Your piece on the Policy Studies Institute (ArtsProfessional issue 7, July 30) goes over old ground.
There is a limit to what language can achieve. You cannot calculate certain types of proposition. You cannot prove theories to people who don't think. You cannot formally value the arts and to refuse to do so is neither self-indulgent nor defensive: it is because of what artistic activity entails. Anyone who demands more than what can be reasonably achieved in words is either stupid or being devious.
Why don?t we turn the arguments around and use the styles of consideration which are operative in the cultural field. Could we, for instance, ask how interesting and exciting the Policy Studies Institute really is? Could we insist on knowing exactly how memorable and moving the conclusions of its report are? Might we enquire as to how beautiful or finely-crafted the budget for this work was? I think not...
Let us not forget that economics is not an exact process and the value of interventions in all sectors is hotly debated. Nobody has a finite answer for every complex socio-economic question about defining relationships - I?m very pleased to say. I?d rather look at a (subsidised) exhibition catalogue or a collection of good poetry than this ?damning indictment of the quality of government statistics about the impact and value of cultural activity?. Who should be taking tablets - me or Sara Selwood?