Are the arts ‘good for us’?

The argument for public arts funding is based on the assumption that everyone benefits from the arts. But the greatest value demands widespread participation.
[This is archived content and may not display in the originally intended format.]

The assumption underlying public funding of the arts is that we all benefit from a thriving arts industry, because our lives are so profoundly – and, we hope, positively – affected by exposure to art in all its forms.

Perhaps the most obvious example of the effect of ‘art’ on our lives comes from architecture, urban and industrial design: architects and designers don’t only create structures, spaces and objects that we see as ‘beautiful’ or ‘ugly’; they also create the places where we conduct our lives. It’s a safe assumption that beautiful architecture and design will have a positive effect on us; perhaps it’s even true that provocative architecture and design can expand our horizons and challenge us to see the world in new ways – a process we don’t always enjoy, but which creative artists are sure is ‘good for us’.

Unlock Padlock Icon

Unlock this content?

Access this content and more

Hugh Mackay
About the Author
Hugh Mackay is a social researcher and founder of the Ipsos Mackay Report.