A British study has called into question the positive role of the arts in modern society.

In a new study, published by the UK’s Arts and Humanities Research Council, the role of the arts in the community has come under fire. In a comprehensive 200-page report, the work of governments to implement expansive arts programs in local communities has been called into question. The report even suggests that spending government money on building community arts spaces, particularly in regional areas, is not encouraging a better local engagment with the arts, but is instead an instigator for gentrification, raising property prices and forcing locals to move. The report also takes a look with a new, objective eye at ideas like children’s involvement in music through primary school, the promotion of music for healing in spaces like hospitals and prisons, and the ecological impact of arts schemes, including the potential damage caused by large-scale public artworks and sculptures. 

Champions of the arts and believers in the power of culture could understandably be angered by the apparent negativity of this study, but in fact, the underlying argument of the report in no way suggests the arts lack importance. Instead, it argues that policymakers need to take into account the ‘experience’ of participants, rather than focussing solely on quantitative data. Because of a need for measured results and detailed reporting, the importance of an individual’s experience has been pushed aside for more easily measured values, such as attendance or revenue.

The measurable results collected for this particular report have consequently been skewed, as is mentioned by the co-authors, because there is no officially recognised way to capture quantitatively the way that individuals subjectively appreciate art. The authors of the study question the way that funding applications for artists are processed in the UK, although the premise is also relevant to Australian arts organisations. It points out that to receive subsidy, artists need to outline how their work will enrich the community and the sector. However, these assertions must often be assumed before the work is created which leaves no room for creativity or experimentation, and thus the parameters many artists are required to work within can have a directly detrimental impact on the evolution of an art form. 

The proposition is that the arts can have a positive impact, but not when artists are forced to work within the constraints set by the government to fit their policy. This point is particularly relevant to Australian arts funding, which has suffered several critical administrative overhauls since the 2015/16 Federal Budget that has made applying for subsidy intensely competitive.

The report goes on to say that the positive impact that the arts have on communities across the world is evident, but it is up to policymakers to create the infrastructure, and set targets that can support this. There is ongoing research occurring to confirm the fact that the arts have a positive impact on development and health, so the question is not so much whether or not our lives are improved by the arts, but instead about how we create the best possible environments for artists to improve our lives.