Philosophy: art or science?

Prior to any discussion on a given topic, it is essential to arrive at a working understanding of the meaning of the topic.  I say 'working understanding' because, not always is it possible to start off with a definition - unless one is contending the definition itself.  To start off with a perfectly defined concept and keep building on already defined concepts is to merely follow the beaten path and arrive at nothing but what has already been stated and grasped - because all of it is by set pattern and established rules.  And that's not always the best recipe for innovation or creativity.  The best of scientific discoveries too happened by accident or by deviating from the agreed thought.  

Now whether philosophy is an art or a science is the contention.  I feel it is both.  It cannot be so regimented and categorized a topic that it looses its ability to break free in reflection and thinking out of the box.  But neither is it so reckless that it does not have some firm ground from which it operates.  Thus it ought to be open to both the artist and the scientist.  However, if the language of it so dense, then I wonder if it is worth it at all.  What's the point of writing something that is for a very very selected audience who would then go on to write something more on it, having no touchstone to reality?  Furthermore no one else reads the stuff, it does not affect anyone in any particular manner, least of the author himself!  Well, that's certainly not the philosophy that I would like to get entangled with.