Garland,
There are points in favor regarding art and aesthetics, especially in that I think the vast majority of us consider the look of a course far more than we might realize or be willing to admit. People like to be inspired, and its much easier to be inspired at a artistic masterpiece than at a course lined by condos.
However, the vast majority of issues that have anything to do with playing a golf course have more to do with science than art. Simply determining contour on a green and potential pin placements is relatively scientific. Ditto playing angles that determine strategy and drainage patterns. Now, golfers and architects might often use a pretty simple version of scientific concepts to make these things work, but its still there. That's not to mention that the course is a living organism that brings biology into play especially regarding maintenance. If you think of mathematics as an applied science, then you start including length of holes, length of walk from green to tee ;-), placement of hazards at distances likely to come into play, carry distances and I'm sure other aspects of course design in the scientific field.
So from my consideration of golf courses, its 75/25 in favor of science when all is said and done. However, if I get 75% on my accounting test tomorrow night I'll get a C, and no one on this website discusses C golf courses. So you still have to get the art right to achieve greatness. And FWIW, I originally wrote 80/20, but wanted to give art a bit more credit based on my comment that most of us underestimate art's importance.