Salina Arts and Humanities Commission in Salina, Kansas used AEP III to let people know the impact of arts on their local economy

Arts advocates don’t want to talk about jobs and tax revenue.  We want to talk about the fundamental value of the arts…how they foster beauty, creativity, originality, and vitality…how they inspire us, soothe us, provoke us, involve us, and connect us.  But elected officials want to hear about how the arts and culture create jobs and contribute to the economy.

The deadline to join our fourth national economic impact study, Arts & Economic Prosperity IV, is quickly approaching.  Don’t miss this opportunity to participate in the most comprehensive study of the economic impact of the nonprofit arts and culture ever conducted.  In our Arts and Economic Prosperity III report, over 150 communities and regions participated in the studies, which continue to be among the most frequently cited statistics used to demonstrate the impact of the nation’s nonprofit arts industry on the local, state, and national economy.

The City of Seattle Office of Cultural Affairs, who participated in this most recently completed national economic impact study, provides the perfect example of what this report can provide.  The results were published in June 2007.  Here’s what happened next:

Michelle Dean

As cited in the Green Pages: Does the intense federal focus on “evidence-based” practices results in a premature dismissal or disregard for therapeutic practices that are beneficial to many populations?

Let’s face it, value placed on evidence-based practices is not just because of federal funding but a cultural bias that values scientific method, in an attempt “to prove” or “validate” what is real. The economic origins of this long-standing bias are beyond the scope of this blog but none-the-less the question remains: How does art therapy fit in this model?  Well, not so well due to its very symbolic nature.  And why should it?

Although there have been great efforts to promote and conduct evidence based treatment (EBT) and research in art therapy, it may be said that art therapy (or any therapeutic relationship for that matter) is a symbolic process, which is embedded in a relation-based therapeutic practice. So when symbols or people in a relationship are taken out of context they lose their meaning. For example, it would be like taking two people in love and removing one person in the couple and plopping them down with someone else and expecting the same amorous feelings – this is clearly absurd.  Sociologist, Durkheim discusses the advantages of being in a relationship as a reduced risk factor to suicide. However, when an art therapist is actually working with a patient, the statistical risk factor is far less important than the qualities and meaning of the relationship. And it is those relationship qualities that are so elusive to measure.  Elkins debunks the validity of empirically supported treatments, by uncovering the insidious economic gains for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. And Seife points out, in his soon to be released text, Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception, “Our society is now awash in proofiness. Using a few powerful techniques, thousands of people are crafting mathematical falsehoods to get you to swallow untruths”. Who is to say that what is being conveyed by the statistics of EBT are even measuring what they are claiming?