I think it's a little dangerous drawing straight comparisons between revolutions in Art and Science. However, here's my interpretation:

Both Art and Science consist of a system of concepts that have evolved over time. This community of ideas is always on the move. When it takes a sudden turn in some direction we call it a paradigm shift. The difference between Art and Science is the nature of the force that directs them. Both are inclined towards the aesthetically pleasing and the elegant.

In addition, Science must be real. It can be speculative, bizarre, mind-blowing. But if it's not consistent with itself and reality then it's science-fiction at best, wacko science at worst. It's generally possible to draw a line around what is Science.

Art has not such constraints. Anything goes. Contradictions and paradoxes are the norm rather than the exception. The only limit is human imagination. If I make a sculpture out of bogeys representing orgiastic consumerism and I think it's pretty cool -- then it's Art. Art is unbounded. Everything is Art.

Art is personal. Science is universal. Both are a developed taste. I like Science. I find it beautiful, fulfilling and inspiring. Thus I submit Science as a special subset of Art.