It seems like there are two parts to this issue of making a case for the arts. On the one hand, any of us who are directly involved in creating the work need no justification for continuing to do so. We already get it. And the same goes for the core audience, those that really love painting or music or books, etc. They probably developed this connection on their own (or through their friends), and don't need to be convinced that the arts are good for them. Do we really need a larger audience, made up of a bunch of people that show up for the nutritional value? Is more really better? I'm not sure that it is.

If the goal of coming up with a case for the arts is to convince the government and business communities to support arts organizations, then I think the best approach is to just tell them what they want to hear. Businesses want to know how supporting the arts will help them make more money (PR value), and elected government officials want to know how supporting the arts will get them re-elected. For any case that's made we should keep in mind whom we're trying to convince, and why.

I am fascinated by this debate, and how all the different bloggers each bring his/her own unique experience and perspective to the table. It's a great example of how art impacts each person differently, as Midori says.

I am looking forward to the exploration of the chief recommendation of the RAND report; that certain forms of funding should be shifted to supporting access to art.

This is a huge can of worms that has yet to truly be opened. What would happen if we shifted our language to talk less about why art is good for us, and more about how to get more people to experience art? Would our creative engine stall? Would our advocacy efforts stall? Or would we find a more receptive audience?

To paraphrase the Rand report, the "intrinsic" values include captivation (rapt absorption!); pleasure; expanded capacity for empathy; cognitive growth; creation of social bonds; and expression of communal meanings. And, as Andrew points out, "existing studies of 'benefit' or 'value,' ... ignore all the other things in society or in life that might provide a similar benefit." Look at that list again and see how many other facets of life bestow the same intrinsic values. You really ought to get more sleep, exercise, good food, sex, religion, conversation, join the bowling league...

Intrinsic value arguments are something to try out on the kids. Try a little art, son, it will make you a better person.

When it comes to convincing legislatures, organizations, or individuals to give more money to the arts (or any other enterprise), some more quantifiable measures might strengthen your case.

The Rand study's "key policy implication is that policy should be geared toward spreading the benefits of the arts by introducing greater numbers of Americans to engaging arts experiences." It's this kind of solipsistic and circular thinking that brought us to where we are today.

We need both kinds of arguments all the time. Art is inherently beneficial to individuals for it engages the imagination in particular ways with measureable physiological, psychological, cognitive, and social benefits. That's a good old-fashioned elitist (in the best sense) argument. One we ought to proselytize at every opportunity.

But, when asking for money, it takes more than our own faith and goodwill. The nonprofit arts, in general, have some demonstrable impact as part of socioeconomics of the cultural and/or creative sector, the community, the country, business ... something.

I don't quite know where to insert a topical comment into this discussion -- what with the good principal commentators standing front and center and offering their intertwined streams of thought. I'd like to comment on the intrinsic/extrinsic benefits chapters of the book. And I've chosen Andrew Taylor's discussion stream as a place to speak. Andrew is not responsible for any of this.

My reactions to Gifts of the Muse come from my world of research on learning and child development. "Gifts of the Muse" spawns much to think about, and this blog-fest may be good fun.

A close reading of "Gifts" raises three puzzles for me. First, the chapter on extrinsic benefits is held up as a literature review; it is clearly accepted as such, judging by the words of the invited panelists. However, it's not. Only four specific studies are cited and actually discussed in the review of research on extrinsic benefits; and these four studies, the authors state, in fact reach valid positive conclusions about important extrinsic benefits. The arguments critical of research on instrumental benefits are not based, as reported, on the reviewing of research studies by the authors; they are drawn entirely from a study of studies by Project REAP (2001). REAP remains highly controversial; this is because every one of the academic effects reported in their good research syntheses was positive. This is curious – how could RAND get this wrong? I think they got it wrong by reading and quoting only REAP's Executive Summary – not through an independent review of the underlying studies. Any conclusion that REAP found no instrumental effects of the arts simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Second, the authors of "Gifts" argue along the following lines when introducing their chapter on the INTRINSIC benefits of the arts: "In the previous chapter, we rightly downsized the overblown literature on the academic and social effects of the arts; thus we largely disavow the existence of such effects. In this chapter we turn to the intrinsic benefits of the arts. However, we must admit that we have no research to support the assertions we make about intrinsic benefits -- these are things we simply all know." (My paraphrase.) So, at work are two very different standards when it comes to preferred and less preferred benefits. Nonetheless, I found the intrinsic benefits chapter engaging; it seems likely to find its way into a future of cheering, musing, and vilifying -- perhaps to debut this week.

Third, in the chapter of "Gifts" explicating the intrinsic benefits of the arts, children are not mentioned; nor are intrinsic benefits said to come to anyone involved in artistic learning, age 1 to 100. I think the authors just forgot. Because a surely unintended conclusion of "Gifts" hangs in the balance. Since there is scarce documented extrinsic benefit related to learning in the arts, and since there are no intrinsic benefits to children, then why support arts education at all?

"Gifts of the Muse" will either advance debates about the "benefits" of the arts, or (as some commentators suggest) leave readers a bit tired of it all. To me, artistic learning plays well on both sides of the argument. Learning to draw, play the violin, dramatizing Romeo, or dancing Juliet all promote cognitive and affective growth that is bound to impact the way children think, learn, and feel.

I'm in the profession of sorting this all out in sometimes-painful detail. At the same time, I'm glad there is way more to the discussion than this.

James Catterall
Professor of Education
UCLA