stuck on terms

A sort of I'm-probably-missing-the-point question in regards to Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica:" when did we start referring to poetry as "art" and not "(the lowest) science"? And what's the difference between the two - art and science - to d'Aquino and his contemporaries, if any? We rarely refer to poetry as science anymore (though some schools of thought would see it as such), so when did the "art" definition apply? Just for historical tangent kicks, here goes.

I'm particularly impressed with Aquinas' rhetorical structure. A very logical, bare bones method of argumentation. I understand that this method was associated with Scholasticism, a movement which employed "the use of philosophical knowledge in explaining and defending the truths of faith" by fusing faith and reason. The material on this website, written by D.J. Kennedy, contends that Scholasticism has been wrongly associated with 'logic-chopping' and that it is, instead, "the highest form of intellectual activity and intellectual perfection; in the second place, for those who are Christians, it is of the utmost importance in explaining and defending the mysteries of faith." I suppose Aquinas' essay structure demonstrates one method of explaining faith with reason. This particular method also seems to most closely jive with our modern definition of 'science' - a step-by-step, ordered approach to logic-ing out.

Seems like, if these methods were highly prized as the perfection of intellectual activity, no wonder Aquinas considered poetry "the least of all the sciences" (240). Poetry doesn't always obey method. Poets aren't (necessarily) model logicians. Not by his standards.

Does our current "art" label allow for liberty of thought by exempting thinkers from following method? Often we seem to tout "creative liberty" as our get-out-of-jail-free pass. Sure, we learn methods of painting, sculpting, writing, composing, dancing. But we're usually expected to exercise this knowledge in unique and unconventional - not order-adherent - ways.

So, even though I know better contextually, I feel a tad peeved with Aquinas for referring to poetics as "the least of all the sciences." It's not even a science, I'd like to contend. Who's defining 'science' anyway?