Some students at Miami University did something last month I have been watching to see for a long time. They made an argument for the value of art to a governmental entity without using economic impact as a measure and apparently convinced the city council of Oxford, OH to take action.
According to Angela Meleca the student made an argument on the basis of well-being, belonging, and social connection after conducting a survey of 177 residents “five civic outcome categories: well-being, belonging, social connection, personal relevance, and perspective shift.”
The conversation didn’t move to whether the arts have value. It moved to: where should this go, how do we expand it, how do we integrate this into our planning process?
That is the shift. When you bring outcome data into the right room, the arts stop being defended and start being deployed.
[…]
Here’s what the data made possible that advocacy alone never could: Public art stopped being described as a cultural amenity. It started being described as infrastructure.
In a separate post about a week later, Meleca said framing public art in the lens of the five civic outcomes is what shifted the perception from “nice to have” toward “must have.”
For decades, public art has been evaluated through output metrics: attendance figures, number of installations, and economic activity. Those measures keep public art classified as a cultural amenity rather than civic infrastructure.
The Oxford project used a different measurement framework.
Rather than counting outputs, it measured civic outcomes across five categories that decision-makers already use to justify public investment: well-being, belonging, social connection, personal relevance, and perspective shift.
For over a decade now I have been arguing that economic impact and attendance aren’t a valid measure of the value of arts and culture. Just as Ruth Hartt notes that demographic data about your visitors doesn’t tell you about why people are participating and what they seek from an experience, economic impact doesn’t tell you how enjoyable the experience was and where the friction points might have been.
Billions are spent on construction new stadiums based on the projected economic impact. But does any of that tell you about a sense of well-being and social connection being engendered in your community? You might as well try to measure the value of a baseball game by the number of hot dogs sold.
I have been to some minor league baseball games in really small stadiums that may have cost $1 million to build, but maybe not. People are able to chat and mingle with others throughout the town and region. They feel comfortable letting their kids run around or hang out with other kids in the area foul balls are known to go.
It is much easier to lean over the railing to get something signed by the players. The fact you can get an all you can eat pass for popcorn and hot dogs for the season is part of the experience, but it isn’t the measure of value of the experience.
A minor league team logo on clothing might not have as broad a geographical cachet as the majors, but the presence of those stadiums and the experience they provide have a lot of value to the communities in which they are located for reasons other than economic impact.


Yes, we have been undergoing a review of websites to make sure there are good contrasting colors for people. Since…