In 1992, Julia Cameron, author of The Artist’s Way, first introduced the concept of Morning Pages. She asked readers to begin each day by filling three pages with uninterrupted, stream-of-consciousness writing. The practice was designed to clear mental clutter and create space for ideas to emerge. With that came the notion that creativity is not reserved for artists only. Long before neuroscience began mapping creativity onto neural pathways or epidemiologists started measuring its effect on longevity, practices such as
In 1992, Julia Cameron, author of The Artist’s Way, first introduced the concept of Morning Pages. She asked readers to begin each day by filling three pages with uninterrupted, stream-of-consciousness writing. The practice was designed to clear mental clutter and create space for ideas to emerge. With that came the notion that creativity is not reserved for artists only. Long before neuroscience began mapping creativity onto neural pathways or epidemiologists started measuring its effect on longevity, practices such as Morning Pages already suggested that art possessed a restorative quality.
Artists have always known this. Writers keep journals and musicians return to their instruments after loss because music offers something language cannot. Readers, on the other hand, seek novels. Creativity has historically existed outside the language of measurable outcomes.
Daisy Fancourt’s Art Cure: The Science of How the Arts Save Lives, which was recently shortlisted for the Women’s prize in non-fiction argues that artistic engagement deserves recognition as a “fifth pillar of health,” standing alongside exercise, nutrition, sleep, and nature. Rather than treating art as entertainment or leisure, she marshals decades of epidemiological research, neuroscience, psychology, and public health evidence to demonstrate that participating in artistic activities has measurable effects on physical and mental well being.
Each chapter focuses on a different aspect of health from movement, stress and cognition to ageing and social connection. The book moves seamlessly between statistical evidence and lived experience, and its claims are illustrated through research studies and personal narratives.
Its central argument is difficult to dispute. As Fancourt observes, public health advice routinely reminds people to exercise, eat vegetables, sleep well, and spend time outdoors. Yet, very few doctors recommend reading novels, joining a choir, visiting museums, or taking up painting with the same seriousness. She asks why activities that consistently demonstrate measurable health benefits remain absent from mainstream discussions of well being.
The evidence she presents is substantial. Regular artistic engagement has been associated with lower rates of depression, higher life satisfaction, reduced stress, improved cognitive function, healthier ageing, and stronger social relationships. More strikingly, several longitudinal studies suggest correlations between sustained engagement with the arts and increased longevity. Unlike books that rely primarily on inspirational anecdotes, Art Cure grounds its optimism in decades of peer-reviewed research.
The book also removes the pressure of artistic achievement. Fancourt repeatedly insists that participation matters more than excellence. One does not have to become a concert pianist or an accomplished painter to experience these benefits. Reading, singing, dancing, knitting, journaling, embroidery, pottery, theatre, photography, or simply attending cultural events are all legitimate forms of artistic engagement. Creativity is presented as something ordinary.
For readers unfamiliar with this body of research, Art Cure will likely be revelatory. It gives scientific explanations for experiences many people may have dismissed as merely personal or anecdotal. Someone who has found solace in quilting after bereavement or relief through journaling during periods of anxiety will encounter evidence that these experiences are rather observable patterns supported by public health research.
Although Fancourt’s research is meticulous, the central claim that art heals and transforms is hardly new. It is, perhaps, one of humanity’s oldest intuitions. Religious rituals, oral storytelling traditions, theatre, dance, poetry, and visual art have accompanied human civilization for millennia precisely because they give psychological, emotional, and social forms of sustenance. Artists have rarely needed randomized controlled trials to know this.
For readers who already maintain creative practices, Art Cure works to confirm their beliefs. The science behind the book validates experiences they already understand intuitively. Someone who turns instinctively to knitting after an exhausting day rarely requires epidemiological evidence to explain the feeling of calm that follows. The research explains why these experiences occur, but it does not fundamentally alter them.
Ironically, one of the book’s most memorable observations gestures towards this paradox. Early on, Fancourt writes that “Art is so incomprehensibly beautiful it has inspired more art about itself.” This is one of the book’s loveliest sentences because it momentarily abandons data in favour of wonder. Here, art is valuable simply because it exists, because it generates further acts of imagination. Yet, this sentiment sits somewhat uneasily beside the book’s broader project, which continually returns to proving that art deserves attention because it improves health outcomes. This tension becomes increasingly noticeable as the argument develops.
At several points, Fancourt acknowledges that discussions about the arts often provoke scepticism precisely because people resist reducing creativity to practical outcomes. She observes that “the idea that the arts might have a practical purpose for our health is looked upon suspiciously, a sign of a decreased appreciation of art for its own value.” This is perhaps the most revealing sentence in the entire book, though not necessarily for the reasons Fancourt intends.
Art Cure also raises an uncomfortable question: should art have to justify its existence through measurable health outcomes? By framing artistic engagement as another pillar of physical and mental health, alongside sleep, exercise, and nutrition, the book inadvertently reduces art to an instrument.
While these findings are undoubtedly significant, they risk overlooking something more fundamental. Art has historically mattered because it allows people to imagine, question, mourn even, and make meaning of the world. Its value cannot always be translated into data or public health metrics.
There is something faintly dystopian about the need to defend art in this way. That a book must marshal neuroscience simply to argue that reading novels, making music, painting, or writing in a journal deserve space in everyday life feels like a symptom of a society that has forgotten why art exists in the first place. The argument seems tailored for an age obsessed with productivity, where every activity must prove its usefulness to earn legitimacy. If art needs scientific evidence before it is considered worthwhile, then something larger has already been lost.
This feeling becomes even more pronounced in the book’s discussion of artificial intelligence and screen-mediated life. Fancourt presents creativity as a necessary counterbalance to digital overload and argues that artistic engagement strengthens cognitive resilience in ways passive screen consumption cannot.
Art here is presented almost as a prescription against technological decline. There is truth in this concern, but the framing occasionally feels like a desperate call to rescue art by proving its utility rather than celebrating its intrinsic worth.
It is impossible to read Fancourt’s insistence on creativity without thinking about the attention economy, algorithmic culture, and increasingly fragmented forms of engagement. Although the book itself rarely slips into technological alarmism, the context in which it appears inevitably shapes its reception. Published at a moment when artificial intelligence dominates conversations about creativity and digital platforms reward speed over reflection, Art Cure often feels like a defence of art’s continued relevance.
This book proves to be an indictment of the culture to which Francourt is responding. We inhabit an age in which nearly every activity must prove its productivity. Reading is defended because it enhances empathy. Music because it lowers anxiety. Even leisure increasingly arrives packaged as optimisation. Within this framework, Art Cure feels like another attempt to rescue an activity by demonstrating that it serves a useful function.
Art has never owed anyone usefulness.
Oscar Wilde famously declared in the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray that “all art is quite useless.” The line is a defence of artistic autonomy. Wilde argues that art exists outside the logic of utility. It need not educate, moralise, heal, or produce measurable outcomes to justify its existence. Its value lies precisely in its freedom from instrumental purpose. One does not stand before Vermeer’s Girl with a Pearl Earring wondering whether it lowers cortisol levels. One does not read Virginia Woolf to improve executive functioning. Their significance exceeds such calculations.
Fancourt never denies this intrinsic value. But the structure of her argument continually returns to evidence and outcomes. Art becomes persuasive because it extends life expectancy, reduces depression, or strengthens cognitive reserve. These findings are undoubtedly important, particularly within health care policy where empirical evidence shapes funding and public intervention. Yet, there remains an uneasy feeling that something essential slips away when art is translated entirely into the language of medicine.
The book elevates and diminishes art in the same breath. By placing creativity beside nutrition, and exercise, Fancourt gives it unprecedented legitimacy within public health discourse. At the same time, she risks reducing artistic practice to another wellness intervention. This tension becomes particularly apparent in the discussion of “social prescribing,” where doctors recommend museum visits, choir participation, creative writing classes, or painting workshops as complements to medical treatment. The evidence supporting these programmes is persuasive, and there is little doubt that many participants benefit enormously from them. Still, the image remains striking.
Reading Art Cure in the era of artificial intelligence intensifies these questions. The danger lies in allowing art to become valuable only because it counters AI.
If creativity matters solely because it protects the brain against technological decline, then its worth remains dependent upon another utilitarian calculation. Art deserves a place in human life because it has always expressed what machines cannot quantify. AI may sharpen the urgency of these conversations, but it should not determine the terms on which art is defended.
Art Cure does not discover a forgotten truth so much as document one with thoroughness. Its research deserves admiration and its contribution to public health discourse is significant. By asking readers to defend art through science, the book ultimately forces them to confront a question: why has art reached a point where it needs defending at all?
Pranavi Sharma writes on books and culture. She lives in New Delhi.
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
Archives
HT App & Website