Accounting - Art, Science...Or Manipulation?

I've always believed accounting could be viewed as an art or a science. My own belief is that its an art. I don't mean to say the numbers should be inaccurate, just analyzed and reported from more than a straight transactional perspective. To clarify, let's look at a contra-asset account that involves an estimate, like allowances for doubtful accounts. If we prepare a monthly analysis based on consistent formulae, we derive a number for the allowance. If we book that number based on each month's analysis, we may end up with dramatic fluctuations based on circumstances that could change month-to-month. This would cause the financial statements to reflect those fluctuations, giving rise to concerns that may be unfounded. In my view, it's preferable to smooth out these fluctuations by adjusting the allowance to reflect what we know to be the trends. With a thorough knowledge of the company and industry on which we're reporting, we will have a high level of confidence that the year-end result will be accurate, but with less periodic fluctuation. This is what I mean by art, rather than science.

Ah, but what about manipulation or obfuscation? If by our art we make the reader so confused or the numbers so opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand, we're now treading in fraudulent waters. In a March article by Sarah Johnson, in CFO Magazine, entitled "Now You Don't See It", the author illustrates through example how auditors are less likely to find manipulated earnings when management directs their attention away from areas of financial statements that contain errors. It behooves all of us to ensure we don't fall into that trap. I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter.