When people who fundamentally agree purport to disagree, you have a non-debate. This was the upshot a few days ago when Maria Miller, secretary of state for culture, sensibly asked the arts sector to help her make the economic case for arts funding.
Everyone agrees the arts are not a commodity; you can’t reduce it all to money; pure instrumentalism is the enemy of creativity. Indeed, John Maynard Keynes – the economist instrumental in setting up the Arts Council – spoke of “enjoyment” and “serious and fine entertainment”. He did not refer to endogenous growth theory. So, to be clear, no one disputes that we invest in the arts to fire our imaginations, stimulate our culture and assure our quality of life. But there is an economic benefit, too.
Had Keynes been discussing what we can afford in a time of austerity, I am confident he would have pointed to the benefits of our world-class arts and culture, including the way they regenerate our communities and plant our flag on the world stage. And I am sure he would not have failed to point out that they return 0.4 per cent of UK gross domestic product on less than 0.1 per cent of government spending.