Rambling about money and art

I was listening to a radio programme - Any Questions on Radio 4 - when a question was asked about whether art should be justified in terms of its economic impact.

One of the panellists said that it should not, quoting Oscar Wilde "All art is quite useless."

I am not sure about art's economic impact, but doesn't art have some intrinsic value? Like a good work of Art moving people to tears, changing their views on something, how they perceive the world? Obviously, the impact is going to be different on each person but surely it has some effect.

This then got me thinking about research. Nowadays, there's a big emphasis on research being only funded if it can be shown to have an impact. So if somebody wants to research an aspect just because they find it interesting, they are unlikely to get funded. I personally think that's very short sighted. I can see how it makes sense for companies whose bottom line is how much profit they make for their shareholders. But why should academics be held to the same constraints? Surely there should be some funding for research just because it is interesting. There is always the possibility that at some point down the road, it may turn out to be of economic value. It all adds to the sum of human knowledge which should not be sneered at. If a scientist does research that leads to a dead end, even that is beneficial because it means someone else does not have to explore that at a different point.