I'm an engineer, and I don't think of engineering as a science at all. The scientists figure out how the universe works. The engineers harness the scientists' findings to make things that are useful, and sometimes beautiful.
BTW, most of what folks call color science isn't science. It's engineering. Real color science is a branch of psychology.
This definition is very questionable. Art is not typical in a visual form. We have music and lyrics. It is also not primarily to produce works to be appreciated for beauty or emotional power. Art can also be ugly and sometimes speaks to the intellect.
I found this more reasonable definition in the net claiming to cite some Oxford dictionary: "the use of the imagination to express ideas or feelings, particularly in painting, drawing, or sculpture". This contradicts simple image shooting without an imagination, idea or feeling, i.e., most of my own images. I am okay with that.
That's the best engineers. Engineering has, over time, evolved into a very conservative set of disciplines. You can see why - when you're designing things on which lives depend, innovation is not encouraged. So yes, most engineers work from the textbook and reconfiguring established solutions, because that is how they are trained.
I am of the mindset that stylists create the perimeter shape of the headlight, the aesthetic portion of it, and engineers fill that hole with function. I don't see a stylist designing that lens.