I read the article differently, namely, how the approaches of both art and science can be similar and often complimentary to understanding and appreciation. At times, looking at another perspective can really help improve understanding and appreciation, but at other times, an alternate perspective is merely entertaining. I wasn't expecting the author to provide strong and specific evidence of "artistic understanding helping to inform mathematicians." But saying "none" was presented seems a bit unfair; the evidence presented was by inference and was anecdotal. For example, both artists and experimental scientists arriving at remarkably similar ways of "recording data" and/or "making art" from turbulence in fluids. Even if the artist doesn't fully understand the math, and the mathematician doesn't fully understand the art, both can often gain a more enlightened appreciation of each others' work than someone unversed in both art and math.

A lot of educators agree that studying both art and math are important to development and are complimentary to both appreciation and understanding.