# data[].attributes.headline
What would you do if success was guaranteed?

# data[].attributes.subject
What would you do if success was guaranteed?

# data[].attributes.body
This is a question that I was asked a few weeks ago by someone I very much look up to. I came to them extremely stressed out about picking a major and deciding on a career path that would allow me to be passionate about what I do and be well off where I do not have to worry about money. The conversation turned into intervention when they saw that the reason I was so indecisive about making these crucial life decisions was that I didn't believe enough in my abilities to succeed in what it is I am passionate about. I invite you to also psychoanalyze this question as a lot of you might be in the same boat as me. It really helped open my eyes as to what I am truly capable of and helped me a lot.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reframing the Debate About the Value of the Arts

# data[].attributes.subject
Reframing the Debate About the Value of the Arts

# data[].attributes.body
Source includes figure breaking up a Framework for Understanding the Benefits of the Arts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Over the years, political pressures have prompted arts supporters to emphasize that the public value of the arts lies in their contribution to broad social and economic goals, such as economic growth and improved student performance. This study urges a new approach that recognizes how both instrumental and intrinsic benefits of the arts contribute to the public realm. Based on this view, the authors argue for a policy shift that would make the arts available to greater numbers of people.

The public value of the arts has been a topic of debate since the culture wars of the early 1990s. Today's prevailing view is that the arts have public value because they promote broad social and economic goals, such as economic growth and better academic performance. These benefits are called "instrumental" because the arts are seen as an instrument for achieving them. The intrinsic benefits of the arts experience, such as aesthetic pleasure and captivation, are viewed as having strictly private, personal value. They are primarily qualitative and thus less amenable than the instrumental benefits to the increasingly results-oriented, quantitative approach that characterizes public policy analysis.

A new report, Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate About the Benefits of the Arts, challenges this view. The study, commissioned by The Wallace Foundation, offers a new framework for understanding the value of the arts, one that recognizes how both intrinsic and instrumental benefits contribute to the public realm and underscores the central role of intrinsic benefits in generating all arts benefits. The authors also examine how such benefits are generated through different kinds of arts experiences and call for policies designed to engage more Americans in the arts.

New Framework

Figure 1. Framework for Understanding the Benefits of the Arts

The new framework distinguishes among the benefits of the arts along two different dimensions - type of benefit (instrumental, intrinsic) and the way in which the benefits produce private and public value (see the figure). Instrumental and intrinsic benefits are placed along a continuum ranging from primarily personal, or private, benefits to primarily public benefits. In between are benefits that enhance individual lives and have a spillover effect on the public sphere.

Instrumental Benefits

The report describes the empirical research on a wide range of instrumental benefits. The authors acknowledge the strength of a number of the studies, but they also find many weaknesses in this body of research. The methods used, for example, often lack empirical rigor as well as a comprehensive theoretical explanation for the claimed benefits. And many of the studies fail to capture the range of ways in which the arts can provide benefits, oversimplify the links between benefits and forms of arts participation, and generally ignore the fact that the arts are only one way to achieve these benefits. In sum, the research on instrumental arts benefits offers stronger evidence for the possibility of such benefits than it does proof of their magnitude or how they are produced.

Summary of Instrumental Benefits Claimed in the Literature

Type of Benefit

Improvements in:

Economic

Employment, tax revenues, spending

Attraction of high-quality workforce

Cognitive

Academic performance

Basic skills, such as reading and math skills

Learning process

Behavioral and attitudunal

Attitudes toward school (attendance rates)

Self-discipline, self-efficacy

Pro-social behavior among at-risk youth

Health

Mental and physical health among elderly (especially Alzheimer's patients)

Reduced anxiety in face of surgery, childbirth

Social

Social interaction, community identity

Social capital

Community capacity for collective action

Intrinsic Benefits: The Missing Link

Generally overlooked in this approach is an appreciation of the intrinsic benefits of the arts - those effects inherent in the arts experience itself. The authors point out that two essential aspects of intrinsic benefits are not being recognized. First, individuals participate in the arts for the intrinsic benefits of arts experiences - pleasure, stimulation, meaning - not to improve their test scores or to stimulate the economy. In this sense, intrinsic benefits are the starting point for all benefits. Second, as the framework suggests, intrinsic benefits are not strictly private - some of them also contribute to the public welfare.

The authors describe three types of intrinsic benefits. First are the immediate benefits, such as pleasure and captivation, that come from engaging in arts experiences. These motivate individuals to seek more such experiences. The second type is the growth in individual capacities - such as enhanced empathy for other people and cultures, powers of observation, and understanding of the world - that can occur through cumulative arts experiences. These intrinsic effects enrich individual lives, but they also have a public spillover component in that they cultivate the kinds of citizens desired in a pluralistic society. The third type is the benefits that accrue largely to the public. These are the social bonds created among individuals when they share their arts experiences through reflection and discourse, and the expression of common values and community identity through artworks commemorating events significant to a nation's (or people's) experience.

Importance of Sustained Arts Involvement

One of the report's conclusions is that the most enduring arts benefits, both instrumental and intrinsic, are created through sustained involvement. To identify the factors behind this type of involvement, the authors analyzed the differences between people who participate frequently in the arts and those who participate only occasionally. They found two important distinctions for frequent participants: they had often been exposed to the arts when young - that is, early arts experiences provided a gateway to future involvement‹and they were motivated to seek future experiences by the high quality of their arts experiences. Such strong experiences are marked by high levels of engagement - emotional, mental, and sometimes social. In other words, the individual's capacity to become fully engaged in arts experiences is fundamental to gaining value from the arts.

Policy Implications and Recommendations

The authors claim that the current overemphasis on instrumental benefits not only undervalues the arts but also fails to provide a sound basis for decisions in support of the arts. They assert that the key to spreading the benefits of the arts is to engage greater numbers of Americans in the arts, which means that attention and resources must be balanced between building the supply of the arts and cultivating demand. Recommendations for promoting these goals are offered:

1. Develop language for discussing intrinsic benefits that is clear and compelling and reflects the importance of qualitative as well as quantitative issues.

2. Promote early exposure to the arts through schools and community programs.

3. Encourage arts organizations to provide experiences that connect with and reward their audiences.

4. Address the limitations of the research on instrumental benefits and encourage research on the intrinsic benefits of the arts.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research brief series. RAND research briefs present policy-oriented summaries of individual published, peer-reviewed documents or of a body of published work.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reframing the Debate About the Value of the Arts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the years, political pressures have prompted arts supporters to emphasize that the public value of the arts lies in their contribution to broad social and economic goals, such as economic growth and improved student performance. This study urges a new approach that recognizes how both instrumental and intrinsic benefits of the arts contribute to the public realm.

# data[].attributes.headline
Online debate about whether art as value or not 

# data[].attributes.subject
Online debate about whether art as value or not 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Money does not equal value. Poop in a can literally has sold for $162,000 http://en.wikipedia.org...

In order to argue that as a value you have to go on a bit of tangent. Having super rich people pay money to other otherwise worthless people (besides their "art") can stimulate the economy and thus has value.
But that's not art having value by itself now is it?
That's art having value because it stimulates the economy, which can be done in much a similar fashion a dozen different ways.

So if you would please, do not mention Art's Monetary value again... as that clearly obfuscates the debate.

Additionally, to make sure our definitions are clear.
I will accept photography only insofar as you mean actually taking pictures for "artistic" value. This does not include scientific and history reasons for photography (Slow-mo shots of things to understand the science or the Zapruder film). Additionally, Architecture is only insofar as the beauty of the architecture is concerned and not the utility. There are breakthroughs in ergonomics of buildings that are from the field of architecture, but I would not call them Art. Feng Shui is on the fence. Same thing goes for culinary arts and literature. Literature only extends to Novels (as Non-Fiction isn't art, it's historical or scientific documentation). Culinary arts, when taken as "food science" can mean healthier meals, this does not count towards the "culinary arts".

"As I said earlier, we obviously will not die without art. Nor will we die without mathematics, the sciences, etc"

This is one of my main points of contention actually. YES, we would DIE without science. Not on a personal scale, as the individual doesn't even have to know how to breathe by him/herself anymore because of science of society (iron lung). But, if we as a society had no concept of science or math... we would ALL DIE. We worry that we'd have mass hysteria if even just the Internet collapsed, or god forbid the electric grid went down.... but if we lost all concept to do math and science? Our ability to perform math and science experiments are what excelled us above the animals. (Although, they obviously experiment too, we are MUCH BETTER at it). Math and Science are ESSENTIAL to a civilized society. It made us harness fire, create the wheel, pull the level, and swing the pulley. It made us float, it let us fly... science my dear lady is paramount, and there isn't much debate on that subject. We would die without it (as a society), and even if a few people managed to survive, they'd be living in near cavemanesque fashion as they hunt and gather and struggle to make fire and keep warm. Think I'm exaggerating? Explain to me a world that will function without Math and Science. If it's better than Hunter/Gatherer, you'll really have to give me the details.

Now, I don't have to argue that art is detrimental, but I can argue that it is possible that it is stifling to one's own imagination, and not an asset. In a world in which we all agree that Art has no Value, we will still create Art. It is innate in us. But what's more, art, as something that has no value, does not require (as my opponent suggested) a singular goal or direction. My art is just as good as your art, is just as good as any art depending on the eye of the audience. Therefore, when we see other's art, it can become incorporated into our art, but doesn't that still mean it's theirs? Its not new anymore. It's a new configuration... possibly... but by having this universal purpose of art, it goes against what Art is... useless from a societal standpoint. Basically, what I'm saying is that Art itself becomes more original the more separate it is, and thus we shouldn't put a societal value on it to bolster it towards uniformity. Through individual fulfillment will Art takes its place.

I'm sorry, I skipped ahead a bit.

Art has no value.

There is no part of Art that has ever kept someone warm, got them from place to place, or helped them live longer. That's inherent in the definition...if it was useful, it'd be called science! (As you can tell from how I clarified the definitions above) Now, I'm not going to take it as a tautology here... because we're arguing some other type of value than utility.

I may have to change the argument a bit here. As I must concede that Art does give the individual fulfillment. But that only lasts as far as he is fulfilled, then it is separate. Art fills a need we have to create. We wish to create things with utility, but we simply can't. So we substitute. We can (1) create Art and feel fulfilled because we have created something (regardless of what, at least it's original.. right?) or (2) merely peer into the eyes of those who have created, and feel their fulfillment through us. It truly is trite, is it not? Art not only has no value in itself, by the way I just explained it. It prevents us from our true aspirations. We want to explore the universe, we want to understand our being, we want to create utility among men, but all of these things can sabotaged when the desire to create anything supersedes the desire to create something useful. Sure, that need to create is fulfilled, but it isn't done in the way that it should be, that it was intended for. And what's worse with what's art's become, we can just watch other people do it and feel our need to create disappear.

"Fairy tales do not give a child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon."
G. K. Chesterton, Tremendous Trifles (1909), XVII: "The Red Angel"

Which is exactly my point, albeit, in the opposite direction I'm sure Chesterton imagined. We have monsters inside us... and there are monsters all around us... we can be told how to slay them, and thus discover nothing... or we can conquer them ourselves... we can make our own path. And while that path is covered in blood, tears and toil... we must carry on or perish. Let us not fall to temptation.... for it will never bring us true happiness.

So, after all that nonsense... I'm not sure if I arrived at Art is OK for the individual yet. I think, I'm conceding that it is unavoidable, but that it isn't productive. I could almost call it detrimental to the sciences. We can go from there later... but I think that's where I want to start.

Regardless, I have made it quite clear that societal Art is a terrible thing. That not only does it not have value, but it also wastes our minds. It's monetary value is absurd, and its cultural value.. well.... actually.. I haven't talked about it's cultural value... only on its effect on the individual... so yes.. can we go there next?

Let us talk then about the "cultural value" of art.

Lastly, I just noticed you were saying that math and science can't capture and share beauty... while this is true, because the second it is described as "beautiful", in that light... it is not scientific. That does not mean that science has not increased the beauty in the world. Look at any photo taken by Hubble of any Nebula or Planet or Galaxy.... there is certainly beauty there... but that is also a scientific endeavor. While it is beautiful... it's value isn't in that it is beautiful, but that it can give us insight to other galaxies and planets so that we can better understand our own (and maybe someday visit the places we now have images of because of science). Most art that exists today (save Cave Drawings and scribbles in the dirt with a stick) was assisted by science (paints,tools,any material really)... what in science today has been assisted by art? (and not kids learning math and geometry from paintings and music.. i'm talking real science breakthoughs assisted by art)

Pro

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Arts have Value, in and of themselves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Money does not equal value. Poop in a can literally has sold for $162,000 http://en.wikipedia.org... In order to argue that as a value you have to go on a bit of tangent. Having super rich people pay money to other otherwise worthless people (besides their "art") can stimulate the economy and thus has value.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Morgan and Roberta co-write an essay about value-- specifically, why art is undervalued in America--and for the first time, you can LISTEN to this post!

# data[].attributes.headline
What are Intrinsic values and why are they important?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are Intrinsic values and why are they important?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What do we really value? Are our values reducible to just one or two things, or are they more complex? What does it mean to value something? In this talk from EA Global 2018: San Francisco, Spencer Greenberg argues that we each have a set of multiple intrinsic values, and that it’s worth it to refle…

# data[].attributes.body
"One final thing to consider in art appraisal is its intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is measured by how unique, irreplaceable and sacred the work is. Even the most prestigiously designed or carefully crafted limited edition luxury timepiece is still only one of a series from a production line. If a Bach song book is destroyed, the music survives through the notation but if the Mona Lisa is destroyed, it is lost forever. Even if technological advancement in the future could make identical replicas of the columns of the Acropolis, they still wouldn’t have the same historical character as the originals. It is this intrinsic value that makes art priceless in much the same way that a protected natural landscape or an endangered species has sacred, irreplaceable worth. Art is much more than a material possession or a luxury good."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Trying to determine the value of art is a little like opening Pandora's Box. The simple, one question route of art valuation is asking "is it sought after?" If people want your art, they'll pay big money to get it but if they don't then you will struggle to shift it regardless of how much you paid to acquire it in the first place. Whether you are an untrained amateur or a seasoned veteran, art investment is a gamble. The major difference is that when you lose a bet in a casino, you only have to hand a plastic chip back to the house. Lose in the art market and you still have something of unique beauty with the potential to reclaim or exceed its purchase price in the future.

Valuing art is not like valuing a luxury car where mileage, model and condition can be easily assessed. Art appraisal is a far more complex beast because it involves both objective and subjective factors, the former are intricate and the latter almost impossible to quantify or predict. For example, if a Warhol goes on auction and one bidder of means is willing to pay well over the odds for it, the sale price, inflated by the buyer's subjective influence, will set a benchmark for other Warhol works. In this respect, art operates in the same manner as property. If your house is valued at $1 million but the identical house next door is sold for $3 million, it bumps the worth of your property by default. This has led to some collectors, rather sneakily, deliberately over bidding on a particular artist to boost the value of their collection by the same artist.

Art is sold based on perceived cultural value, provenance and predicted future worth. Things that affect the price but which will not have overriding effect include authenticity (especially amongst contemporary works), condition, sales and acquisition history, rarity, demand, the stature of the artist, by whom, if any, it was commissioned by (a painting commissioned by a member of royalty for example will always have value attached to it) and finally, market trends.

Trends include type, style and genre of the work and whether they are in vogue. For example, there might be a demand for pottery opposed to canvas or landscapes rather than portraits. These trends are really at the subjective whims of a very limited group of collectors, investors and dealers and are thus, almost impossible to predict. Much like the commodities of the stock market where you buy when prices are low and sell when prices are high, in the art market you buy when one trend is out of favour, sell when it falls back into fashion. The Mei Moses Art Index along with research data from the likes of Christie's, Sotheby's and Lyon and Turnball, who monitor and track market trends, can be an invaluable source of information for when to buy or sell.

The art market itself is divided into two parts: the primary market, where new art is introduced for the first time, and the secondary market, for existing art that has been subject to previous sales. This helps to distinguish between fine or classical art and contemporary art. Fine art is often viewed as the more bankable of the two as its value can be historically assessed whereas contemporary art is much more volatile. This is where the role of galleries, dealers, consultants and art agents earn their crust as trend-setters who value primary market works.

A simple method for appraising new art with speculative value is the scale, intensity and medium of the piece. Even so, the contemporary art market is still largely valued on vague indicators. Contemporary artists such as Mr Brainwash might have initially made a lot of money with a clever juxtaposition strategy of marketing and hype but his more recent copyright lawsuits have brought his art into question and the value of his work has dipped dramatically. The key here is personal taste. If you find a piece that strikes a chord with you and you can afford to buy it, then not all is lost if the piece fails to appreciate in value over time.

The art market is notoriously difficult to enter as dealers maintain a level of saleable quality by implementing high barriers to market entry. So the chances are that if you buy from a reputable gallery, the piece has had many obstacles to overcome to be exhibited in the first place suggesting that the likelihood of complete depreciation is reduced. Many new artists are the equivalent of penny share companies; most will fall by the wayside but in among them is the next Picasso or Hirst with value ready to rocket. This leaves the potential investor with two options, buy up a number of works by emerging artists or, if you prefer a more low risk operation, put your money into a fund with an art investment company and let them manage a portfolio on your behalf.

The reason why contemporary art tends to fluctuate so dramatically is because, as Andy Warhol understood, it is about branding. Modern artists are brands, just like sports stars, public eye socialites and musicians. The measure of success for any brand is whether it will sell inconsequential of substance. Britney Spears' perfume will sell. Not because it smells especially nice, but because it's endorsed by a celebrity with a loyal fan base. By that rationale a bad Damien Hirst would most likely still attract a large sum of money because of the value attached to his name alone. For this reason fine art is valued on the piece, whereas contemporary art is valued by the brand.

Unlike its contemporary counterpart, fine art is much more blue-chip. It's bankable. The attraction of investing in contemporary is the high risk stake and attractive returns if the gamble pays off. But even fine art with a more stable buffer against depreciation can still attract huge investment returns that exceed expectations.

One final thing to consider in art appraisal is its intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is measured by how unique, irreplaceable and sacred the work is. Even the most prestigiously designed or carefully crafted limited edition luxury timepiece is still only one of a series from a production line. If a Bach song book is destroyed, the music survives through the notation but if the Mona Lisa is destroyed, it is lost forever. Even if technological advancement in the future could make identical replicas of the columns of the Acropolis, they still wouldn't have the same historical character as the originals. It is this intrinsic value that makes art priceless in much the same way that a protected natural landscape or an endangered species has sacred, irreplaceable worth. Art is much more than a material possession or a luxury good.

Art has the ability to strike a chord with the buyer's sense of individual taste. Art inspires. Art transcends. Art has a wide berth for emotional investment. There aren't many people in the world that would rather have a stock certificate hanging in their living room wall than an original work by a famous artist that touches the soul of the owner in a way they cannot describe in words. It is this intrinsic personal value that makes art an invaluable investment prospect regardless of the price tag.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trying to determine the value of art is a little like opening Pandora's Box. The simple, one question route of art valuation is asking "is it sought after?" If people want your art, they'll pay big money to get it but if they