Which leads me to something I have always believed -- artistic ability, whether musical, painting, writing, or whatever, can be taught only up to a point. The rest is what we euphemistically call talent, and if that's not there, training can go only so far.
In another thread, I mentioned that it wasn't until around the middle of the 19th century that so-called "conservatories" came into existence. Prior to that, musical training was largely, in effect, an apprentice system. And most of the "classical" period composers were pretty much indentured servants to wealthy families - look at Haydn and the Esterhazy family. It might be interesting to wonder just how much those guys thought about writing music that would last for the ages. They were employed, whether by families, cities, or churches, to write music for current needs.
Then there's the whole realm of history and criticism. "Art history" seems to be largely a matter of learning to write in flowery language that nobody else can understand. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm a photography hobbyist too, and when I read "Aperture" magazine's critiques of photo exhibitions, I sometimes feel the writers pieced together their writings off the cutting-room floor. Which brings up another of my beliefs - no "critic" is anything more than personal opinion. Professors largely regurgitate what they were taught when they were slaving for their Ph.D's.
I may sound somewhat cynical, but I'm still convinced that you can be "taught" only so far. The rest is research (which leads to more discoveries), work, and, to paraphrase Churchill, "blood, sweat and tears."