Art: value creation and extraction
2023/24 Clore Fellow Jessica Vaughan explores how we understand and evaluate the value of visual art in the UK today, considering its social, economic, and intrinsic significance amid shifting political and cultural landscapes.
The value of art can be understood in both commercial and social terms. However, these values are not fixed; they are subject to change by shifting socio-political context and zeitgeists. At the inception of this ‘provocation paper’, I set out to learn how we might we understand the value of art and culture in the UK now. How we could evaluate the visual arts in a way that communicates a full picture – one that would include its public benefit, economic impact and, importantly, intrinsic value? I wanted to prove (to myself) that defending and safeguarding public arts, at a time when so many essential services are at breaking point, is important and useful. However, my research presented more questions than answers and, as a result, this paper outlines where I believe our concepts around the value of art (by this I mean the visual arts – museums, galleries, public commissions etc. – as opposed to the wider cultural sector) have arrived in the UK, and how we got to this point.
The UK is in its second decade of austerity, with a dramatic fall in Government funding for arts and culture. Since 2008, public arts funding in Britain has contracted by 35%1. A recent Arts Council England report shows that between 2009-10 and 2022-23, total local authority expenditure on museums and galleries in England decreased by 36.7% in real terms, from £286.45m to £241.01m.2 The arts in the UK are being defunded in all areas, but perhaps most concerningly, they are being deprioritised in schools. The arts are excluded from the EBacc curriculum3 that the current Government wants 90% of secondary pupils to be studying by 2025. They do not feature in the ‘attainment 8’, and ‘progress 8’ measures by which schools are now rated. We’re already in a dire situation in terms of representation in the arts, and this is set to continue unless radical intervention is taken. The Department for Education recorded that children in UK schools, of whom 31% were minority ethnic, were introduced to visual art by teachers who were 94% white4. If the UK continues on this trajectory, it will result in adults who have no real introduction to the arts, and a hegemonic, commerce-driven arts sector.
The humanising influence of art on society has long been accepted. As Hannah Arendt wrote in The Human Condition, “the presence of others who see what we see and hear what we hear assures us of the reality of the world and ourselves”5. Despite the inherent value of art being, almost by definition, impossible to measure, the current economic and social context in the UK requires it. Quantifying the benefits of the arts and expressing them in facts and figures is now imperative for arts organisations to secure funding from both public and private sources. Historically, the value of the art was not dependent on its social impact, or its health, education, and economic benefits. However, demonstrating these effects can help funders and policymakers recognise the importance of investing in the arts. This presents a question not on the actual effects of the arts but what the expectation of them should be. Should they be deemed useful, or does the ‘art for art’s sake’ viewpoint hold within the UK’s current circumstance?
In recent years, the emphasis on the benefits that art can bring to the economy, and to people’s health and well-being, has increased. Consequently, this has raised the question of how to measure cultural value, leading to a notable shift towards quantitative methods to justify public funding based on economic and social metrics. The concept of “defensive instrumentalism” 6, which involves using instrumental arguments to defend the arts and demonstrate their usefulness, gained prominence alongside significant growth in arts funding under the New Labour government. However, this approach was scrutinised for being overtly used for advocacy purposes, and for reducing arts and culture to merely a means of achieving government policies.
Over the past few decades there has been a shift towards interdisciplinary, participatory and research-based art practice, particularly within public galleries and museums. These developments demand a redefinition of aesthetic experience; a cumulative and often extended process of dialogue is required rather than a single exchange. ‘Social practice’ (a name given to socially-engaged participatory art) employs the language of already-existing systems – community centres, social agencies, support groups – but does so under the guise of art. There is a problematic ethical-aesthetic binary within this genre when the visual, which is what we expect from artistic practice, becomes secondary to the social. Claire Bishop, a key theorist who has contributed significantly to the discourse around socially-engaged art, has been most vocal in raising concerns that this genre runs the risk of being discussed solely on positive terms, and regarded as an ideal of how to solve social problems with art. Bishop has argued that these practices are intertwined with UK policy and public funding initiatives introduced by New Labour in the early 2000s. This funding strategy required projects to demonstrate social impact outcomes, such as community cohesion and engaging with hard-to-reach groups. Bishop contends that while these projects helped break down barriers to inclusion, they did little to fundamentally change power relationships in society. Consequently, the arts became a softer and more cost-effective alternative to direct state intervention.
Despite the increase in participatory practice material, art production is still thriving and dominates the commercial art market. The UK has maintained its position as the holder of the second largest share of the global art market, accounting for 18%, which equates to $11.9 billion in aggregate sales in 20227.There is a significant disparity between the underfunded public sector and a buoyant art market, even though public institutions play a crucial role in sustaining the market. In the current economic and political climate, UK public arts organisations must adapt to survive. Museums and art centres face a choice: they can either perpetuate extractive institutional models that are commercially driven8, or they can foster more interdependent, socially-focused art economies. The latter approach is intertwined with social practice, and often described with terms like ‘constituent’ or ‘useful’ museums9.
Current cultural policy highlights the concept of artists as entrepreneurs, emphasising their contributions to both personal economic gain and broader societal benefits, which bolster local, regional and national economies. This approach is exemplified in Arts Council England’s Let’s Create strategy, where socially engaged practices have become more popular among policymakers due to their perceived societal advantages. This outlook has influenced the priorities of funding bodies, leading to the inclusion of social outcomes in funding application criteria. Consequently, certain artists are increasingly integrated into the “creative economy” model, which arose from the combination of cultural and creative industries. In his recent publication, Culture is Not an Industry, Justin O’Connor argues that the integration of culture into the economic growth agenda and the “creative industries revolution” has not resulted in a thriving cultural sector, but to the contrary, instead of prioritising culture, these changes have deteriorated conditions for cultural production. He questions the current state of art and culture in the UK, highlighting a lack of funding and vision; culture has been de-politicised and reduced to a discourse of industrial production and economic metrics. O’Connor’s book explores the consequences of treating an important aspect of democratic citizenship, which he argues is fundamental to human rights, as an industry. He concludes that the “cultural and creative industries” merge too many disparate disciplines – art, libraries, film, fashion, theatre and video games, among others – only some of which effectively relate to productivity and profit. Additionally, he argues that the instrumentalisation of arts in a health and wellbeing agenda should not focus on the ways that art can help people cope with a dysfunctional system; instead, it should allow participants to challenge their understanding and acceptance of a system that is not serving them. Defining the value of anything outside the market economy is difficult. O’Connor argues that we need to clearly articulate why culture is valuable in its own right – as a foundation, not just as a tool. To shift from an overemphasis on GDP and individualised growth towards rebuilding what he calls a “collective liveability” culture must be recognised as one of the foundations to a thriving society.
If we consider the economic theories of Italian-American-British economist and academic, Mariana Mazzucato, could we reassess the dichotomies between intrinsic versus instrumental value, and extractive or regenerative practices? In economics, value is seen as a reflection of price: if something has a high price, it is considered valuable. In 2019, the arts and culture sector contributed £10.47 billion to the UK economy, representing 0.5% of total GDP10. However, do these metrics accurately capture the sector’s true value to society? More importantly, how is this value distributed? Are the creators of value in the arts and culture sector the same people who reap the financial rewards? Mazzucato argues in her book The Value of Everything that modern economics often conflates value extraction with value creation, allowing rent-seeking activities (unearned income) to be mistaken for profit-generating activities (earned income). This confusion leads to rising inequality and decreased investment in the real economy. Without distinguishing value creation from value extraction, it becomes nearly impossible to reward the former over the latter. She argues that for economic growth to be innovation-led, inclusive and sustainable, we need a better understanding of value to guide us. Mazzucato argues that economics needs a new system of value that prioritises activities which truly create value for everyone. Could the same not be argued for art?
Throughout history, people have sought meaning through art. Art can be educational, it can improve health and wellbeing, it can play a role in urban regeneration, however it should not need to do any of these things to warrant its existence and value. Art is one of the few things that cannot be meaningfully quantified, and that is a fundamental part of its importance. In an era where everything is measured by outputs and outcomes, being intangible and subjective has a value in itself. Art production has been wildly altered in recent decades, necessitating a reaffirmation of its role in modernity. Art and culture help us respond to the past, engage with the present and imagine the future. They can affirm or challenge expectations and notions of reality – which given the technological advances we are on the precipice of, will become increasingly vital. While aestheticism may be challenging to uphold in a context of extreme funding cuts, this can result in a binary and reductive intrinsic-instrumental dichotomy. In his publication, O’Connor concludes that art and culture are an essential pillar in the social system, and that they should be integral to education and accessible for all. For this to become a reality, a re-articulation of the value of art would be necessary, one which does not depend on social impacts, or economic metrics, but rather on a broader conception of value creation and extraction.
