Art is not about return on investment

I agree with Lisa McGinley’s concluding sentences in the column, “Investing in the arts is a hard sell,” Aug. 5), that “Investing in the arts is nothing to be embarrassed about. It makes good economic sense.”

Nonetheless, as a docent at the Lyman Allyn Art Museum and someone whose life has been and continues to be enhanced by the arts, I find it demoralizing that decisions to dedicate state or local publicly generated revenues to “the arts” are reduced to primarily whether such investments result in arbitrarily determined acceptable economic returns.

When leading tours at the museum, I try to communicate my belief that experiencing art at museums and galleries and wherever there is visual art (and experiencing all the creative arts: film, dance, theater, music, writing, etc.) can make a person’s life more fun, interesting, unpredictable, satisfying and, yes, fulfilling. Those invaluable, life-long benefits cannot be measured in money.

The arts should be financially supported because they have benefits that can make our lives more amazing; not only if the financial support results in some kind of economic windfall. Frank T. Francisconi Jr. New London

Editor’s Note: This letter expresses the opinion of the writer; not necessarily the opinion of anyone else affiliated with the Lyman Allyn Art Museum.