Art Is Not a Luxury: Responding to Professor Daisy Fancourt on Creative Health

This June, Professor Daisy Fancourt presented a powerful case to the UK’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on Creative Health: the arts are not extracurricular—they are essential to public health. Drawing on her expertise in psychobiology and epidemiology, Fancourt outlined a clear, evidence-based argument for why creativity must play a more central role in supporting mental health, especially among young people.

As someone who works at the intersection of creativity, wellbeing, and community, I find her words both validating and urgent.

The Data Is Clear—and Concerning

Fancourt didn’t mince words. One in five adolescents in the UK now likely meets the threshold for a mental health disorder. For 17–19-year-olds, that figure has more than doubled in just seven years. These numbers reflect trends we’re seeing globally, including here in the U.S.

What’s often missing from the conversation is that creative engagement—whether it’s art, music, movement, or storytelling—is a protective factor. Fancourt’s research highlights how creative practices can reduce stress, support emotional regulation, and foster connection, purpose, and identity.

These aren’t abstract benefits. They are measurable outcomes with real implications for public health systems.

Creative Practice Is a Sensory Anchor

One point that resonated deeply was Fancourt’s emphasis on texture and rhythm—the physical, sensory elements of making art that help regulate the nervous system. This is something I see every day in the studio: when people engage with materials through their hands, they’re not just “making art”—they’re grounding themselves.

We now know that the repetitive, tactile nature of creative processes—smudging pastel, weaving yarn, collaging paper—can help anchor the body’s stress response. It’s a gentle but powerful form of self-regulation, especially for those experiencing anxiety, trauma, or sensory overload.

The Economic Case for Creativity

Perhaps one of the most compelling moments in Fancourt’s presentation was her focus on economics. According to the UK’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport, arts engagement delivers over £1,000 per young person annually in wellbeing value—amounting to hundreds of millions in national benefit. These numbers should shift how we think about public investment in the arts: not as discretionary, but as preventative care.

And yet, as Fancourt points out, schools in England currently receive just £9 per student per year for arts education. It's a striking disconnect between what the evidence tells us and where our resources actually go.

A Model That Works—But Needs Scale

Fancourt called for creative health to be woven into youth services, school systems, and mental health pathways. Pilot programs already exist that integrate art into clinical care and social prescribing models—and they’re working. But they remain underfunded and undervalued.

If we want meaningful change, we need a policy framework that reflects what research already confirms: creative engagement is a legitimate and cost-effective tool for prevention and recovery.

What This Means for Practice

At The Ugly Art Studio, we design workshops that emphasize process over product—where the goal isn’t to create something beautiful, but to connect with ourselves through the act of making. Fancourt’s remarks reinforce what many arts practitioners already know from experience: that creative work can be emotionally regulating, socially connecting, and neurologically supportive.

But experience alone isn’t enough to shift systems. We need more cross-sector collaboration—between artists, educators, clinicians, and policymakers—so that creative health is not treated as an optional extra, but as an integral part of how we care for individuals and communities.

Final Thoughts

Professor Fancourt’s message was clear, timely, and backed by robust data: art is not soft. It is not a diversion. It is essential. Especially in the face of a mounting youth mental health crisis, it’s time we stop viewing creativity as a nice-to-have and start recognizing it as part of the public health toolkit.

Creative practice is not a cure-all. But it is a meaningful, accessible, and evidence-supported intervention—one that we can’t afford to overlook.