Dear Obama, art history can earn you megabucks. But so what?

The US president has apologised to an art historian for saying her career choice isn't lucrative. But once you raise the issue of money, the deeper value of culture gets left behind

Culturally rich … Obama presents American contemporary artist Jaspar Johns with the Medal of Freedom in 2011. Photograph: AP

Barack Obama has apologised in writing to an art historian after he appeared to disparage the subject in a speech. The president said people could earn more with manufacturing skills "than they might with an art history degree".

He has since explained that he did not mean to run down art history, a subject he loved at school and which has brought him "joy". But it's the old argument all over again: practical v cultural studies, vocational v inspirational education.

I've been hearing this debate all my life. My dad taught design, craft and technology. Was the purpose of such classes to impart skills or to inspire creativity? What about the ideals of William Morris, for whom artistic education was a way to change society? Such educational questions were debated at the dinner table.

I managed to study A levels with almost no practical application – history, English and Latin – and to study history at university. But art history? Wow, that really did sound useless.

I sometimes went to the library of the art history faculty and it seemed full of posh students planning their next fox hunt. Art history at that time was considered a soft degree for the aristocracy – even the monarchy: it is after all what Prince William went to university to study, though he changed to geography.

But this is an out-of-date perception. Today, art history degrees and postgraduate courses are full of students who are anything but idlers. After all, if we're talking careers, if we're talking money – has Obama not read The Birth of the Big, Beautiful Art Market, an essay from Air Guitar: Essays on Art and Democracy by American art critic Dave Hickey?

Auction houses, art galleries and even art magazines all exist to turn art history into cash. The art world is big and booming and it needs knowledgable experts to grease its wheels. If the private sector is not for you, the museums sector also has opportunities for art historians.

It's just inaccurate to define art history as beautiful escapism in today's economy. In these troubled times, the art market has been one of the most resilient industries. Better than working in Detroit, for sure.

Only ... what about that "joy" the President speaks of? What about the power of art to change lives and worlds? As soon as one argues for its pecuniary value, the deeper, human worth of culture is left behind. Modern politics has no words to praise cultural education for its mind-expanding redemptive magic.

Art history can make you rich. But please don't study it for that reason.