YES: Practitioners of the arts have received and will continue to receive undue recognition compared to those in the Sciences, given society’s fascination with Arts practitioners.
The disproportionately high commercial value some arts practitioners command for their creations may appeal more as a form of conspicuous consumption among the ultra-rich than appeals for patronage by scientists.
Some popular art forms are inherently more entertaining and easy to appreciate, making their iconic practitioners far more appealing and well-known compared to top-notch scientists whose discipline may only appeal to niche groups.
Some arts practitioners may drive their mass appeal through contrarian lifestyles in media-saturated societies that endorse or admire the unconventional, making those scientists who operate and live more conventionally much less popular in comparison.
NO: Practitioners of the arts, for various reasons, are justifiably recognized by society for their talent and contributions which equal or even supersede those in the sciences.
The commercial recognition arts practitioners receive results from proper valuation by qualified experts in the industry and scientists, by comparison, may lack such representation, making their contributions less well-known even when they have equal value.
Some arts practitioners may have developed or created works that speak to the masses in insightful and profound ways which scientists cannot easily duplicate, making the former fully deserving of the accolades society gives them.
Some arts practitioners are singularly talented and their works may be recognized as unique contributions to human culture even after their deaths, allowing them to eclipse scientists whose work is often incorporated into knowledge and technologies that successive generations take for granted.