In her new book, Art Cure, Professor Daisy Fancourt of University College London makes a scientific case that the arts are deeply entwined with physical and mental wellbeing. Drawing on her work in psychobiology and epidemiology, she argues that activities from singing to theatre-going can be broken down into active ingredients that trigger biological mechanisms, much like a cocktail of drugs.
Fancourt opens with a personal account of singing lullabies to her premature daughter in intensive care, a practice studies show can reduce heart rate, improve breathing, and encourage feeding in sick babies. She surveys evidence that creative engagement, alongside conventional treatment, can reduce stress and pain, improve balance in Parkinson's disease, and help ventilated patients breathe independently.
The economic case is also highlighted: regular arts engagement is valued at a £1,500 pay rise in wellbeing, and delaying dementia onset could save the NHS and social care £1.5bn a year. Yet arts funding in UK schools was just £9.40 per pupil in 2022, and government funding for creative degrees was halved in 2021. Fancourt warns of an 'artistic passivity' and calls for a 'seatbelt moment' for public health.
However, the book raises uneasy questions about whether reducing art to measurable outcomes risks losing its open-ended, transcendent power. While Art Cure cannot resolve this tension, it makes a compelling case that the arts are not expendable but essential to health.
