An artist's duty, as far as I'm concerned, is to reflect the times.
I think that is true of painters, sculptors, poets, musicians,
but I choose to reflect the times and the situations in which I find myself.
That to me is my duty.
And at this crucial time in our lives, when everything is so desperate,
when every day is a matter of survival, I don't think you can help but be involved.
We will shape and mold this country or it will not be molded and shaped at all.
That was singer, songwriter and activist Nina Simone, speaking of art as a powerful tool to create change.
But is Nina being idealistic?
Are the arts more about entertaining than changing the world?
According to the UK government,
which recently imposed a 50% funding cut to art and design higher education courses, the answer is yes.
Their response to those criticising the decision is that the funding is needed to support subjects
that more closely align to the economy and their strategic objectives.
And as the country seeks to recover from the social and economic costs of an unprecedented pandemic,
are they right to suggest that, in today's world,
the arts are just less valuable than subjects like science and technology?
Welcome to LSE IQ, the podcast where we ask social scientists and other experts to answer one intelligent question.
I'm Jess Winterstein from the IQ team, where we work with academics to bring you their latest research and ideas.
In this episode, I ask, do we need the arts to change the world?