Since the last century, there has been at virtually all levels of formal learning an increasingly imbalanced funding of art and science fields of study in the United States. From the look of things, science has been misappropriated to the extent that its ascendancy has eclipsed art. Art has been named science and the effects of this misnomer are far-reaching, yet concerned alike-minded scholars of the present century have not relented in their commitment to confront this problem and propose the balance of policy with reason. This article reexamines the relationship between art and science by engaging in a philosophical autopsy of specific traditionally designated "scientific productions" to rectify issues in cultural interpretation and judgment. It unquestions the question of purity of science as an unpoliticized academic discipline, and the preferential funding of education in science-related fields of study; i.e., the merits of popular close-ended declaration of what is and what is not science, while unanswering such answers as art being an adjunct-field-of-study to science and the general dismissal of the non-science. Through a series of analyses of selected productions, argument will be marshaled to demonstrate underlying artistic components in the productions against the prevailing dogma that art and science cultures are incoherent, opposing and dissimilar entities.