OK I'll bite.
Why not? Pragmatism and getting as much bang for limited education buck.
Maths and science lead to engineering which leads to resources and wealth. Professional Arts are necessary when, and pretty much only when spare time and spare resources allow entire lives to be devoted to them.
Family artist to me: "Why do scientists make things so complex? They are just making themselves look good aren't they?". Alas, the creative mind often lives away from the facts and realities that the rest of us need to deal with! We cannot afford too many artists with this kind of thinking, though it's fun to have few around.
Graphic artists in IT are somewhat notorious for getting things seriously wrong. Aesthetics is one thing, but one must have a basic grasp of the rest of the issues to have any sanity in this, or any other engineering field. Being "creative" without knowledge can be very dangerous and/or wasteful indeed!
Architects are notorious for creating beautiful things that are not so good to work with, in, or are hopelessly unworkable. "Outstanding" architecture is notable for being both functional and beautiful.
I must say though, I'd prefer we had more artists, less middle managers and less financial workers!

A world without art would be a world without soul. Somtimes it is necessary to create something for the pure aesthetic pleasure of it. It also gives much pleasure to many people, both artists and those who like looking at art but may not have the skills in creating it. This is, unfortunately, not an easily measureable benefit.

Also, it should not be a case of science competing with arts, because in many ways they are complementary. Exercising both sides of the brain is essential for all sorts of creativity, including scientific breakthroughs. Without the ability to to think laterally, to creatively imagine possibilities, or to simply think randomly, a scientist will struggle to do anything other carry on down established lines of thought and process, thus effectively limiting the base of knowledge.

Teaching art has many benefits, it's just that they are not very easy to quantify.

A world without art would be a world without soul.
Phil,
yes, Art is a major component in the building of society. The problem is that in modern society 95 % of what is called art is in fact crap. Very difficult to build on that ? I recall the Beatty Qld Government sponsoring a german artist to the tune of $100.000 whose "Art" was regurgitating food onto a concrete slab. It did make to the news but not because of the Art component. The other was a NSW grant to a young woman to the tune of $90.000 whose "Art" was placing jewellery around a park for people to find.

I agree with Phil.

Art is more than something decorative; it's primarily a way that we communicate meaning, significance and information between individuals; communities, cultures and generations.

The use of images to tell stories precedes the widespread literacy and education of the masses that we have seen in just the past 1/2 century. There wouldn't be any science education, maths, medicine, physics, adventurers, conquerors and the like if there had been no transfer of knowledge, ideas and values through various types of imagery. Think of parchments, prints, Egyptian, Japanese and Chinese characters, calligraphy such as that produced in monasteries, stained glass images, cartography, botanic pictures etc and all the ways that perspective is applied in design drawings. Da Vinci provided us with outstanding examples of the way in which various fields of knowledge stream together and enrich each. I think in our time we have become over specialized - separating art from maths, for example - and trying to compare them for 'value'.

Art is also meditative, cathartic and therefore therapeutic, though we take much of it for granted.

Art has been devalued pretty much because of that which Individual describes - which is a triumph of commercialism and marketing rather than art.

Like this idiocy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Gibson

Shock value isn't 'value'.

It seems to me that we need to rethink what constitutes 'art' and the ways in which it is tied to other types of knowledge. My measure of worth would be that it convey something meaningful, and ideally - something of beauty, to society and to subsequent generations. By beauty I don't mean just 'pretty' - a piece of architecture can be beautiful, as can an intriguing Picasso. I mean that art should add something pleasing to our lives and senses, as well as add to a worthwhile legacy for the future. It should be a record about the type of people and society we are.

wow, Pynchme, I agree! We would do better in our education system if we could elucidate a little more clearly the connections between the various learning streams.
Hopefully, the world could become a more beautiful and uplifting place.

Art used to be associated with technical skill, and beauty; beauty was associated with spiritual enrichment and 'truth'. Those values were recently thrown out in many artistic colleges (although not so much in Europe), to the detriment of art, and the people who participate and view art.

So much current art seems associated with poorly thought out political views, or with a nihilistic presentation of the bodily functions of the self.

And yet, even now, art cannot be separated from the transcendent.

As an aside, I find Damien Hurst has statements that are interesting, thought-provoking and ultimately illuminating.

Pynchme and floatinglili,

I agree.

My son is homeschooled and , therefore, his learning tends to unfold in a more connected manner - one subject tends to feed into another.
So, for LOTE we have been studying France, and this has led to him beginning to absorb some of the art of that country..particularly the Impressionists.
Monet's garden was his staging point, and he is now happily making his way amongst other artist from the same movement. Along the way he is learning about architecture, the regional countryside and the history contained therein....and he's only eight years-old.

floatinglili, <"Damien Hurst has statements that are interesting, thought-provoking and ultimately illuminating.">

I'm not sure; I don't know much about him and have never seen any of his work as far as I recall. It's very difficult isn't it when considering conceptual and performance art. I often wonder though if their point couldn't be made in some other way. Like I wonder how what he did to the shark (2 really wasn't it coz the first one didn't last) - is different from the rat killing (not that I am fond of sharks or rats).

I wonder how subsequent generations will consider it. Maybe like we all think about pop art (remember - big cans of Campbell soup and the like). I wonder how Titian would regard it.

You recall when Yoko Ono had an art exhibition and everyone turned up (media and such) to see canvasses that were blank or just had a dot or two on them. From the sounds of it she was demonstrating that power and media can sell the ridiculous or even nothing to undiscerning masses. Very interesting.

I notice that a lot of artists - even since Barry Humphries' university days (remember Shoe Scape and his custard on the pile of books etc) have been sniggering at public gullibility. I think it's time we got the message. Like this one -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2007/jun/13/art

The artist bet someone that people would pay as much for faeces if it was from an 'artist', as they would for gold. So help me Pete some idiots did just that.

It's high time for critical evaluation and standards that connect art to the past; the future and to the now as in - to other bodies of knowledge. I think maybe some of the curators and people on boards of galleries are very suspect too. I wonder how many artists; especially those who are commissioned, have links to the people who make decisions about what to promote.

(and Hi too floatinglili and Poirot - yes! I recognize exactly what you're saying. A lovely way to learn.).

pynch

floatinglili and Poirot - just an afterthought: Is there such a thing as a code of ethics for artists?

<"Art used to be associated with technical skill, and beauty; beauty was associated with spiritual enrichment and 'truth'..."> Reading that reminded me of when in earlier times professional artists learned their craft in trade schools and workshops and the like; like an apprenticeship which, once they had acquired enough technical skill, would entitle them to carry out a commissioned project.

Thinking of Michelangelo and Co., it didn't seem to dampen their capacity for creativity but rather, to equip them with a repertoire of skills with which to express it. I wonder in what ways art courses in colleges now are somewhat like those apprenticeships, or where they differ

I wonder... what do we think of assembly sculpture?

Personally I think rather less of Trecey Emin...

floatinglili: <"I wonder... what do we think of assembly sculpture?

Personally I think rather less of Trecey Emin...">

I don't know anything about her but just looked up Wiki. She seems to me to be a troubled person who has been very well rewarded for navel gazing. Wiki says that she's a writer too and she seems to have made a lot of displays. Maybe there is something worthwhile in there; but the items for which she seems to be notorious are rather silly IMO.

Someone said she's "provocative". I disagree. Seeing someone's undies stained with menstrual blood, skiddies and whatever - well any laundry worker has seen as much. BFD. I think too that most of us have stepped over a used condom here and there. As for rumpled, unclean bedding. Again - local motel workers would have seen as much.
I doubt that any of them would have thought the people who left those items around were "provocative".

Unless she has done some amazing work that hasn't been noted; I can't discern anything remarkable, other than her obvious personal pain and quest for negative attention.