>>55568075
This can be considered art.
It touches people on an emotional level and seems to invoke a response in them.
That, I think makes it art. Art critics may complain, but then that is what they do. Their complaints don’t make something ‘not-art’, their complaints just label something as bad or lousy art.
Almost anything created by human beings can be considered art. That is what the word 'art’ means, things created by humans. Art, artisan, artefact, artifice, artificial are words that have the same root in the Latin word 'ars’: work of art, or a practical skill or business or a craft. The only limits on art are the limits of the human imagination.
Science, on the other hand, is a creative activity of humans where we create descriptions of nature and natural processes, but to be science, these descriptions must make testable predictions; to be valid science those tests must be confirmed.
Philosophers never test their theories against nature. They only make them logically self consistent.
Aristotle said things move through the air because of motive force given by the air. Galileo noted that if Aristotle were right it would be best to expose the maximum surface area of an object in the direction we wanted things to fly fast and far but this doesn’t work.
Philosophy can be 100% logically self consistent and still be completely wrong science.
The self checking feed back loop in science has enhanced mankind’s understanding of nature by removing things that don’t work. Because of this we have started to actually decode the processes of nature. It has been 400 or so years of work to get where we are, and will take untold more generations to understand it all. We understand very little and the more we learn, the more we learn that there is so much we do not know. That is why it is interesting.
For this to become science, it must make testable predictions about the world around us, and those predictions must be tested and be found to agree with nature.