Study prompts debate on funding of the arts

People promoting the arts would be better off emphasizing the aesthetic value rather than any financial impacts, according to a new study.

After wading through stacks of studies used to drum up arts funding, Rand Corp. researchers say flawed methodology and overgeneralization hamper much of the research used to argue the economic and educational benefits of the arts.

Besides, contends the report, “Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate About the Benefits of the Arts,” focusing on the most quantifiable benefits doesn’t address the biggest long-term challenge facing arts organizations: cultivating an arts-savvy public that wants what museums and performing groups offer.

To that end, Rand proposes that arts advocates become less fixated on what the arts can do for business growth and kids’ math and reading scores, and stress intangibles such as enchantment, enlightenment and community-building.

“People get involved because they think the arts are fulfilling; they don’t do it to get better grades and increase their income,” said Kevin F. McCarthy, a Rand sociologist and the report’s lead author. “But the arts community is afraid to talk about this because they think it won’t convince the skeptics.”

Some arts advocates are miffed that the Rand report, commissioned by the Wallace Foundation, a cultural and educational advocacy group, casts doubt on economic studies that have been proven lobbying tools.

“It’s confusing. I’m not exactly sure what the motivation is for this,” said Robert Lynch, president of Americans for the Arts, a service organization for the nation’s municipal arts agencies.

His organization’s 2002 study, “Arts & Economic Prosperity,” calculated that the nonprofit arts sector injected $134 billion a year into the national economy and spawned nearly 5 million jobs.

Ultimately, the Rand report argues, the arts won’t flourish unless more arts lovers are minted through sustained exposure during childhood.

That means shifting some “attention and resources” away from the “supply side” – the creation of performances and exhibitions – and more toward the “demand side,” the grass-roots cultivation of youngsters and their parents through public schools and community arts programs.

Without citing individual economic studies, the Rand authors criticize what they see as common flaws in methodology – notably a failure to compare the effect of arts spending with that of other possible uses of the money.

Rand also contends that research suggesting that arts instruction in schools has a spillover effect in other subject areas has not been specific enough to be persuasive.

Randy Cohen, vice president of research for Americans for the Arts, said the Rand criticism “makes for excellent debate” but misses the point.

“We’re not doing these studies to show that the arts are bigger than oil,” he said. “We’re doing it to show that funding for the arts is not a black hole, that it does have a return in the form of jobs and government (tax) revenues.”

Sandra Gibson, president of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters, said the Rand study could open a fruitful new line of persuasion for arts advocates, if it sparks more research.

“Anecdotally we can demonstrate lives changed,” Gibson said. “I think this is an attempt to use social science to make the case. I think this is a beginning.”

Along with the Rand report, the Wallace Foundation released a national survey of 1,200 adults that showed 36 percent regarded funding the arts in their communities as “very important” and 45 percent viewed arts funding as “somewhat important,” while 70 percent supported increasing arts education.