aceUVi

Knell and Taylor
Due to the widespread perception around the turn
of the millennium that instrumental arguments
had come to an undeserved level of prominence
in the formal assessment of cultural work (White
and Hede 2008, 22-23; RAND 2004, 67-69; Holden
J Knell and M Taylor, 2011, Arts Funding,
Austerity and the Big Society, Royal Society of
Arts (RSA).
2004, 17-21) considerable effort has been invested in exploring the intrinsic and
cultural benefits/values in order to rebalance the scale (or tip it the other way).
Like many others, John Knell and Matthew Taylor are dissatisfied with the debate
over intrinsic and instrumental justifications for the arts; however, they take a
different approach towards resolving the problem.
They argue that all art serves the purpose of providing value and benefits to
those who experience it, so that all arguments in favour of the arts are in fact instrumental
arguments 4 . They even go so far as to state, ‘the traditional intrinsic
argument for the arts – the so-called arts for arts sake plea – is a form of instrumentalism’
(25). Rather than claiming some form of abstract intrinsic value, they
propose ‘making a robust instrumental case for arts funding but in terms that
recognise what is different and special about artistic participation and appreciation’
(8). To do so they envision ‘a spectrum that spans artistic instrumentalism
and public good instrumentalism’ (18).
While the rhetorical strategy is different, this position is in fact not so dissimilar
from Brown’s. For Brown, everything from the first imprint to the most remote
influence on social and economic outcomes is considered a benefit, and to the
extent that the arts serve the purpose of creating these benefits, it is easy to apply
Knell and Taylor’s language of instrumentalism to this model.
As part of their call for a new instrumentalism, Knell and Taylor note the
endeavour will require ‘a commitment to measure artistic (intrinsic) value more
effectively’ (19), though they do not specify how that might be achieved. The
authors voice a strong critique of arts advocates who have argued that intrinsic
benefits are a necessary precondition for instrumental benefits that accrue downstream:
Central to the sector’s advocacy case for funding has been the argument that
the scale of instrumental benefits depends wholly on the scale of the intrinsic
benefits of the arts. …
These arguments are neat and elegant but patently untrue (13)
4 A similar argument is advanced by Kees Vuyk (2010).
Framing the Conversation 53
UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences