The increasing demand for measures of economic and social impacts of culture is somehow connected to a declining social perception of its intrinsic value. Coupled with a declining consensus on its necessity, spending on culture has increasingly been justified by a growing number of politicians and decision makers in its instrumental dimension, and its proved usefulness. This has undermined the automatic legitimacy of relevant investments in the sector, unless returns could be expected (best if economic and in the short term). In those countries where the bulk of financial resources for culture is public, scarcity, spending review, economic crisis, combined with the lowering of the social appreciation of culture, have dealt an heavy blow on the sector, but the same can be said of those countries where culture derive its main resources from private support. Initially welcomed as a deserved acknowledgement of the collateral merits of culture, the social and economic benefits it is expected to generate have progressively outgrown and replaced its intrinsic value. It is in this context that measurement of the social and economic impacts of the arts and culture has become a recurring topic in the literature of the last two decades or more. It is also a common aspiration of many cultural organisations that depend on public or private funding. As instrumental approaches to culture and its role have gained a growing weight on the intrinsic ones, evidence sought to provide a sound basis and reliable information, upon which funding decision and policies are made, tends to document the benefits of culture for the local or national economy, social inclusion and cohesion, reduction of inequalities, and so on, while cultural impacts remain virtually unaccounted for. The paper elaborates on the idea that intrinsic value is not to be underrated, and discusses why cultural impacts are worth investigating.