Is a Rembrandt painting "better" than an image taken from the Hubble Space Telescope showing galaxies that are billions of light-years away?
Stop trying to set science and art up in a competition that doesn't exist.
You need to read up on the life and work of Leonardo da Vinci, who was one of the first great thinkers to show equal interest and aptitude in both science and art. He didn't choose between them or consider one to be better or more important. Try to understand his point of view.
The best way to learn about art is to immerse yourself in the highest quality art of all kinds, and see if any of it speaks to you. The best place I can think of to do this is the Smithsonian Museum in Washington. Every major genre of art has its own building. It should take about three days to cover them all, without hurrying. Go with an open mind. Find out which works you are drawn to, and try to figure out what the artist is trying to communicate. Keep in mind that these people think on a very high level. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in the Smithsonian.
If nothing else works for you, you can at least marvel at the level of talent displayed. For example, viewed up close, the paintings of Claude Monet look like amateurish blobs of paint, almost like something a child would do. Take a few steps back, and they are better than photographs. Only a genius could do something like that, or even have a desire to do so. It's an amazing display of the potential power of the human mind.
Many works of contemporary (modern) art are based on optical illusions and principles of physical science and geometry. Any science guy should be able to get something out of them.