I do not agree, art was not practised by earlier generations of humans as a "career", it was practised to express feelings and opinions as well as represent and write history. Fro 18-20 century art and music was very popular, some artists mastered art so well visitors would cry because it was vivid or expressed feelings of sadness or betrayal.
Exactly. Outside the career field, there isn't much use of art today. As you said so, visitors cried due to the feelings expressed by art even though they didn't do art, so that rules out the use of art to a critic. 18-20 century art was popular because there were good artists that did good work. But suppose if I make one of trashy paintings or video clips, what sue will it be to me? Unless I have the skill, art is not useful for me. And if I have the skill, I would make it my career field or develop my skills by choosing it as a career field. For non-artistic people, art has no significant use in their life.
To summarize, Pro hasn't provide a strong rebuttal point, and has failed to give a reason as to art's usefulness outside a career field. As for a hobby, a hobby isn't very useful or practical, and art is just a waste of time. Art doesn't relieve stress either, it requires more concentration to do art properly and can be tiresome. Please vote for me.