Is leadership art of science?

In our modern capitalistic result-oriented society we are facing a constant increase of attention about leadership. Everyone either aspires to become a leader or is looking to find one. Having said this, is it really possible for everyone to be a leader or not? Is leader ship a God-given aptitude? Or is it just a matter of applying scientific techniques?
Like in any analytic approach we have first of all to look at the past. History has been sprinkled with great examples of leaders, exceptional human beings blessed by a natural aptitude to fully understand their times, the nations they lead and even the world. On one hand, we can compare great leaders to great artists, as well as leadership to art, but it would not be a complete and exhaustive analysis. An artist is a genius that through various techniques expresses himself as a leader should. By the precise moment the expression has been produced the artist and the leader start to differ. A masterpiece of art once finished becomes immutable whereas leadership needs to be exercised throughout the changing of time and situations. A good leader could not allow that either he or his leadership be exhibited in a museum or an art gallery in the hope that it would be appreciated by someone in present day or in the future. He has to exercise it over and over again, and that is the point where leadership becomes science. Without a scientific approach, a mental and physical discipline imposed by schematized rules, a leader would not be able to remain a trusted source for the people he has to lead.
In conclusion, I consider leadership a sort of art, and the genius of great leaders could be compared to Picasso’s, Mozart’s or Michelangelo’s ones, but leadership to be fruitful has to be tamed tempered and conveyed with science. This is the only way to keep in continuous contact the leader and the people his existence is worth.
Leader and leadership do not have reason to exist with of people.