Television has helped ordinary people become more interested in the arts by exposing them to museums and art galleries. However, some argue that cultural activities are frivolous and should be divided into "hard" and "soft" indicators. This prejudiced view confirms suspicions that rigorous evaluation approaches see cultural activities as essentially trivial. In reality, defining and evaluating art is complex. Both public health and the arts can promote well-being, though engaging the arts sector in health commissioning faces challenges from overly hierarchical and technical decision-making processes.

3. US AND THEM?
Quote from 1993, TV Arts:
“Television has been responsible for more
people visiting museums and art galleries
and becoming interested in the Arts than
anything else…….ordinary people usually
don’t relate to the Arts”.

4. MATARASSO, 1996
“.....this confirms the suspicions of
those who, seduced by their own
supposed rigorous approach to
evaluation, argue that cultural
activity is essentially frivolous.

5. MATARASSO CONTINUES…….
………The undisguised
machismo which divides
indicators into ‘hard’ and
‘soft’ finds its prejudices
confirmed by these
arguments

6. BELIEVE

7. HOW DO WE DEFINE ART?
“Public health is the science
and art of preventing
disease, prolonging life and
promoting health”

8. AND TODAY?
• Imagine this-a group of arts people sitting in meetings with The
Commissioners………
• Top down, opaque, disempowering, master-servant relationship
• If only they could understand us
• Good ideas are not an artefact of hierarchy
• So much jargon-so many acronyms
• I just don’t get it that arts can influence commissioning