I took his point to mean that scientific progress is recursive in a way; each new technology or improvement of a theoretical model enables the next person to bu

I took his point to mean that scientific progress is recursive in a way; each new technology or improvement of a theoretical model enables the next person to build on that progress (assuming the direction they are heading is generally correct). Where as in say art because, arguably and to a point, it’s value is dependent on the culture of the time and cultures change it does not experience this sort of long term compounding. I believe, as I am not an artist or have much experience in that domain, the tools to make art can and have improved but not in the same way as say the jump from industrial revolution to semiconductor for example (maybe photoshop, illustrator, and the like are the exception for digital art).