I'm puzzled why there's an unspoken assumption that without academic courses we'd have no poets, artists, etc. Did Keats go to university to learn "the seven habits of highly effective poets?" Did Picasso get a PhD in abstract art? Did Emily Dickenson graduate with a BA in Creative Writing?
The fact is, most art can and should be created outside of the stultifying world of academia. Science, however ,requires a proper course of study because lab work plays a significant part in many of the STEM disciplines. We don't need many humanities courses, and indeed we'd probably be better off without PPE, for example, but we definitely need STEM. Hence focusing most funding on STEM is not only rational, it's also probably the best way to nurture real art as opposed to the pseudo-intellectual nonsense far too many academic practitioners foist on a gullible public.