thelemmingface

(Before saying my piece I just want to make clear that I'm not attempting to either defend or criticise this proposal).

As someone involved in the arts in the UK, I can confirm that there are two major issues in the current British arts landscape.

The first issue is a general lack of funding: since 2000ish, the vast majority of our most successful actors, writers, comedians, musicians, artists etc have all come from privileged backgrounds. This is no coincidence: one requires a reasonable private income (ie from rich parents) in order to be able to start a career in the arts. This naturally restricts the diversity of the arts world, and makes our artistic landscape much the poorer - many talented creatives are unable to even consider getting a career off the ground.

Secondly, enjoyment of the arts is increasingly becoming available only to the privileged. Theatre tickets cost a fortune (even at festivals such as the Edinburgh Fringe!); concert tickets are extortionate; exhibitions are surprisingly costly and original artwork is prohibitively so. This is generally not a result of greed (at least, not in all cases!), but rather because our economy is tilted against artisan craftsmanship and personal creation. If you can only fit a small number of people in the theatre, you have to charge a lot for tickets simply to pay the salaries of all those needed to mount the play. It's a matter of great personal sadness to me, the arts thus being put out of the reach of so many: kids from poorer backgrounds have never been to the theatre or a live concert! This was the case even before the pandemic; it is especially so now, and is a situation that really does need to change. The arts are such an essential part of our culture (Apple, for instance, would never have existed without a whole plethora of artists inspiring Steve Jobs and the team in myriad different ways, as you will all be aware).

The second issue demonstrates that the solution to the first issue cannot be to simply 'charge more for art' or 'make something people want to pay more for', as suggested by some people above.

As I said at the top, I haven't considered the pros and cons of the 'Smart Fund' proposal, so I am certainly not attempting to express an opinion about whether it is a good or bad idea. I'm just pointing out that there is a problem with the arts in the UK, and a state-sponsored financial solution is probably the only way to solve said problem. Contrary to the general tone of the dismissive comments above, I don't believe the premise of this campaign is flawed.