Art VS Science debate!

The Art VS Science debate is constantly debated about, its something we cant quite agree on because there are different aspects to these subjects which sometimes work without the other and some that don't.
One key thinker in this debate is Aristotle. He divided up the subject areas and asked 'Does one work without the other?'
Aside from Aristotle, Einstein had the best argument for this debate. I'm going to start with a quote of his, "The best science requires creating thinking" (requires innovation).
"Artists must attain mastery over their medium" - Einstein.
The best performers at any field of work will have a mixture of creativity and discipline which proves arts and science go hand in hand.
We all want our children to enter the world independently as creative scientific thinkers. Why can we not have art and science? Why must it be either/or?
'The Ideal Situation' would be a mixture of the both to produce better performers in education.
There are of course different aspects of science, as I said above, that can work without art/technology and some that cant.
Pure science is the result of technology produced, what a certain technology has led to.
Hard Science works alone but can lead to technology driven work for evidence, for example.
Technology on the other hand is impossible without science-based research.
There are also differences in the opinions of the public and the scientists of what science actually is. We ask 'What is Creativity?' in university but not 'What is Science?'
The public sees science as technology advances such as new TV's or Radios.
The Scientists see science as things like the Maxwell theory, the Quantum theory etc.
There is one type of technology, 'Empirical technology'  which is not based on science at all  but in fact may lead to scientific work being carried out of major importance.