The conference was very interesting and as you can see from the link many papers were on the use and value of arts in medicine. I found particularly compelling this discussion mainly because it focused on what can "art" can do, as opposed to what art is. "Art", and doing art to be more specific, is often taken (and given) has possessing universal value, without questioning the why, which at some extent I can understand and agree with. What I find more interesting though is how medical language of "healing" and the scientific need for "evidence based research" is ubiquitous in the rhetoric of the use of art in a medical setting, as opposed to using a language that has more in common with "inspiration" and "creativity" to break the dryness of the scientific ethos of "if it is not useful it should not be there".
Of course the argument is complex, but for example I greatly value the word "crafting" and opposed to "doing art", which is much harder to define. I have always been a supporter of the "arts and craft" movement and not very fond of the concept of "fine arts" as an untouchable, sublime and cryptic endeavour. After all, crafting is more socialist than doing fine arts.
This is not only because "doing art" is hard to define while "crafting" relatively easier, but because one is associated more with elites and Knowledge (capital letter intended) while the other with experience and learning.
I think if one supports arts, one should stop worrying if they are useful or not, and in fact support them more when they are completely and evidently useless. Also, arts is not about "beauty", it is more, much more than that, and in that sense its power for healing is equal to its power to corrupt, hurt and destroy, something rarely mentioned when discussing it.
