Art Cure by Daisy Fancourt was the March read for the New Scientist Book Club
The New Scientist Book Club had a change of pace in March, moving from the science-fictional visions of the far future that have been our fare in recent months to some excellent popular science with Daisy Fancourt’s Art Cure.
The subtitle tells us what we’re in for with this one – “the science of how the arts transform our health” – and Fancourt, a professor of psychobiology and epidemiology at University College London, certainly makes sure it lives up to its promise. I was fascinated to learn, in this engaging and deeply researched book, about everything from how engaging with the arts can improve our mental health – whether that’s low mood, depression or severe mental illness – to how music leads to “significantly lower postoperative pain” in surgical settings.
Fancourt backs up all her claims with meticulous evidence and citations, drawing the reader into the science with personal stories and great case studies. Take Russell, for example: after a stroke, he found himself spiralling into depression, until he was prescribed an eight-week course of art classes. “I am finding the book an interesting read and the science is understandable,” wrote book club member Jacqueline Farrand in our . “I also like the way each chapter revolves around one person’s experience with art and how it helped them engage with life.”
Especially for book club members, Fancourt wrote a deep dive into the biological processes going on in our bodies when we experience the arts and the positive effects they can have on our health. “If we can maintain regular engagement in the arts over the course of months and years – participating in the arts or attending cultural performances and events – we can see widespread longer-term physiological changes,” she wrote. “If a drug had the same catalogue of benefits as the arts, we’d be telling everyone about it.”
Art Cure was recently longlisted for the Women’s Prize for Non-Fiction, and book club members have also given it the thumbs up. “I’m a neuropsychiatrist and I’m enjoying it – the science is accurate but accessible, and I’m learning lots about recent research which I can also direct my students to,” wrote Emma Weisblatt in the online discussion. In particular, readers have liked being told how good reading is for their health! “It’s a brilliant book and I’m pleased to have read it,” wrote Alan Perrett. “I note that one of the arts engagements that are cited as beneficial are reading and book clubs.”
Free newsletter
Sign up to Book Club
Join our friendly crowd of fellow book club members in reading and discussing the latest in science and science fiction.
Perrett didn’t start out a fan, but Fancourt convinced him. “I’ve moved from being a complete sceptic – ‘arts are nice but don’t really believe that they affect people’s lives in a significant way’ to absolutely believing that a life without some form of arts engagement is not just impoverished but actually harmful,” he wrote.
I particularly enjoyed how Fancourt finished each chapter by prescribing a “daily dose” of the arts for readers, explaining how to apply their benefits in our own lives (and by “the arts,” she doesn’t just mean music, theatre or art exhibitions – she covers everything from crocheting to circus skills). So did Terry James: “I find the writing clear and concise. This is exactly the style I like in a non-fiction book. Singing and dancing improves your health. Yippie.”
Barbara Howe is taking Fancourt up on some of her recommendations, planning to visit a free local museum and to dig out her “abandoned needlepoint” from her sewing kit. “I intend to just do the part I most enjoy and call it relaxation therapy; if I never get around to making cushions out of it, who cares? Both, I hope, are in line with the practical advice she offers of doing a variety of things and doing little bits often, rather than cramming in new, big projects,” wrote Howe – who was, by and large, a fan. “Overall I thought the book was interesting, and I like the narratives about specific people (whether they were real or composites), but I was skimming by the end, feeling it was a bit repetitive on the ‘rah, rah, arts!’” she writes.
Niall Leighton found Art Cure “convincing about the general benefits of engagement with the arts” – but felt that “Fancourt implies we must become consumers of art, or creators of art that others may consume, as a ‘dose’ instead of addressing the underlying problems that cause much mental and physical ill-health in the first place”. He’s hoping for a day “when we treat art less as a cure, and more as a source of beauty in its own right; Fancourt is clear that art is for everyone, and this book is a small step towards a position where we see, as William Morris put it, an ‘art which is to be made by the people and for the people, as a happiness to the maker and the user’.” That’s a utopian vision to hope for.
I chatted with Fancourt earlier this month for our New Scientist Book Club interview, covering everything from a meeting with Brian Eno to how, “probably rather rudely”, she has dubbed screen-based activities the “ultra-processed foods” of the arts world. I ended our interview more convinced by her claims than ever – and keen to get a little more creative in my own life.
As smart, engaging and thoroughly well researched in person as she was in her book, Fancourt didn’t just sing the praises of reading (and book clubs!), she was also keen to push the health benefits of more active and diverse participation in the arts. So I shall be getting back to more regular piano practice, investigating joining a local choir and hunting out some cheap theatre tickets. Perhaps I’ll even look into a dance class with friends – not a sentence I thought I’d ever be typing, but I found Art Cure to be a genuine inspiration, and I hope many book club members did too.
Topics:
