One of the most eye opening things I've learned through art is that communication doesn't require perfect information.
The realization was likely manifested from some form of technical or time limitation. I'm tempted to blame laziness, but suspect that might be my insecurity speaking.
Obviously in the case of data reporting or science precise data is key. You can also make the case for reporting as well, but when I work on a map for the newspaper I remind myself that the specific information is in the written word. It's not important if the scale of the map is off by a few feet, as long as the area in question accurately compliments the story. In the attached map I spent a large amount of time getting the outline of the pond correct, but the story had nothing to do with the pond. It was there just for location context. Even the specific property lot the story was about isn't perfect. Readers are looking for a general location.
Art on the other hand can have information that is completely false. Art isn't about convey specific information. It's about conveying a general idea, or even simply opening up the possibility of conveying an idea and leaving it to the viewer of the art to interpret it as they'd like. In past art project the data didn't represent itself in ways that fit the aesthetic of the work, so I had to nudge the data.
I find this realizing to be a relief. Otherwise I think it can act as a blocker, and prevent the expression all together.