United Kingdom

4303 readers

155 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Working-class creatives don’t stand a chance in UK today, leading artists warn (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 14 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Artists, directors and actors have raised the alarm about what they describe as a rigged system preventing working-class talent thriving in their industries after analysis showed almost a third of major arts leaders were educated privately.

The creator of Peaky Blinders, Steven Knight, the director Shane Meadows and the Turner prize winner Jesse Darling were among those who spoke to the Guardian about what was described as a crisis facing the sector.

They spoke after a Guardian survey of the 50 organisations that receive the most Arts Council England funding revealed a disproportionate number of leadership roles were occupied by people who were educated privately and those who went to the universities of Oxford or Cambridge.

Almost a third (30%) of artistic directors and other creative leaders were educated privately compared with a national average of 7%. More than a third (36%) of the organisations’ chief executives or other executive directors went to private schools.

The analysis also found that 17.5% of artistic directors and more than a quarter (26%) of chief executives went to Oxford or Cambridge, compared with less than 1% of the general population.

Andy Haldane, the chief executive of the Royal Society of Arts, said he was “shocked by that finding but not especially surprised”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

Standard Guardian pearl clutching.

Here is the reality :

posh people do arts because they can afford to do it, and not have to earn. This has been the case for hundreds of years and private school has nothing to do with it.

The chances of making a living in the arts for anyone outside London, is next to zero. So to ignore the facts it’s enormously London centric kills any credibility .

Perhaps also consider what qualifies Andy Haldane, career economist at the Bank of England, to magically transfer his bean counting talent, into top job I. The Arts as chair of the RSA .

And then consider the only workers strike in its 270 year history took place on his watch .

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago

What's your point? The Private schooling/Oxbridge education is a marker of wealth.

What's going unsaid here is that for a while it was possible, because of a functioning welfare state, that an approximation of the fallback that rich people had was available to the rest of us povvos; this is the issue. It also applies to business as well as art too, to be fair. Rupert can found a business selling bespoke cat earrings or whatever and if it fails he has a fall back. If I try to run a business that's shit or doesn't make money and it fails and I default on my mortgage.

It's standard pearl clutching because the concentration of people who can afford to work in creative industries in the upper economic echelons of society is something worth complaining about because it matters and we're culturally poorer as a result.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I worked in recording studios for nearly a decade about twenty years ago or so ago, recording all kinds of stuff including film and tv scores.

Producers and composers were overwhelmingly from a privilieged > public school > Oxbridge background. Presumably the lack of representation from other groups is either the same or worse now.

The people I worked with tended to have grown up with money/privilege (meaning it is easy to piss about producing films). But some kind of Oxbridge old boys network/snobbery mostly covers why this lack of opportunity for the general public exists. Of course Oxbridge is all about nepotism and privilege. I have lived around very privileged people and very underprivileged people. I haven't noticed one iq point of difference between the two cohorts. If anything, being forced to struggle makes people atronger (until the amount of hardship to be endured becomes too much).

I can say that it was often the ones that acted like they expected to be waited on hand and foot, who didn't show any class whatsoever when it came to actually paying their bills on time (often if at all).

British society is rife with it. Ultimately these type of people being in charge makes our society extremely weak. As we move beyond 20th century political/economic liberalism this weakness will be exploited by adversaries.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 hours ago

Bingo