How do we value 'the arts'?
March 12 2014
A long time ago, when I was working as a political adviser on cultural and heritage policy, I had to deal endlessly with the 'how do we value the arts?' question. In other words, if we are to pay for them, in part, with public money, what do we pay them for?
And my God what a tedious question it is. The problem is, those in 'the arts' can never stop talking about it. On and on they go, desperate to find a way to reassure the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day that they deserve taxpayer's money. In the early 2000s, the new Labour government was all for funding the arts for their 'instrumental' value; that is, exposing people to culture means they will be less likely to commit crime, or need to see a doctor. Really. And then there was a reaction, happily, and we began to swing back to the 'intrinsic' case; we fund the arts because we believe in them, and in protecting our national heritage.
Now, however, post-recession, the buzz is all about 'growth'. The arts should be funded because they can contribute towards our GDP. The Culture Secretary, Maria Miller, recently incurred AHN's wrath for appearing to rely too much on this point. So - and at last I get to the point - I was interested to see the Chairman of the Arts Fund, David Verey, agreeing with Ms Miller and making the same case:
The idea that art is valuable is something that underpins everything we do at the Art Fund. It is a fundamental belief that access for everyone to great art is something worth funding, and worth fighting for. A recent report by Fiammetta Rocco for The Economist showed that globally the number of museums has nearly doubled in the last 20 years, reaching 55,000 across the world. China in particular is building more and more to meet a growing demand from an increasingly educated and culturally hungry nation. Here at home, a record number – over half the population of UK adults – visited a museum in 2013.
But to ensure that the government, businesses and individuals continue to invest in the arts, we need hard statistics as well as warm words, which is why it is encouraging to see that so much work is taking place to bring together – in evidenced-based terms – a tangible understanding of the value of culture. What the Treasury needs to understand – and embrace – is that investing in culture is an important economic activity and part of the growth agenda of this country. Above all else, it makes economic sense to invest in museums.
From the Commission on the Future of Cultural Value at Warwick University to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s ongoing work with the Arts and Humanities Research Council on the holistic value of culture, and the Arts Council’s work with the Centre for Economic and Business Research on the economic value of art, there is much debate on how we can demonstrate the financial value of culture. We at the Art Fund are working hard to understand these complex models, from gross value-added calculations to life satisfaction equations: but it is also vital to remember that whatever the monetary value of culture, its real worth is something entirely unquantifiable.
A recent survey by Barclays of the very wealthy suggested that while there are 30 art investment funds in the world, only a minority of people would buy art purely in the hope of turning a profit. This view was echoed at a packed talk at the London Art Fair in January. But we are all too aware, as my fellow trustees and I decide which works of art we are able to help museums purchase, that the price of art is rocketing and that the art market is, in investment terms, in a healthy position.
The truth of the matter is that no activity is beyond the reach of value and we must ask again ‘what is the real and irreducible value of the arts in our lives?’ In an ideal world it would not be necessary to state the need for something so fundamental to an enjoyable, fulfilled life. But if the argument does need to be made – and funds produced – we stand ready to make the case.
I wonder if this is anything to do with the recent critique of the government's funding cuts by Art Fund director, Stephan Deuchar. Still, Verey is at least right on the rocketing value of the best quality paintings, both old and modern. And it may be that therein lies a simple answer to our question of how and why do we value art? Because people like it?
Update - a reader writes:
Reading the dismal account of David Verey’s speech I could only think of Théophile Gautier’s “art for art’s sake” principle. And then I remembered a splendid metaphor in Michael Levey’s biography of Walter Pater: “It was the equivalent of finding one’s tutor recommending in place of some study of Greek syntax Mademoiselle de Maupin.” Sadly I think we can only expect more irregular verbs from politicians and those involved in arts administration.
And another adds:
As an economist I have been called upon to calculate the economic benefit of various government programs over many years. Some deserved testing their economic benefit or rate of return. Art as a tourist attraction has a benefit, hence the invests of Las Vegas casinos in creating small galleries. But is has additional benefits.
Ultimately, government investment in culture broadly makes a society richer in ways that aren't measured on financial statements, but that are recognized in historical perspective. We remember ancient Greece, the Sumerians, and other societies for their cultures and how their cultures enriched life in those societies and ours rather than their GDP that funded the culture.
In the case of art, Philadelphia for its the most disadvantaged and dangerous neighborhoods created The Mural Arts Program which supports artists, has improved life, and is a source of local pride in areas where pride is in short supply.
The city lured the Barnes Foundation and its extraordinary collection to town from a suburban location with great public and private contributions in total exceeding $ 100 million in order to build its position as an art destination and its prestige. Indeed that in part an economic investment much like adding another attraction at a theme park, but there is more benefit if you build a critical mass.
The reason most wealthy individuals buy art are for enjoyment, prestige, and as a store of value, often chosen in the opposite order. Governments invest in art funding for two of the same reasons. Given that governments spend vast amounts on prestige and enjoyment, like funding Olympic games lavishly and well beyond their economic return, buying long term prestige with art institutions is consistent with established government policy in developed countries. And smaller or newly wealthy countries invest in art to increase their social standing among nations.
Investing in cultural activities is both consumption and investment like buying and furnishing a residence, but the consumption is part of sustenance as well as of pleasure. It should be treated as a matter of public policy, at whatever level is chosen, as a stable expenditure with long and short term benefits rather than an annually fluctuating budget item. It is part of building and maintaining a society.
