When you’ve worked in the arts for many years, you might be forgiven for looking a little askance at any new campaign to make the case for arts funding. It’s a cyclical battle that comes round with depressing regularity and the questions it raises never really change.
What language can we use to describe the value of the arts? What constitutes persuasive evidence of public benefit? Do the arts matter for their intrinsic worth or for their instrumental impact? How can we make the economic case? And, crucially, who is best placed to make the arguments? And to whom?
