Much of the "art" of dentistry also depends on the person doing the work. What is "art" to one person might be either complete and total overkill to another or even a piece of junk to a different person - it's all in the eye of the beholder.
From a my own personal experience, I define the "art" of dentistry in the following way: 1) (and the most important bit in my mind) - Form follows function - you can make the most anatomically perfect restoration, from cusp/fossa/ridge anatomy, color match, surface texture/ etc, but if the patients occlusion doesn't work with your "piece of art" then, then you're work will fail 😱 And then both you and the patient aren't too happy
2) once you have the form= function concept worked out, then is when you can get as creative as you want/don't want with the esthetics - and a good deal of this is worked into the form = function concept as you're prepping the tooth for the restoration and having a understanding (that often comes through repeated use) of what ever restorative material that you're using on that tooth and how the material thickness/thinness effects how light will make the final color appear, and also how the thickness/thinness will effect how the material wears/performs. There are some docs who may do this by say just using a homogenous mass of A-1 shade filling material to get the the final result, while other will build the color from within using multiple layers/colors - there is no right or wrong way as both can (and often do) produce clinically acceptable, long performing restorations. How much "art" you want/don't want to do is upto the clinician and the case that's infront of them at that moment.
