According to Miller, "culture should be seen as the standard bearer for [Britain's] efforts to engage in cultural diplomacy, to develop soft power, and to compete, as a nation, in both trade and investment."

Her reasoning mentions the "dividends" from the artistic industry, and the hope to achieve "financial security" for the sector -- making it clear that Miller knew how to wield the economic jargon favored by the top political brass in the Treasury.

But Miller's rationale for funding was stridently challenged by the outgoing head of Arts Council England -- the body that oversees cultural spending -- Dame Liz Forgan.

Forgan, whose term as the ACE head ended in January 2013, had previously spoken out for the intrinsic value of the arts in her departing address: "the arts, the expression of our culture, are as deep a need in us as food, shelter, sex, and security. We must have them. We must use them to express our human nature and our social existence."

In reaction to Miller's monetary argument, Forgan warned against the dangers of "directing our investment in culture for its commercial potential," lambasting this approach as a self-defeating exercise, which will result in "worse art" and a "worse commercial outcome."

The Scottish Secretary of Culture, Fiona Hyslop, also criticized the instrumental case for the arts, and responded to Miller's keynote speech by reiterating why Scots may wish to vote for independence in a 2014 referendum.

She said Miller presented art as a commodity. By contrast, Hyslop suggested the Scottish National Party "doesn't measure the worth of culture and heritage solely in pounds and pence," but values the arts "because they are our heart, our soul, our essence."

But by no means was the furor about the current state of the culture budget coming only from politicians.

Commentators at The Telegraph railed against arts funding altogether, spurred on by the cost of the event at which Forgan presented her final speech as Chair of the Arts Council.

Derided as a "lavish farewell party" by critics, it ran up a bill of nearly $12,000, paid for by public funds. In light of the event, one writer took to labeling arts funding an "outrage" and a "racket," with "the rich taking money from everyone else so that they can have their enjoyment paid for."

Culture funding, it seems, can be just as contentious as more socially controversial political issues.

Though Miller's emphasis on the economics of art was met with condemnation from some quarters, her argument received a boost from an independent report published just weeks before the spending review.

This study, carried out by the Center for Economics and Business Research, found that arts and culture make up 0.4 percent of Britain's GDP, a strong return on less than 0.1 percent of government spending. The cultural sector was also seen to have increased its contribution to the U.K.'s GDP since 2008, even as the wider economy contracted over this period.