[psranga]

IMHO, this is shortsighted. Art is of almost zero practical use. Investing a tiny fraction of society's resources in art is a sign of a society that has evolved beyond the starvation stage.

Are you saying that all art should only be commissioned by rich private interests? No investment in art by the public? You would demolish the National Mall, Statue of Liberty and other such art works?

Or do you draw the line at hoity-toity works (as decided by whom?).

IMHO, it is super important that societies develop the "refined" sides of the brain to control our atavistic instincts.

[oiuygtfrtghyju]

No he is saying that there is a slight flaw in the logic that:

1, An educated population is good for society.

2, Education happens by going to university

3, People that don't want to study hard and become doctors/engineers/scientists can go to university and do media studies.

5, Since they have been to university they are educated and therefore good for society - see 1.

6, Since more people want to do media studies than chemistry the chemistry depts are be shut down to increase funding for media studies.

[CognitiveLens]

There's obviously a spectrum between fully investing in arts & culture studies and fully investing in STEM disciplines or public infrastructure, so let's try to avoid superlatives - in an ideal world, all disciplines would be fully funded and productive, but I doubt anyone in this forum is claiming that we should cut off funding entirely for anything, and certainly not destroy(!) existing art.