Page 1

Wallace Foundation Telephone Press Conference

To release RAND Arts Study: Gifts of the Muse
Moderator: Phil Sparks
February 15, 2005
1:00 p.m. EST

Operator: Good day everyone, and welcome to the Wallace Foundation audio conference. Today's

conference is being recorded.

At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Phil Sparks. Mr. Sparks, please go

ahead.

Phil Sparks: Thank you very much, Operator. Good day. My name is Phil Sparks and on behalf of the

Wallace Foundation and the RAND Corporation, I want to welcome you to today's audio news

briefing.

Today, we're releasing a RAND Corporation report commissioned by the Wallace Foundation that

examines the benefits of the arts. In addition, we are releasing the results of a national opinion

survey on arts benefits that was also commissioned by the Foundation. We'll have three opening

statements and then we'll go to questions-and-answers.

Let me also remind you that the executive summary of the RAND report, the whole report itself,

background materials and both a summary and top-line results of the National Opinion Survey,
 Page 2

are available at the Foundation Web site which is www.wallacefoundation -- all one word -- .org

… www.wallacefoundation.org.

Now, let's begin the opening statements with remarks by Christine DeVita. She is the President

of the Wallace Foundation -- Christine.

Christine DeVita: Thank you, Phil, and good afternoon to all of you who've joined us this afternoon to

hear about a new RAND study by Kevin McCarthy entitled "Gifts of the Muse,” reframing the

debate about the benefits of the arts.

We believe this study has important implications for how we can strengthen our country's cultural

life. The Wallace Foundation commissioned this work because after a decade of working with

arts organizations, community foundations, and state arts agencies to find effective ways to build

arts participation, we heard from policymakers and arts administrators that they needed help in

answering three very fundamental questions:

First, why is it important to build participation in the arts; second, exactly what kinds of benefits

does arts participation generate for individuals and for communities; and finally, just how are

those benefits generated. The study, which is the first comprehensive synthesis of what is known

about the benefits of the arts, has strong implications for what we need to focus on if we are to

strengthen this nation's cultural life. From the Foundation's point of view, some of those

implications include the need to focus greater attention on early and sustained engagement in the

arts for children, and secondly, the need for arts organizations to focus on building participation

by reaching out to new audiences with engaging and rewarding arts experiences.

From our perspective, "Gifts of the Muse" makes it clear why expanding participation in the arts

matters for individuals, for communities, and for arts organizations, and why encouraging more

Americans, particularly children, to engage with the arts is so vital to the strength of our
 Page 3

knowledge economy and the health of our pluralistic society. And the American public

understands this as well.

As you'll hear from John Russonello, who conducted a national survey for the Foundation, the

public values the arts primarily for the benefits they provide to children, adults, and their

communities. This gives us hope that the study's findings will resonate with arts policymakers

and administrators, with civic leaders, educators, and parents.

Phil Sparks: Thank you, Christine. And now let's hear from Kevin McCarthy. He's the author of the

RAND report -- Kevin.

Kevin McCarthy: Thank you very much. As Chris said, this is the most comprehensive study of the

benefits of the arts that has ever been conducted. The bottom line says that arguments which

focus exclusively on the instrumental benefits are misplaced; the benefits of the arts are derived

from sustained involvement with the arts which is driven by pleasure fulfillment. That is the

intrinsic benefit of the arts experience. In essence, the instrumental argument puts the cart

before the horse.

Now we believe the major reason for this instrumental focus is a mistaken assumption about how

the arts produce value. The instrumental approach essentially assumes that the intrinsic benefits

of arts are a purely private value but this assumption ignores the fact that the benefits -- both the

intrinsic and the instrumental -- fall into three categories; those which are purely personal or

private, those which are personal but have public spillover effects, and those which actually occur

at the public community level.

Now the key to realizing these benefits is sustained involvement in the arts and sustained

involvement, in turn, is driven by the level of mental and social engagement which people derive

from their arts experience. I think there are two principal ways that we can focus on developing
 Page 4

that level of engagement. One is early exposure to the arts, both in the schools, and in the home,

and in communities. Getting kids when they're young is a critical part of the process. But second

arts organizations need to provide rewarding arts experiences to the audiences that come to

them. Now, we don't have all the answers as to how to do this but we have some basic ideas.

Finally, let me just briefly talk about the policy implications. Currently, most of the focus of arts

policy is on augmenting the supply of the arts, essentially on the notion that, “If we build it, they

will come.” We think much more emphasis needs to be placed on building demand, getting

people to want to come in the first place. A particularly fruitful way of doing that is ensuring that

children have rewarding early experiences with the arts. Getting kids involved at a young age

pays lifelong dividends. We need to make arts education the fourth R. Schools need to look at

improving student interests and understanding of the arts in the same way they look at improving

reading scores. We can't afford arts illiteracy.

Phil Sparks: Thank you very much, Kevin. And finally, we'll have a statement from John Russonello.

He's with the polling firm of Beldon, Russonello & Stewart. John is going to update us on some

findings of the National Opinion Survey, but as I said, you can find on the Wallace Foundation

Web site -- John.

John Russonello: Thank you. We conducted a national survey of 1,200 adults nationwide and we really

wanted to know the answers to some very basic questions -- why does the public participate in

the arts, what personal rewards do Americans reap from taking part in artistic activities, and what

are the community benefits that flow from arts participation -- our conclusions were very much

along the lines of the RAND study. We found that personal enrichment is the key motivation for

people who are supportive of the arts and people who participate in the arts a great deal.

Personal rewards were the main thing that was driving attitudes. 70 percent of Americans say

they strongly agree that arts and cultural activities help to spark their imagination. That was
 Page 5

higher than any other value that we tested in the study. The Arts makes you feel good. These

are some of the findings that suggest that personal enrichment from the Arts is very, very

important to Americans.

It's more a matter of the arts making you feel good than the arts being good for you. Even though

they may be good for you, people want to experience the Arts because of how the Arts make

them feel. The community benefits are definitely a part of this. We had more than six in 10

Americans telling us that the arts provide a number of community benefits, including making their

communities more attractive and giving them pride in their communities.

And the other finding is very much in line with what the RAND study found is that people value

early arts engagement very much. A testament to that is that 70 percent of the public wants more

arts education in schools. We asked about a series of things and whether they want more, less

or about the same amount of each. 70 percent said they want more art and music education in

local schools. That was the highest number of any of the nine or ten things that we tested in the

survey.

And one last thing I want to talk about is in line with this is early exposure. Kevin talked the

importance of early exposure from his study. From a public opinion perspective, early exposure

was the most decisive influence in the poll about whether or not an adult was going to participate

in a number of artistic activities and whether or not they would support the arts at a local level.

Whether or not a person frequently experienced the arts at home as a child or in school as a child

predicted adult involvement. 75 percent of respondents reported enjoying artistic activities as

adults that they did as children. So getting to people early seems to be the most important thing

from our national opinion study.

 Page 6

Phil Sparks: Thank you very much, John. Now, Operator, please give the calling participants the

instructions on how to answer questions and we'll go to the question-and-answer period --

Operator.

Operator: Certainly. The question-and-answer session will be conducted electronically. If anyone in your

phone audience does have a question, please signal by pressing star one on your touch-tone

telephone at this time. If you're on a speakerphone, please make sure your mute function has

been turned off to allow your signal to reach our equipment. Once again, that is star one to ask a

question and we'll pause for just a moment to assemble the queue.

Phil Sparks: OK. And Operator, while we're doing that, as people ask their questions, I would ask that

you identify yourself and your news organization. If there is a particular one of our opening

speakers that you would like to direct the question to, please indicate that otherwise. In my job as

the Moderator I'll move the questions around.

And let me remind you also once again that the executive summary, the report itself, and the

polling data are all available on the Wallace Web site at www.wallacefoundation -- all one word

-- .org.

Operator, first question, please.

Operator: Our first question will come from Michael Boehm with Los Angeles Times.

Michael Boehm: Hi. It's Mike Boehm, Los Angeles Times. My question is this and I'd open it to Kevin

McCarthy and to Christine DeVita.

 Page 7

Are you concerned that your findings may divide the arts advocacy community in a way that could

at least at first hamper efforts to get funding and to unite advocates on a course of action in

achieving the overall goals that you're seeking?

Phil Sparks: We'll start with Kevin in response to that.

Kevin McCarthy: Well, I think there are some communities or some quarters within the arts community

who will focus on our emphasis on demand rather than supply and ask how is that going to affect

them in terms of funding, but I would remind them that in terms of funding for the arts, particularly

at the federal government level, the funding stream that comes from the deductibility of income

tax is orders of magnitudes greater than the direct funding. And I think the question shouldn't be

so much how much funding they get but what's the most effective use of the funds that they do

get. And what we're arguing is that, in the long term, this is a better way to go.

Phil Sparks: OK. Operator, our next question, please.

Operator: Next, we'll move to Elizabeth Blair with NPR.

Elizabeth Blair: Yes, hi. This is for Kevin or anyone else who wants to answer it. What policy changes

would you like to see in order to make arts education the fourth R?

Kevin McCarthy: Well, I think one of the key issues here is the No-Child-Left-Behind Act which essentially

stresses certain subjects because it proposes tests in those subjects so that schools teach to the

test. There are and there have been efforts to develop general standards for arts education but

they're not included in any of those tests. So without being tested on them, they're not the focus

of the schools who are trying to show what they're accomplishing in these other areas. I think

that's a mistake. I think we need to make the arts just as important as these other subjects.
 Page 8

Phil Sparks: And Elizabeth, I think Christine wants to add something, too.

Christine DeVita: Thanks, Elizabeth, and while what Kevin says is absolutely correct, there is a provision

of the No-Child-Left-Behind Act that focuses on arts education, although it hasn't been a subject

of testing. But the importance of arts education I think is becoming increasingly apparent in

schools across the country. It will be the platform of the incoming chair of the education

commission for the states, Governor Mike Huckabee.

I think the study also reinforces the importance of arts education in schools primarily because it

finds that what arts do for children is teach them how to learn. So, in fact, it is a benefit for

learning in all subjects, a kind of foundation point.

Phil Sparks: Thank you.

Bill Wyman: Can I ask a follow-up? This is Bill Wyman at NPR.

Phil Sparks: Sure.

Bill Wyman: What's you guys’ perception of the NEA's position on arts education? It seems to me that

they used to stress that a lot more than they do today. Have you had any engagements with

Dana Gioia on these issues?

Kevin McCarthy: Well, we have, in fact, briefed Chairman Gioia as well as his staff on the study and they

were generally quite supportive of this study. He has already started to shift the focus towards

this building demand rather than simply providing for more supply. I haven't talked to him

specifically about his arts education platform but he is totally supportive of our findings overall.
 Page 9

Christine DeVita: I think also that arts education is a focus of the NEA's program on Shakespeare today

and I know it's a focus of their work in jazz. Arts education is also a large part of what a lot of the

state arts agencies around the country also support.

Phil Sparks: Good. Operator, we'll go to the next question, please.

Operator: Before that, I would like to remind the audience to please press star one again if you do have a

question.

Phil Sparks: And let me remind people once again, if you're looking for more information,

www.wallacefoundation.org. That's where everything is.

Another question, if we have one, Operator.

Operation: We'll take a question from Carolyn Jack with The Plain Dealer.

Carolyn Jack: Hi. I suppose I’d best direct this to Mr. McCarthy.

I notice -- I'm concerned in this study to note what seems to be sort of a false distinction between

intrinsic and instrumental results from the arts and I would make the argument perhaps that

anything that results in well-developed, intelligent people is of benefit to society, whether the

immediate effect is to please a person or to actually instruct him, or create a commercial use for

the arts.

The focus of the question, though, is given that this distinction may not exist, but even if it does,

does focusing on the intrinsic benefits of the arts and teaching appreciation for the arts essentially

take the wind out of the sails of the economic development movement that has been helping to

bolster the arts in many communities?

 Page 10

Kevin McCarthy: Well, no I don't but let me speak first to why I think the distinction between intrinsic and

instrumental is important. I guess the way to start doing that is to define what I mean by

instrumental and what I mean by intrinsic.

If we take Shakespeare, for example, reading Shakespeare provides you insight into the human

condition. That's an intrinsic benefit that is inherent in the nature of the experience itself. At the

same time, however, you may get better grades because you've read Shakespeare. That's the

instrumental benefit.

Now, that's the distinction. Why is that distinction important? Because intrinsic benefits are

rooted in the experience, per se', and cannot be separated from the experience. But instrumental

benefits by their very nature are a byproduct which can be achieved in other ways. And if, in fact,

they can be achieved in other ways, there’s criticism of this approach as people say “Why are the

arts the most effective way of getting them; can't we get those same benefits more cost effectively

in some other way.” That's a critical issue that's been raised by the critics of the instrumental

benefits' approach.

Now, do they both produce benefits? Yes they do but how big are those benefits and what kinds

of arts experiences produce them that's a whole other issue. As to whether it takes the wind out

of the sails of the economic focus, I think what it says is that the supporters of the arts ought to be

careful about what claims they make because lots of people, both in the economic community

and outside, have criticized certain elements of the economic argument and say those effects are

no bigger than what you would get, for example, from building a freeway or a train station or an

athletic stadium. That's why those distinctions are important.

Phil Sparks: Carolyn, does that help you out?

 Page 11

Carolyn Jack: Well, I suppose we could pursue this into a pretty deeper realm here. I still would want to

make one note here which is that you can say that reading Shakespeare gives you insight to the

human experience, that leads to you being a better developed human, therefore, of more worth to

society, able to work with other people better, and function the community better, it all seems to

me to be of a piece.

Whether that really affects the outcome of the study or not, I'm not sure. I am concerned about

the results that are recommended. If you recommend increasing people's appreciation for the

arts, that seems to be something that the arts community's been operating on for many, many

years at this point. What new would you offer the arts community in terms of what they ought to

do about this?

Kevin McCarthy: Let me go back a step because you talked about the increased insight into the human

condition and how that changes people and makes them more productive citizens.

In the study and in my introductory remarks, I talked about the kind of ways that the arts can

produce value both in instrumental and intrinsic ways. One has to do with the private effects; the

second has to do with the private effects that have public spillover and do things like make you

more appreciative and more empathic about differences as well as learning how to learn. And

then finally, the public level effects, which include both the economic and bringing communities

together.

So to make this distinction and recognize the variety of ways in which the arts can create value

doesn't deny the importance of the distinctions there. They all benefit society in some ways, or at

least those that have public spillover and public benefits. I think it's important to recognize how

this process occurs because if you don't recognize that, you tend to make arguments which can

be easily rebutted and then undercut your basic position.

 Page 12

Phil Sparks: Thank you very much, Carolyn, and Kevin. Operator, next question, please.

Operator: Our next question will come from Kenneth LaFave with Arizona Republic.

Kenneth LaFave: Hi. This question is for anyone there, really.

Increasing demand for the arts on the part of future generations by giving them quality arts

education now makes a great deal of good sense but how can we create increased demand for

the arts on the part of adult populations who have been deprived of that arts education?

Phil Sparks: We'll start that one with Kevin.

Kevin McCarthy: Well, you raise a good question and in earlier work that we've done, we've talked about

three different groups of arts participants: those who've had very little experience and are

disinclined to participate; those who are occasional participants; and those who are frequent

participants. And there are different problems about reaching each group. For those who are

already participating, if you want them to go more often, you have to make the experience as

pleasant and rewarding as possible. For those who are occasional participants, you have to

make it attractive, both in terms of convenient scheduling and pricing as well as in terms of their

interest. The biggest problem is clearly with those who are disinclined and there your task is

really to get them to change their mind about the arts.

Now, one of the ways that typically happens in society is that friends bring people along. There's

a large social component particularly among this group, the disinclined or the occasional

participants. But when they're there it's incumbent upon the organization to, A, have programming

that they're interested in and that they find absorbing, and B, to try and make the experience

pleasant and give them more knowledge – to give them a reason to come back.
 Page 13

Now, this is not really the time to talk in great detail about how to do that but we have some ideas

on the process. But you have hit the nail on the head in terms of the importance of getting those

people who haven't had prior experience which, of course, underlines why it's important to get

that prior experience and to start early.

Phil Sparks: And, Kenneth, I think Christine wants to add something here, too.

Christine DeVita: Thank you for the question, which I think is really an excellent one, and Kevin's

explanation is a great synthesis of another study that he did for The Wallace Foundation which is

a framework for understanding participation. And I guess what I would only add is to say that

while I think this is difficult for arts organizations to do, I can tell you that there are a number of

organizations around the country that we have been working with over the past decade who are

toiling in this vineyard, and while difficult, they are really developing effective ways to expand

participation. It requires careful strategies but places like the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston or

the Chicago Symphony and a number of other places around the country are really having

success at trying to expand participation for a variety of different audiences. It's difficult and it

really requires new kinds of strategies and new ways of thinking.

Phil Sparks: Operator -- yes, thank you, Kevin -- Operator, next question, please.

Operator: I would like to make a final reminder for the audience to please press star one to ask a

question. And it looks like we have a follow-up from Elizabeth Blair with NPR.

Phil Sparks: OK, that's fine -- Elizabeth.

Bill Wyman: Hey. Hi. It's Bill Wyman again, actually.

Phil Sparks: OK, Bill.

 Page 14

Bill Wyman: What's your analysis of the Richard Florida book? Has that had a good net effect in helping

some of these groups think in some of the ways you discuss? Or is the net effect you think that

that's a wrong road people have been going down?

Phil Sparks: We'll start with Kevin on that one.

Kevin McCarthy: Well, I think he makes some interesting points but I'm not sure I totally agree with the

causal chain that he identifies there. But you're not asking whether or not I agree with his logic;

you're asking for what's the net effect of the book on the arts community and that's really a

different issue.

I think -- and I think you can judge this by looking at the way they've grasped the book -- they

have really taken to this. But I think this is, in part, a reflection of the difficulty the arts community

has trying to make instrumental arguments to the funding and support community. To the extent

it helps them do this, I mean, I'm all for it but I would be cautious about arguments like Florida's.

Bill Wyman: Thank you.

Phil Sparks: Operator please go around one more time to see if anybody has any final questions before

we sign off.

Operator: Great. I would like to give the audience one more chance to ask a question. Again, that is

star one. It looks like we have a question from Maria Puente with USA Today.

Phil Sparks: OK, sure.

 Page 15

Maria Puente: This is for anybody who's there. Has there ever been a time in US history when the arts

were the fourth R of public education? And if so, are there any lessons that can be learned from

those past times or has the US culture just changed too dramatically?

Phil Sparks: Kevin, why don't you start this one?

Kevin McCarthy: I don't pretend to be a historian but yes, I think, in fact, there was value placed on a

classical education. It may have been much more limited in terms of the range of people who

had access to it but it very clearly stressed education in the arts. And, in fact, in a liberal arts

college education, at least when I went to school 30 or 40 years ago, arts was certainly part of the

curriculum. Now, that's not exactly the same level that we're talking about, but yes, I think it was.

But it's a good question and I quite clearly haven't thought carefully enough to give you an

intelligent answer about what lessons I would draw from that time to today.

Phil Sparks: Chris, do you want to respond?

Christine DeVita: Again, I'm not a historian but I do believe that some of the fathers of public education --

people like Dewey -- believed that part of being educated meant being educated in the arts as

well as in other subjects and I think some of us of a certain generation had the benefit of that

thinking. The pendulum has swung a little bit the other way in the intervening years.

Phil Sparks: Operator, any additional questions?

Operator: We have one additional question from Carolyn Jack with Plain Dealer.

Carolyn Jack: Hi. Thanks for taking a second question.

 Page 16

Economic development, that argument of Richard Florida's, has been sweeping the nation. Also,

there's been a lot of research coming out lately that defines a correlation between involvement in

the arts and improved academic performance, whether it's testing or some other sort. Those

things provide hard numbers to elected officials so that they can see a quantifiable result from

arts education. With your survey, which recommends being careful about obviously using those

quantifiable results, where does this leave people in the arts community? What can they do with

your information from the survey? How are they to proceed with this?

Kevin McCarthy: Well, this isn't a survey in the same sense that John's survey was a survey; this is a

survey of the literature and review of an enormous amount of material.

I think, for example, you talked about the cognitive effects and you spoke about them being

quantitative. Well, there are a whole range of those kinds of effects from the so-called Mozart

effect that if you play certain kinds of classical music for 15 minutes before you take a spatial IQ

test that it affects your score about five or six percent. Those are quantitative results but they're

not substantively significant and they're not meaningful in the long term. In fact, most of the

studies of the education effect talk about an effect on learning how to learn, learning the process

rather than the direct transfer of reading skills or math skills, et cetera. Those effects are real but

they're not quantifiable in quite the same sense that you're suggesting.

Now, what I'm saying here is not that the instrumental effects aren't necessarily true. I think the

claims have sometimes been overdrawn. I think, in fact, there are important instrumental benefits

but if we're going to make the claim of support for the arts on this basis, we ought to know clearly

which effects we believe, which we don't, what causes them, what don't, and whether there's a

self-selectivity problem involved.

Remember that there are clear effects on test scores, for example, SAT scores, from arts

education but it also turns out that the people who have arts education also come from the higher
 Page 17

social economic groups and they would have higher scores to begin with. Sorting through all of

these things is absolutely essential. Not so much to persuade the friends of the arts. You don't

need to persuade them. They already believe. But to persuade the critics, you better have your

facts straight.

Phil Sparks: I'm going to ask our pollster, John Russonello, to jump in here, too. He's been listening to

the questions to see whether the learnings from the National Opinion Poll relate to any of the

questions that have just been asked by the various media -- John.

John Russonello: Yes, I was going to make just one point to wrap up.

On the last question, what would make public officials who are in charge of school budgets and

want to put more resources in to arts education? Kevin just gave you a very intelligent policy

answer. I'll give you a (crass) public opinion answer.

It's because the public really wants the Arts. They want Arts Education. That's one of the

reasons why policymakers might want to invest in the Arts. The poll says very clearly, 70 percent

of Americans want more art and music education in schools. That's the highest number of

anything we tested. 59 percent say that the arts and cultural activities helps children do better in

schools. We gave people three choices about the most important reason to have arts and

cultural activities available in your community. Americans answered: It helps us understand other

cultures and ideas in our community, 23 percent; to provide personal enjoyment (or) enrichment,

25 percent; to help children become well-rounded individuals, 50 percent.

So the overriding reason why the people want to have arts and cultural activities and we do a lot

of research in this area for a number of clients and we do a lot of focus groups on education and

the first thing that comes up in our discussions with people is that they want more art and music
 Page 18

education in their schools. It comes up every place we go no matter what part of the country we

go to. So, regardless of the policy issues, the public is very much in favor of more arts education.

Phil Sparks: Operator, any last questions before we sign off?

Operator: Not at this time but we can give the audience an opportunity to signal...

Phil Sparks: OK...

Operator: if you'd like.

Phil Sparks: Yes, one more pause and then we'll see if anybody wants a final question and then we'll go.

Again, www.wallacefoundation.org, you can find all the materials. Anything else, Operator?

Operator: Not at this time.

Phil Sparks: OK. On behalf of my colleagues here at the Wallace Foundation, the RAND Corporation,

and Beldon, Russonello & Stewart, I want to thank you all for joining us today. Actually, an

electronic transcript of this dialog with the media will be available within a couple of days on the

Wallace site if you need further information and we will let you know electronically when that's

going up and where you can reach it on the site. But thank you for joining us today, and if you

have any additional questions, you can find that information on contacts at the Wallace site also.

Thank you very much.

Operator: That does conclude today's conference. We thank you for your participation and have a great

day.

END
Page 19