It's helpful to be normative concerning the words used.
Artist is to art as scientist is to science.
Both of these terms are within the umbrella, "higher intellectual pursuits" that involve philosophy and cultural expression.
The word scientists comes from a meeting in the Royal Society, from a time when those involved were doing experimental philosophy, contrary to moral philosophy.
Natural philosophy is in contrast to metaphysics, where both mathematics and theology belong -- arguably on each of their feuding sides.
Allowing us to associoate and relate things from mathematics and personified cosmological concepts and principles.
One needed a way to distinguish properly, those that applied method and empirical studies in their higher pursuits, rather than posturing with public appeal and entertainment.
So we have scientists today that don't really care much for philosophy and those things, as the physical and real world is better to work with and more trustworthy.
Likewise, art comes from a different direction, namely artisans and craftmanship.
A poet is not an artist, he can perhaps be an entertainer much like how a scientists or philosopher can be.
So if a painter demonstrate masterful craftmanship and also displays visual poetry, it tends to be called a masterpiece.
At the end of the day, art today is in the eye of the beholder according to the expert oppinions of most museum and art gallery curators of today.
Mozart was an entertainer, that he gets hailed from artists and scientists alike is why he has the status that he does.
