{"id":3102,"date":"2013-08-14T06:02:01","date_gmt":"2013-08-14T10:02:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/engage\/?p=3102"},"modified":"2013-08-14T06:02:01","modified_gmt":"2013-08-14T10:02:01","slug":"benefits-of-the-arts-follow-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/engage\/2013\/08\/benefits-of-the-arts-follow-up\/","title":{"rendered":"Benefits of the Arts Follow-Up"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Half-Baked\"A commenter on Benefits of the Arts<\/a> asked a great question: observing the similarities between the Rand Corporation\u2019s Gifts of the Muse<\/em> intrinsic\/instrumental categories, wasn’t my core\/ancillary division simply a re-naming? (And Ian David Moss’s later comment was in a similar vein.) Here was\u00a0 my semi-immediate response:<\/p>\n

While the whole concept is still baking, I\u2019d say no on two grounds. First, the rationale for the core\/ancillary distinction is the impact on individuals and relationships rather than on the arts themselves. Even if the subsets were identical or nearly so, that to me is a significant distinction. Beyond that, though, some of the instrumental benefits the Rand report highlights (\u201csocial\u201d in particular) would in my view be core rather than ancillary. But your point is well taken. I\u2019m not sure yet what I think about the Rand classification of cognitive, behavioral, and health impacts as instrumental benefits.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I still believe that, but the question did force me to address several issues that had given me pause, at least subconsciously.\u00a0 The Gifts<\/em>‘ instrumental benefits are<\/strong> identified as economic, cognitive. behavioral and attitudinal, health, and social<\/strong>. The Gifts’ intrinsic benefits are identified as immediate benefits<\/strong>, such as pleasure and captivation, growth in individual <\/strong>[social] capacities<\/strong>, and benefits that accrue largely to the public<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

I’ve always been clear that “economic” does not fit in my understanding of core benefits, those that I had described as impact on people. But I know that economic benefits impact people, so my original explanation was just plain faulty. And the social benefit was one I had specifically identified as core (fostering social capital)\u2013although this is one with which Gifts<\/em> struggled as well since it included social capital in both intrinsic and instrumental benefits. Then what do I do with cognitive, behavioral, and health? I think the arts support efforts to improve our thinking, behavior, and physical well-being, but they are not<\/em> core benefits.<\/p>\n

As a reminder, I had said that the core benefits were these:<\/p>\n