Culture

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The social impacts of the arts – myth or reality? 25 not). It is not a matter of course that the social benefits accruing from such cultural activities should be expected of other, more traditional ones (such as, for instance, being part of an audience). Whether sitting amongst the spectators of a theatrical performance can genuinely be a life-changing event is a contention that is much harder to evaluate! These are just some of the reasons why it is actually very hard (if not even dubious) to talk about the ‘social impacts of the arts’ as a broad group of beneficial social outcomes that can be expected of cultural participation (be it ‘active’ or ’passive’). This is probably why it is somewhat difficult to deconstruct the claims made in the current literature and come up with a realistic list of possible social impacts. A notable exception is the influential report compiled by Matarasso for the consultancy group Comedia in 1997 and entitled Use or Ornament? Here Matarasso identifies no less than fifty distinct social impacts of the arts. However, these alleged impacts are remarkably broad-ranging, if not positively vague. They range from the more plausible claims that participation in the arts can “increase people’s confidence and sense of self-worth”, “encourage adults to take up education and training opportunities” and “provide a route to rehabilitation and integration for offenders”, to decidedly fuzzier ones – such as that the arts can “give people influence over how they are seen by others”, “develop contact between the generations”, “help people extend control over their own lives”,“help community groups raise their vision beyond the immediate” or - equally obscurely - “have a positive impact on how people feel”. Arguably, not all of these impacts are susceptible to easy measurement by a realistic and feasible evaluation process. And, indeed, the assessment methodology proposed by Matarasso has been subjected to
26 <strong>Culture</strong> Vultures extensive criticism for being “flawed in its design, execution and conceptual basis”. 7 One of the more crucial problems with the proposed methodology was its lack of internal validity; the twenty-four questions that constituted the main aspect of the evaluation process did not appear to be informed by the hypothesis that the exercise aspired to verify empirically (the aforementioned fifty impacts). Furthermore, the questions were worded in an ambiguous manner that might have induced ‘social desirability biased’ answer in respondents, thus resulting in an on overstatement of the artistic activities’ impacts. 8 Other problematic aspects of the proposed evaluation process were the lack of control groups and of any before/after comparison in the assessment of participants’ emotional state and quality of life. More generally, the issue was raised about the lack of a longitudinal perspective in the analysis of what were described as life-changing experiences. 9 The five-stage proposed evaluation model could never capture long-term transformation. The five steps of the suggested evaluation method are: planning setting indicators, execution, assessment, and reporting. The report advises us that the assessment stage should take place ‘on completion of the project’, whereas the different stakeholders should all compile reports on the results of the projects ‘shortly after completion’ of the project. However, as one of Comedia’s own working papers clearly explains, long-term impacts ‘will typically take longer to emerge than outputs’, and would not therefore be taken into account by such an assessment process. 10 More importantly, Matarasso fails to establish a convincing causal link between any changes observed in the participants and their involvement in the arts activity. Obviously, such a failure strongly undermines his advocacy that “participatory arts project are different, effective and cost very little in the context of spending on social goals. They represent an insignificant financial risk to public
Page 1 and 2: Culture Vultures Is UK arts policy
Page 3 and 4: We would like to thank the City of
Page 5 and 6: First published in January 2006 by
Page 8 and 9: About the Authors Josie Appleton is
Page 10 and 11: Foreword City of London The City of
Page 12: Foreword 11 The City’s Guildhall
Page 15 and 16: 14 Culture Vultures Medici, but als
Page 17 and 18: 16 Culture Vultures our world a bet
Page 19 and 20: 18 Culture Vultures writing from th
Page 21 and 22: 1. The social impacts of the arts -
Page 23 and 24: 22 Culture Vultures Exclusion Unit
Page 25: 24 Culture Vultures more appealing
Page 29 and 30: 28 Culture Vultures no arts subject
Page 31 and 32: 30 Culture Vultures I would suggest
Page 33 and 34: 32 Culture Vultures decisions (espe
Page 35 and 36: 34 Culture Vultures current evaluat
Page 37 and 38: 36 Culture Vultures Finally, I woul
Page 39 and 40: 2. Unreliable evidence The rhetoric
Page 41 and 42: 40 Culture Vultures ment’. This m
Page 43 and 44: 42 Culture Vultures problem with th
Page 45 and 46: 44 Culture Vultures Discussing the
Page 47 and 48: 46 Culture Vultures the economist S
Page 49 and 50: 48 Culture Vultures against the pro
Page 51 and 52: 50 Culture Vultures market such an
Page 53 and 54: 52 Culture Vultures 15 Jensen J (20
Page 55 and 56: 54 Culture Vultures (Department for
Page 57 and 58: 56 Culture Vultures funded by regen
Page 59 and 60: 58 Culture Vultures is a database b
Page 61 and 62: 60 Culture Vultures piece of public
Page 63 and 64: 62 Culture Vultures a strong wind w
Page 65 and 66: 64 Culture Vultures development age
Page 67 and 68: 66 Culture Vultures But this approa
Page 69 and 70: 68 Culture Vultures streets, traffi
Page 71 and 72: 70 Culture Vultures 5 Derby Public
Page 73 and 74: 72 Culture Vultures Dick Powell tho
Page 75 and 76: 74 Culture Vultures ‘static’ an
Page 77 and 78:
76 Culture Vultures and better desi
Page 79 and 80:
78 Culture Vultures Much of the cul
Page 81 and 82:
80 Culture Vultures dynamic and uns
Page 83 and 84:
82 Culture Vultures amount to 110,
Page 85 and 86:
84 Culture Vultures cultural indust
Page 87 and 88:
86 Culture Vultures protect the com
Page 89 and 90:
88 Culture Vultures operates the De
Page 91 and 92:
90 Culture Vultures The Treasury’
Page 93 and 94:
92 Culture Vultures 20 Leadbeater,
Page 95 and 96:
94 Culture Vultures can make to inc
Page 97 and 98:
96 Culture Vultures tional only ten
Page 99 and 100:
98 Culture Vultures instance, recen
Page 101 and 102:
100 Culture Vultures can reduce str
Page 103 and 104:
102 Culture Vultures superiority of
Page 105 and 106:
104 Culture Vultures achieving an e
Page 107 and 108:
106 Culture Vultures about ourselve
Page 109 and 110:
108 Culture Vultures must remind ou
Page 111 and 112:
110 Culture Vultures 16 Ibid, p. 5.
Page 113 and 114:
112 Culture Vultures institutions s
Page 115 and 116:
114 Culture Vultures Academy of Art
Page 117 and 118:
116 Culture Vultures culture of pro
Page 119 and 120:
118 Culture Vultures due to the inc
Page 121 and 122:
120 Culture Vultures His successor,
Page 123 and 124:
122 Culture Vultures of the experie
Page 125 and 126:
124 Culture Vultures arts. There is
Page 127 and 128:
126 Culture Vultures There has been
Page 129 and 130:
128 Culture Vultures the public. An
Page 131:
Politicians and policy-makers take
show all

Culture

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?