Because of our cultural conceptions of the two subjects.
In our culture, it is quite well accepted that for practical reasons, children need to be exposed to and made interested in science and technology from a young age. That way they can become engineers who make good money and help us outcompete our technological/economic rivals. Having a child who becomes a successful engineer (or other stem profession, like a doctor or accountant) is seen as the mark of successful parenting to the middle class, as these roles make a good wage, contribute to society, are reasonably high up the social status heirarchy, and have a clear and achieveable path to success. Therefore parents, who are far more likely to be voters in their cities, will be willing to support spending tax dollars on science museums that are interesting and engaging to children.
And another factor is that science museums designed for children are often just as interesting and engaging for adults. The vast majority of adults have largely forgotten their high school physics or chemistry, and will enjoy remembering those lessons with hands-on demonstrations just as much as children. And while children and their parents are often the biggest target demo of science museums, in larger or more educated cities at least, many museums try to appeal to larger demographics. For example, in my city the Natural History and Science Museum has regular changing exhibits that go in-depth on topics that many find interesting. A while ago, I saw their exhibit on poison, which had a lot of interesting things to learn about the history of poison, evolution, biology, and chemistry. And most people at the exhibit were adults without children.
Anyway - art. Art, on the other hand, is not a viable career path (according to our cultural consensus). Parents want their children educated enough in art to make it a hobby and so they will be well rounded… but they don’t really want their child harboring fantasies of becoming a writer or painter or musician, since these careers tend to have poor wages, have no clear path to middle class success, and will probably end up with their child living in a bohemian commune and getting a neck tattoo. Hence, there is not nearly as much pressure for large investments in the arts that appeal to children.
On the other hand, enjoying art is a sign of high social status. Here, we should differentiate between pop art and high art. Pop art doesn’t need museums, and therefore doesn’t require public funding. The guy who will make you a trippy landscape painting with spraypaint next to the tilt-a-whirl is an artist - but his art will almost certainly never hang in an art museum. It is too lowbrow for that, and the purpose of art museums is to showcase highbrow art - art that the upper classes have deemed “good”. Going to an art museum is a way of signalling social status because what is considered “good” - what is fashionable at the time - is constantly changing, and one can signal their social status by expressing their opinion of what is “good” or “bad”, which signals their closeness to social elites. The closer you are to the elites, the faster you hear about their preferences, and the sooner you can mirror them. Of course, this nuance is lost on almost everyone - they just pick up from the cultural zeitgiest that going to the art museum is a very classy and sophistocated thing to do. And so when funding the city’s art muesum comes up on the ballot, a middle class suburban 43 year old mother of two teenagers isn’t thinking about the museum’s impact on her children’s education, but is rather thinking of her own self-conception as a high-minded individual who supports “the arts”, and who really should get around to badgering her husband into taking her there so she can “keep up with what is going on in the art world” in her fancy dress (that is actually 10 years out of style and hasn’t fit her for the last 7).
Hence why art museums are so often boring and stuffy. Their main purpose is to serve as a social space for elites during exclusive events. Elite tastes must not coincide with common tastes - and since most people like things that are nice and friendly and fun and happy, elite tastes must differentiate themselves by being boring, disconcerting, harsh, and uncomfortable - hence the popularity of modern art and architecture. The interesting and enjoyable thing about art museums is the opportinity to get drunk with elites during their exclusive events. Then the average person, who is not invited to these events, is allowed to feel sophisticated by visiting and staring at the painting that the elites had a conversation next to but never really looked at.
Popular art - art that people actually enjoy for its own sake - doesn’t need museums, since it can be enjoyed in movie theatres, in art studios, on street corners, in crowded bars, at music festivals, at home on a phone or laptop, or next to the tilt-a-whirl.
Because of our cultural conceptions of the two subjects.
In our culture, it is quite well accepted that for practical reasons, children need to be exposed to and made interested in science and technology from a young age. That way they can become engineers who make good money and help us outcompete our technological/economic rivals. Having a child who becomes a successful engineer (or other stem profession, like a doctor or accountant) is seen as the mark of successful parenting to the middle class, as these roles make a good wage, contribute to society, are reasonably high up the social status heirarchy, and have a clear and achieveable path to success. Therefore parents, who are far more likely to be voters in their cities, will be willing to support spending tax dollars on science museums that are interesting and engaging to children.
And another factor is that science museums designed for children are often just as interesting and engaging for adults. The vast majority of adults have largely forgotten their high school physics or chemistry, and will enjoy remembering those lessons with hands-on demonstrations just as much as children. And while children and their parents are often the biggest target demo of science museums, in larger or more educated cities at least, many museums try to appeal to larger demographics. For example, in my city the Natural History and Science Museum has regular changing exhibits that go in-depth on topics that many find interesting. A while ago, I saw their exhibit on poison, which had a lot of interesting things to learn about the history of poison, evolution, biology, and chemistry. And most people at the exhibit were adults without children.
Anyway - art. Art, on the other hand, is not a viable career path (according to our cultural consensus). Parents want their children educated enough in art to make it a hobby and so they will be well rounded… but they don’t really want their child harboring fantasies of becoming a writer or painter or musician, since these careers tend to have poor wages, have no clear path to middle class success, and will probably end up with their child living in a bohemian commune and getting a neck tattoo. Hence, there is not nearly as much pressure for large investments in the arts that appeal to children.
On the other hand, enjoying art is a sign of high social status. Here, we should differentiate between pop art and high art. Pop art doesn’t need museums, and therefore doesn’t require public funding. The guy who will make you a trippy landscape painting with spraypaint next to the tilt-a-whirl is an artist - but his art will almost certainly never hang in an art museum. It is too lowbrow for that, and the purpose of art museums is to showcase highbrow art - art that the upper classes have deemed “good”. Going to an art museum is a way of signalling social status because what is considered “good” - what is fashionable at the time - is constantly changing, and one can signal their social status by expressing their opinion of what is “good” or “bad”, which signals their closeness to social elites. The closer you are to the elites, the faster you hear about their preferences, and the sooner you can mirror them. Of course, this nuance is lost on almost everyone - they just pick up from the cultural zeitgiest that going to the art museum is a very classy and sophistocated thing to do. And so when funding the city’s art muesum comes up on the ballot, a middle class suburban 43 year old mother of two teenagers isn’t thinking about the museum’s impact on her children’s education, but is rather thinking of her own self-conception as a high-minded individual who supports “the arts”, and who really should get around to badgering her husband into taking her there so she can “keep up with what is going on in the art world” in her fancy dress (that is actually 10 years out of style and hasn’t fit her for the last 7).
Hence why art museums are so often boring and stuffy. Their main purpose is to serve as a social space for elites during exclusive events. Elite tastes must not coincide with common tastes - and since most people like things that are nice and friendly and fun and happy, elite tastes must differentiate themselves by being boring, disconcerting, harsh, and uncomfortable - hence the popularity of modern art and architecture. The interesting and enjoyable thing about art museums is the opportinity to get drunk with elites during their exclusive events. Then the average person, who is not invited to these events, is allowed to feel sophisticated by visiting and staring at the painting that the elites had a conversation next to but never really looked at.
Popular art - art that people actually enjoy for its own sake - doesn’t need museums, since it can be enjoyed in movie theatres, in art studios, on street corners, in crowded bars, at music festivals, at home on a phone or laptop, or next to the tilt-a-whirl.