in spite of continuous testing through long use.

Darren, I would say that your "universal" "ART" is limited to certain human cultures. There is no way to prove your claim for all human cultures, and no way to prove it for non-human cultures. So the hyperbole you express with the term 'universal' does not represent a scientific (testable) hypothesis. It seems to be the kind of "allness" claim that general semantics eschews. We would have to ask you to describe, at lower levels of abstraction, what you mean by "universal", "art", and "archtypes". See Lakeoff, "Metaphors we live by" and "Philosophy in the Flesh" for some additional perspective.

Just as an aside.
Saying something again, more loudly, such as using capital letters, falls in the behavioral category of exercising dominance, not, it seems to me, providing an explanation. Perhaps citing time-binding references that present the theory of archtypes might be in order?