"... However, I find it that many things of beauty in real life, derive their allure from being able to interpreted in many different angles (eg: a painting, or a music) ..."
You can certainly use unambiguous language to express the idea of being interpretable from many different angles.
This is obviously a subject on which there are many different opinions, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that there is some rational, evolutionary reason for our aesthetic sense. One possibility that fits many cases is that it is the response of our pattern recognition facility. We get a pleasurable feeling when we look at something that initially appears complex, chaotic, and random, and we suddenly spot the patterns and relationships that simplify it, generating all that apparent complexity from simple rules. Or conversely, when a simple insight or observation conveys a wealth of hidden background information and context.
So on a simple level, we like symmetry. Regular, repeated patterns have been used for decoration for millennia. A simple regular pattern of squares is slightly more attractive than random splodges. But then we like more complicated symmetries even more - the decoration of the Alhambra Palace in Spain shows many examples of this. And it explains the universal human response when mathematicians first developed fractals - not just translation, reflection, and rotation, but also at different scales. We recognise and process fractals in nature the same way. Music is also about spotting many different symmetries in apparent complexity - repetition in the beat, in the melody, in the sequence of themes (e.g. verse/chorus), the same theme played at different speeds, pitches, or by different instruments, and so on. We like music that allows us to simplify their apparent immense complexity by spotting the many relationships between the parts.
And we also enjoy the converse process, where a long, complicated and emotionally-significant story is expressed in a few simple words, or a poignant image. The bigger the background picture we can construct from the brief detail shown, the more angles we can find through which to interpret it, the more we like it.
This can be partly described using the mathematics of information theory as something like the data compression ratio - the amount by which our insight has shrunk the apparent complexity. But it is not just the ratio, but also the novelty and cleverness of the insight itself that gives us pleasure.
There's an obvious evolutionary reason why this should be rewarded. The world we see around us is immensely complicated, and we need to simplify it and spot the patterns and relationships that connect all this complexity to the underlying motives and themes. We need it to spot the slight anomaly that doesn't fit the rest of the pattern. Our aesthetic sense trains us to be constantly on the lookout for patterns and hidden relationships. Art stimulates that aesthetic response by presenting us with extremely compressible patterns.
Artists often have this idea that the sciences are blind to beauty; that they take out all the emotional significance in things by reducing them to the empty jiggling of atoms and shuffling of numbers. I suspect this is what you mean by 'logical' language exluding the expressive opportunities inherent in ambiguity. And yet, it has been constantly noted by physicists and mathematicians themselves that their aesthetic sense of beauty in the equations is what guides and motivates them.
It's not often they manage to express that sense of beauty in terms other people can understand and appreciate. When those first pictures of the Mandelbrot set and other fractals came out, the public reaction to them was notable - mathematical beauty is not normally so accessible. But art is fundamentally about spotting patterns and relationships, and so is mathematics. I would argue that the languages science has developed for studying those patterns and relationships are very much capable of dealing with matters of beauty, symmetry, complexity, and seeing things from many different perspectives.
I would instead rather be asking: "Is 'Logic' beyond 'Art'?" Personally, I see mathematics as being an art - pursued for many of the same reasons. But to the extent that they are in conventional usage considered different things, I see 'Logic' going much further and deeper into revealing the hidden relationships between things than what we commonly describe as 'Art'. But as I said earlier - there are many opinions, and this has often proved a controversial one.