Literature and acting—compared to music, painting and sculpture—are more closely connected to the rest of the non-art world.
Language is at the basis of almost everything we do. A writer can draft business proposals and stories for the news. Acting, too, is closer to the world. An actor can have great success in relationships and sales meetings.
The other arts are more contained within themselves. Music, for example, can be performed at a concert or recorded for playback later, but outside of the music industry itself, cross-applications are limited for the skills of musicians.
Painting, too, is something to look at but not necessarily something that can be “used” except maybe for its applications to graphic design or creating marketing images. Sculpting is even more niche.
Granted, I may have this option because I’m more a writer than a painter or musician. It’s possible there are applications of painting and music that I’m not familiar with.
Still, I imagine there’s a scale on which all the arts could be placed from “worldly” to “non-worldly,” or from “useful and applicable” to “totally out there.”
The art of cooking would be toward worldly. The art of splatter painting with curdled milk would be toward non-worldly.
I wonder if we trend toward art that is more worldly, more useful and applicable. So that more people can access it and even if the art doesn’t work out in and of itself, the artist is left with skills that can garner success in the non-art world.