In my experience, the humanities teach dogma and claim it's insight in order to condition the populace that dogma is insight.

Even if you study contemporary art you will learn the intrinsic value of Koons and Hirst, despite the fact that the argument of Koons and Hirst is that art is valueless. It's dadaism squared yet since rich people buy it, we must learn a justification beyond "your betters like lording it over each other."

The Arts and Crafts movement was an underground protest of mechanization held in contempt by the Belle Epoque. It was dogshit until WWI destroyed the previous era, at which point humanities taught us that the Belle Epoque was dogshit, which led to the rise of Art Deco, to which Bauhaus was an underground protest, WWII and Art Deco is destroyed and on and on and on ad infinitum. The contribution of the Humanities has been to teach the inviolable unchanging nature of taste and codify that which you are allowed to like, that which you are allowed to appreciate.

The difference between a movie critic and an English teacher? The movie critic is paid for his opinion. Yhe English teacher is paid for regurgitating the committee opinion approved by the council of elders.