Why do we value art? For Hegel, its value was as an expression of truth, beauty and the sensuousness of the human spirit. But any aesthetic definition, based on a conception of artistic excellence, raises the further question of what artistic excellence is. Is it possible to apply more objective measures of value to the arts? This is a pressing question at a time when the arts face potentially severe budget cuts. More instrumentalist approaches try to define the value of the arts in terms of their ability to deliver real world outcomes like making you happier, healthier or a better citizen. There are many problems with this, however, including the fact that art can make you sad as well as happy (or leave you cold for that matter), and that more direct methods such as a better diet may be much more successful in achieving the desired outcomes.

Recently, the RSA has endorsed efforts to evaluate the intrinsic value of the arts more effectively, with reference to ‘the public’s experience of culture and what they value’. But does this assume too much knowledge on the part of the public? Are we to vote on what is more or less valuable? And is there no place for the critical judgement of experts? Nonetheless, the DCMS also favours the use of ‘stated preference techniques’ to assess the economic value of the arts. This is done by asking people what they would be prepared to pay if these were market goods: eg, what would you be willing to pay if the free museum were not free? But are measures such as these not only hypothetical but themselves irredeemably subjective? And should we close down concert halls if it turns out people much prefer football?

Can science come to the rescue? Maybe we can find the value of the arts in terms of effects on the brain? If Mozart is better at lighting up more areas of the brain than Dire Straits then can we rate The Marriage of Figaro as more valuable? Neuroaesthetics researchers at University College London recently tested the effects of great paintings on human guinea pigs, and found the artworks the subjects considered most beautiful increased blood flow in a certain part of the brain by as much as 10 per cent, the same effect found when we gaze at a loved one. So maybe Darwin has the answer, and we evolved the arts in order to form social bonds and increase our chances of survival? Or maybe Allan Bloom was on the right lines when he said rock music did nothing more than pander to barbaric sexual desire: maybe we only value the arts because we have a (pretty base) instinct for them? Or is applying science to art like mixing oil and water? Can we measure the value of the arts, or should we not even try?