World Cafe 9/11/10 The Social Impact of the arts –

World Cafe 9/11/10 The Social Impact of the arts –

The text for today's discussion was the introduction in, The Social Impact of the Arts by Eleonora Belfiore and Oliver Bennett, published from research undertaken on behalf of The Centre for Cultural Policy Studies. The remit of the research was “in order  to develop rigorous procedures for a better understanding of the social impact of the arts.” (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/theatre_s/cp/research/fellowship/)

In the foreword the authors clearly lay out the framework for the text, identifying the purpose as, “an intellectual history of claims made over time for the value, function and impact of the arts.” How these claims have been articulated is also a key area for discussion in the text. And finally the aim of the authors to “reconnect” contemporary policy discussion with “a complex intellectual history” (Belfiore, Bennett 2008). We should also note that the research is undertaken with an emphasis on how these issues relate to Government funded Arts and policy decisions.

The introduction identifies the “intellectual history of claims” and how the arts are perceived by various individuals and organisations, firstly by the middle classes and academia, identifying that the arts are “often assigned great importance by middle-class parents” and are “seen as desirable if not essencial” in the academic world. The perceived importance of the arts in society is also highlighted by how the study of the arts and associated institutions has increased at a rapid rate around the world, citing various studies that validate the figures. For example the number of museums was calculated in 1991 to be around 23,000 by Susan Pearce, and in the UK the BBC is required to provide arts programing “under the conditions of their licence,”.

Belfiore and Bennett state the claims made for the arts include; In 2007 Tony Blair stated the arts were “ growing faster than the economy as a whole”. Nation States use the Arts as a descriptor of National Culture, and even claim that without the arts, society “would be an enslaved society” (Francois Mitterrand in Shapiro 2000, 11).

Susan Knight claims the arts have transformative powers that “ create community, nurture culture identity, promote leadership and consciously develop agents of change” (Canada Council for the Arts 2007). Knight is not alone in these claims, perceived as positive in relation to the transformative effects of the arts. However, the claims are validated by the methods and language of Government Policy Making, a shift towards a more scientific approach was required by Government, and that method was and is evidence based policy making, a set of tools by which to measure the validity of claims for the arts as a panacea for all social ills. The authors point out that this is “problamatic” and has lead to a situation were “instead of questioning” the claims made for the arts, “researchers” have concentrated their efforts on “coming up with the evidence that they do”.

A more realistic interpretation of how the arts perform the claims of, “value, function and impact of the arts” is broached by John Tusa, Director of the London Barbican in (2002), Tusa states that while the arts can be an agent for social change etc., that these functions are not “intrinsic to the arts”. Whilst James Purnell (2007) has stated “they would still matter if they did none of these things. They are intrinsically valuable before they are instrumentally so.”. And here lies the difficulty, the arts and their effects are intrinsic, to each individual. Yes it is possible to measure certain outcomes, but those outcomes are often subjective and not easily quantified.

Historical debates on the value and effects of the arts is varied also, from the “Enlightenment”, to the Formalist View through to “Art for Arts Sake” , and the Postmodern theories that embrace all cultures and cultural diversity, have had their time in the spotlight and all have been superseded by one or the other.

The authors suggest that this has been seen as “a slide into uncritical cultural relativism” In conclusion the authors suggest that the debate needs to include this complex intellectual history if the debate is to move beyond mere advocacy.