Other: neither and both at the same time.
The way I see it, politics is a field of human knowledge. There can be political science, political art, political technology, political sports, political techniques, political philosophy, political engineering etc.
I like to divide human knowledge into modalities and fields. Fields of human knowledge are all areas of interest that can be studied/processed, like mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, history, politics, economics, medicine etc. Modalities are related to what you do with the knowledge: philosophy, science, technology, technique, engineering, art, sport etc.
For example, science is related to studying systems the way they are, and technology modifies it in order to generate new stuff. Physical science studies the physical world. Physical technology, on the other hand, creates new gears. Studying electrical fields and currents, how lightning works etc would be science. Developing diodes, transistors, televisions, computers etc would be part of technology. But once technology itself is developed, it will become part of the system studied by scientists. This cycle goes on and on. And it is basically what makes our society keep developing technologically.
Technique, on the other hand, is related to using the knowledge generated by science and/or technology. Normally technology, though. An electronics technician will use mostly transistors, resistors etc, not the power from lightning, for example.
Philosophy is difficult to define, because it is quite abstract. Philosophy is related to the study of systems too, but on a more basic level than science. Some people like to say that philosophers ask questions and scientists answer them. I'll define philosophy here as the use of rationality to question and discover why and how things work.
Now on topic. Basically, politics can come in any modality you want. There is political philosophy. A theorist debating ideologies, what is fair, what is the meaning of justice itself is analyzing political systems as a philosopher. The same theorist could analyze the technical aspects of political systems. Decide whether the parliament is working well or not. Decide whether a proportional representation system is better than a first-past-the-post system. Etc. That is political science. A constitution, legislation, courts of law, ministries, police forces etc are all examples of political technology: things invented by mankind and inserted into the system for better functioning. And if you have a police officer executing an arrest, for example, he is using the power granted to him by the legislation (the technology), so he is acting as a political technician. The same could be said of a campaign manager, working to get a politician elected. And the politician himself would be a technician as well.
Even political sports can exist. Running for office in a democratic election is sportive in many ways, for example. Sports don't have to be purely about physical effort. Chess is a sport. Starcraft is a sport. Mathematical olympics are a sport. Etc.
And politics can be quite artistic as well. There are lawyers and legal professors who spend years praising pieces of legislation as works of art, analyzing every aspect of them, even if the legislation itself has long been replaced. if you think this is not art, then maybe you should change your views a bit. Another example would be Euler's identity (but to math, not politics):
. There is nothing more artistic as that. Mathematicians praise that equation's (unexplainable) perfection.
So basically, my view is that politics is neither science nor art, though both political science and political art can – and do – exist. Politics itself is defined as the field of human knowledge related to the flow of power in a social network, to power relations within and between human groups etc.
PoFo ethnic party statistics: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8&p=14042520#p14042520