Being good at something is effectively being able to creatively deal with constraints and get good results. Trying to say science / engineering is different because the success function doesnt involve as much human opinion doesnt seem right.
I agree with this sentiment. Art and sciences used to be united. Both stem from the same place: the quest for answers and knowledge.
The big distinction between art and engineering is that art is supposed to speak to us and move us in an subjective way, while engineering aims to create products which are objectively good solutions for a well-defined problems.
Objectively good imho is as much a fallicy in the space of science and engineering as it is in art.
It takes the same artistic/creative skill to be a good engineer as it does an artist.
This is maybe a pedantic perspective, but i find it relevant.
Edit: objectively good for engineering is subjective expanation: you need requirements to define objectively good. I.e. sub optimal metrics to represent an entities value model. If you say hey, but engineers are structured/meticulous once they have the requirments.. i would say so are artists.