Reply to comment

I didn't mean that the arts are indulgences/luxuries that should be cut out of budgets - however I do think that at a certain point, an education in the arts becomes a more private than public responsibility (just as any higher level education is today).  This doesn't mean that arts should only be considered hobbies (sorry I made it sound like that), but that does seem to be what they often become - again I think this is because many people lack the talent that would enable them to make a career out of their artistic expression.  I understand the point about how if artists are not allowed to simply be artists (because art is sometimes delegated to simply a hobby and a frivolous use of time) and must also have a more acceptable job in order to make a living, that the quality of their art will go down and funding will decrease.  However, struggle and compromise seems inherent in many occupations - why is it so problematic that it's the same way for the arts?  It seems to me that there is a high standard of quality needed to be a professional artist, and many people are not able to reach it, or to produce something different enough that fuels a marketable desire for it.
Why is it that so many people who pursue careers that are not traditionally thought of as creative also enjoy more traditionally creative pursuits (yes, on the side - although as Prof. Grobstein pointed out, often these hobbies take up a very significant amount of time), while it seems rare to me to hear of someone pursuing a traditionally creative field while also enjoying a traditionally non-creative activity on the side?  I've never met an artist (in the broadest sense of the word) who also enjoys spending some time on math or science or politics on the side.  Maybe this shows that the creativity is not always educated out of us - but that creativity is educated out of certain "non-creative" subjects.  As many others have said in the forum, we should be focusing on making our teaching of all subjects more creative and appealing to all types of students.
My basic point: I don't mean to put the arts at a lower level than any other field although I see how I did that by labeling them as "hobbies". I agree that the the problem that can and should be addressed lies more with creativity as a whole rather than specifically with the arts.  I feel that realistically, it's more beneficial to support students in learning specific skills that will be more likely to support them in the future.  If a student has the drive and talent to be an artist, professional athlete, or something else along those lines, I think our society should support them, but realistically it seems much harder to be successful at a pursuit where it will be required that they stand out even among the huge pool of talent they'll be competing against.  The real objective should be to help students put creativity into whatever field they can be happy and successful in.