Frances to William... The irony is understood in your remarks about objectivity and subjectivity. There are of course some theories of art seemingly contradicting the importance of the self in art, such as the need for a percipient to maintain the correct "psychical distance" from the work by being "disinterested" in the work like a judge of the court. It may be because of this seeming irony that pragmatism posits the idea of things being progressive and hierarchical, such as iconicity and symbolicity, or objectivity and subjectivity, or aesthetics and logics, or art and science; in that they are all in their own right preparatory and contributory and consummatory of each other, and then at last combinatory. As a related aside, the inner tern under the human "psyche" might best be ordered as "self" and "subject" and "person" that you partly mentioned, but this kind of psychologism may not be that useful here in appreciating the human relationship to art and science.
William wrote... In science the goal is to take the self out of the judgment and to simply understand the data, the results, the evidence, the matter, etc. That's why it's science --the scientific method -- and why it's objective. It's admitted that it is not possible, probably, to exclude all subjectivity. So while art and science share the human subject in some way, the former tries to eliminate self as much as possible and the latter tries to include it as much as possible. Granted that when it comes to intrepretation, appreciation, and the like, art and science are regarded subjectively.
