aceUVi

dividing the overall value into constituent components. For instance, Holden
(2006) differentiates between intrinsic, instrumental and institutional values;
McCarthy et al (2004) distinguish between instrumental and intrinsic benefits on
the one hand, and between private and public benefits on the other; and Brown
(2006) identifies five clusters of benefits. These attempts to analyse the value and
impacts of cultural experiences (ie, separate them into their constituent elements)
have been criticised for artificially drawing boundaries between types of value and
impact that are integrally intertwined, and thereby diminishing the appreciation
of the whole. There is indeed a longstanding debate about whether the attributes
of cultural objects can be split up or whether they are only to be understood as a
whole (Bourgeon-Renault 2000, 12).
The vocabulary used to describe components and aspects of value and impact
in the various frameworks reviewed here can be rather confusing as usage varies
from one author to the next. While there is no consensus on specific definitions
and the meanings of some terms are disputed in the literature, the following
overview presents common interpretations of some key terms:
The term ‘benefits’ is used by some authors to refer to a wide range of positive
outcomes that are associated with arts and culture (McCarthy et al 2004, Brown
2006, Knell and Taylor 2011). It can be applied to individuals and communities, to
internal (cognitive, emotional) processes and tangible outcomes such as monetary
gains.
‘Impact’ implies that something changes as a result of a cultural experience, at
least temporarily (Brown 2006, Selwood 2010). Some authors construe these
changes as an inherent part of the experience of culture, while others consider
‘impacts’ to be external outcomes. Unlike ‘benefits’, impacts can be either positive
or negative.
The term ‘intrinsic’ is used in several phrases such as ‘intrinsic value’, ‘intrinsic
impacts’ (Bakhshi and Throsby 2010), ‘intrinsic benefits’ (McCarthy et al 2004)
and ‘intrinsic arguments for the arts’ (Knell and Taylor 2011). The term itself is
accorded different meanings by different authors and seems to be of questionable
use at this point in the discourse, especially given its association with the inconclusive
debates over ‘intrinsic’ and ‘instrumental’ arguments for arts and culture
(ie, art for art’s sake versus art as an instrument of achieving some other end).
‘Value’ carries many different meanings on its own and in combination with
other terms. All of the authors considered here agree that ‘value’ is not inherent in
objects or events, but is attributed to them by the beholder. In relation to arts and
Executive Summary 9
UNDERSTANDING the value and impacts of cultural experiences