I'd say that's a misleading take on Jung's perspective.
Not at all. If you want, I can give you the quotes from Chapter 3, and also from his descriptions of Sensing ("Sensation" as he calls it) in Chapters 10 and 11. But first, I think we need to clear up a possible source of misunderstanding.
Jung viewed N's as the quintessential artists, and also (secondarily) associated F with art.
See, right here is the problem. You're talking about "art," and I'm talking about aesthetics. We're talking about two different things. Art is a subset of aesthetics.
Jung was talking about
Aesthetics: The love of art
and the love of beauty. Not just "the arts" or "art" or "the fine arts." Depending on how broadly one defines the term "aesthetics," the arts may only be a small portion of aesthetics.
For example, in your post you speak dismissively of aesthetics in Se-Doms, as though it doesn't count:
And although Jung used the word "aesthetic" in connection with Se-doms, he described Se-doms as being connoisseurs of the concrete, whose aesthetic tastes involved "tangible reality" and "the externals of his life" — e.g., fine dining and fashion. "Once an object has given him a sensation, nothing more remains to be said or done about it," Jung explained. And what's more, "what comes from inside seems to him morbid and suspect." The Se-dom "dresses well, as befits the occasion; he keeps a good table with plenty of drink for his friends, making them feel very grand, or at least giving them to understand that his refined taste entitles him to make a few demands of them. He may even convince them that certain sacrifices are decidedly worth while for the sake of style."
But that's exactly what I'm talking about. That's a perfect description of "aesthetics." Dressing well, keeping a good table, style, etc. is the very essence of aesthetics. And it's exactly what Jung meant when he said that both N & S are "aesthetic types." Jung was talking about "aesthetics" in exactly the terms you quoted, above: Dressing well, keeping a good table, style, etc. He wasn't talking about "the arts." He was talking about aesthetics.
The material you quote proves exactly my point: Aesthetics is very much part of the domain of Sensing.
As I see it, your problem is that you're all hung up on "the fine arts." And I agree with you that "the fine arts" (as represented by Hollywood and New York) are probably heavy on N these days. That reflects the fact that "the fine arts" are big money nowadays--big productions, big staffs, big stakes, big liabilities. I can see where the Ns will have a big representation in such an environment.
But personally, I'm not talking about "the fine arts," nor was Jung. I'm talking about "aesthetics." The love of art
and the love of beauty. Examples:
There's the aesthetics of cooking fine food (the culinary arts), but there is also the aesthetics of enjoying fine food as well as the aesthetics of knowing how to put out a good spread of food for a family gathering or host a good party for friends. Like that quote from Jung that you offered in your own post.
There's the aesthetics of brewing a good craft beer, and also the aesthetics of consuming a good craft beer and enjoying it.
There's the aesthetics of searching for the perfect single malt whiskey, as well as the perfect cigar to go with it. And the aesthetics of providing those things for others.
There's the aesthetics of sports; certainly sports like figure skating qualify as aesthetic in nature in terms of its beauty and kinetics, both for the athlete and for the spectators. Also, more conventional competition sports could qualify as well, if they were enjoyed for their physicality and kinetics.
There's the aesthetics of the fashion industry, the make-up industry, and the industry for scented candles and incense.
And so on. There's the aesthetics of slapstick, of satire, of a good pun, of horror films or action films, and of pornography (see my signature on the subject of pornography.)
Anyway, here's my point: Jung was talking about "aesthetics" in exactly the terms you quoted, above: Dressing well, keeping a good table, style, etc. He wasn't talking about "the arts." He was talking about aesthetics.
And he was very clear about: Aesthetics falls under the province of both N and S.
To sum up: You keep talking about "the arts," but Jung was talking about aesthetics. The two aren't the same thing. And Jung was very clear: Aesthetics falls under the province of both N and S.