Interesting phenonemon, and something that has caught my attention the last few years. Remember all those rock and roll stars coming from 'art school'? Not anymore...
It seems that most UK actors and musicians are from privileged backgrounds (Eton, Oxford etc) I wondered why that was, and have been reading a few articles lately and am fascinated by the fact that its actually a societal/political thing, with roots going back to Thatcher's Great Britain. I wanted to know how any brits here feel about this. As an American, its pretty disturbing, but then I think of all the nepotism in today's Hollywood...is this why we don't get any new Steve McQeens?
Any thoughts?

[www.theguardian.com]

A working-class hero is something to be … but not in Britain's posh culture

Sean O'Hagan

British culture was once open to 'messy kids' from secondary moderns. But if you want to make it in 21st century Britain, you'd best have a cut-glass accent and public school pedigree Salt of the earth: Julie Walters has complained that the working class are being squeezed out of the acting profession. Photograph: Richard Saker Richard Saker/PR
Saturday 25 January 2014 19.04 EST Last modified on Tuesday 3 June 2014 00.40 EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Share on Pinterest
Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+ Share on WhatsApp
Last week the actor Stephen McGann spoke out about how difficult it is for young people from working-class backgrounds to enter his profession. "Opportunities are closing down," he said in an interview with the Independent. "If you're a messy kid from a council estate today, I think the chances of you making it as a successful actor are a lot worse than they were."

McGann, 50, youngest of the family of acting brothers, grew up on the edge of Toxteth in Liverpool and was educated at a Catholic grammar school. "What counted for me and my brothers – and for mates of ours like David Morrissey and Ian Hart, all growing up in Dingle and Toxteth – was the real change in education," he said. "We had one shot and we made it: none of us would be actors if we hadn't gone to that school. That's where I fell in love with acting and that's why I'm here."

McGann was echoing opinions expressed by other prominent actors recently. Brian Cox told an interviewer: "I feel awful that young people don't have the opportunities that I had. It's like we've excluded a root element from cultural life, and I think that's very dangerous." And Julie Walters, in an interview with the Sunday Times, contrasted her youth with that of aspiring actors today. "Back then, it was still possible for a working-class kid like me to study drama because I got a grant, but the way things are now, there aren't going to be any working-class actors."

These sentiments resonate with me, not just because I come from a similar background and once made a similar trajectory – from grammar school to polytechnic to a job in the media – but because they also echo a view I have heard expressed lately in different ways by certain artists and musicians. It contends that popular culture is becoming increasingly gentrified, not just in the elitism that still holds sway in so-called highbrow forms like opera and classical music, but in the drift of society at large towards privilege and exclusion.

"I look at almost all the up-and-coming names and they're from the posh schools," said Walters. "Don't get me wrong … they're wonderful. It's just a shame those working-class kids aren't coming through. When I started, 30 years ago, it was the complete opposite."

Artists have also noted this sea change in our culture. When I interviewed Peter Doig last year he recalled his formative years in London's now dramatically gentrified King's Cross. "It was a different city then – you could easily find cheap places to live and studios to work in. We took all those things for granted and now they are gone. It does feel like you have to be wealthy in London now to have that kind of freedom. It's a shame. I think young artists need the time and space to waste time until they find a voice."

Society itself has altered too, and with it the cultural dynamic of Britain. The access that smart, creative, messy kids from council estates once had to polytechnics, universities and art colleges has been eroded by prohibitive college fees. We live in a Britain where the so-called democratisation of culture though digital technology has gone hand in hand with the increasing exclusion and disempowerment of the young and talented. As writer and pop historian, Jon Savage, whose illuminating documentary, Teenage, is released this week, noted recently: "It is a cruel irony that, just as commercialised youth culture seems everywhere – appealing to all ages, and making untold millions for media corporations – the demographic on which this was once based is being excluded from society. Without financial power or overt political affiliations, young people are too often ignored in this costive age."

Consider, too, the words of another successful British artist, Gary Hume, perhaps the most thoughtful, least extrovert of the YBA generation. "When I was a student at art college," he told me in a recent interview, "it was full of kids from all kinds of backgrounds, mainly misfits and outsiders. That is exactly why they were at art college. Art has become a respectable career path now, another professional option for the young and affluent. But what do all the wrong people do now? Where do they go – the misfits and the outsiders? If you can't do something meaningful through art because you can't afford to go to art college or even rent a studio, what happens to you?"

What is the cost, culturally, of their exclusion? Could it be that, for the first time since pop culture emerged in the 1950s, it too is being gentrified, even made elitist? You do not have to look far for the evidence – even the Daily Mail acknowledged it in 2010, citing an article in the now defunct music magazine, The Word, which calculated that more than 60% of that year's successful pop and rock acts were former public school pupils compared with just 1% 20 years ago.

The Mail followed up that feature with one headlined "From cricket to the catwalk to Westminster, public school accents are back: We reveal Britain's 50 most powerful posh people under 30." They included: actors Ben Barnes (educated at King's College School), Robert Pattinson (Harrodian School in west London) and Emma Watson (Oxford's Dragon School and Headington School); comedian Jack Whitehall (Marlborough College), model Poppy Delevingne ("Bedales-educated with royal connections"), playwright Polly Stenham (attended Wycombe Abbey and Rugby) and pop stars, Florence Welch (Alleyn's School in south-east London) and Marcus Mumford and Ben Lovett from Mumford & Sons (both educated at King's College School, Wimbledon).

To that privileged list you can now add successful young British actors including Harrow-schooled Benedict Cumberbatch and old Etonians Damian Lewis and Tom Hiddleston, pop singer Laura Marling and the newest supermodel, Cara Delevingne (Poppy's sister), all products of expensive public schools. Likewise, more established stars such as Chris Martin of Coldplay (Sherborne School, Dorset) and James Blunt – real name James Hillier Blount – Old Harrovian and former member of the Life Guards.


Pop culture has, of course, always had its share of often-credible posh performers, from the likes of Pink Floyd and Nick Drake in the late 60s to Radiohead in the 90s. But the dramatic increase suggests something has gone seriously askew. Pop music has always been a prescient form – the Beatles signalled the coming of Harold Wilson's Labour government, punk the rise of Thatcherism, and Britpop soundtracked the birth of New Labour – so it seems appropriate that the rise of posh in pop culture should chime with the ascendancy of the current Tory leadership. (David Cameron is an Old Etonian, George Osborne was educated at St Paul's. Both were members of Oxford's infamous Bullingdon Club alongside Eton-educated London mayor Boris Johnson.)

Pop culture, lest we forget, initially grew out of the postwar affluence that allowed working-class teenagers to express themselves though choice – the music they listened to, the clothes they wore, the styles and movements they spawned, whether mod, rocker or hippy – but it was also propelled by the progressive changes to educational access that began with the Education Act of 1944. The path from grammar school to art school, for instance, was one of the key determinants of great British pop music of the 60s and early 70s. It led to the meeting of minds that was John Lennon and Paul McCartney and spawned the proto-postmodern stylings of Roxy Music, one of the most adventurous and influential British art-rock groups ever. (Given Bryan Ferry's embrace of all things gentrified, and the emergence of his son, Otis, as an unapologetically reactionary spokesperson of the New Posh, it is hard to believe that he comes from a working-class background in the industrial north-east and that one of his father's jobs was looking after pit ponies at the local mine.) Neither the Beatles nor Roxy Music would have existed, never mind shaped pop culture, had there been prohibitive college fees.

When I worked for NME in the 80s and for style magazines like the Face and Arena in the early 90s, music and fashion were still the two places where smart and savvy working-class kids were given a chance to have a voice. Publishing and the media – including the liberal-left media – were run and staffed in the main by white public school or Oxbridge-educated men. (That has changed somewhat, but not nearly enough, in the interim.) Pop culture, to a degree, belonged to the chancers, the misfits, the outsiders, the feisty, often left-leaning mavericks and messy kids from housing estates who, by and large, created, shaped and wrote about it. Likewise, many of the seismic British pop-cultural moments – from 60s pop and rock through mod, punk, 2-Tone and acid house.

The world of pop culture has changed dramatically since then, becoming more fractured, atomised and less culturally important. If pop music is characterised by anything today it is a curious lack of meaning. "When I formed a rock group back in my teens," says Primal Scream vocalist Bobby Gillespie, "it really was all or nothing. It was literally my one chance to express myself or to resign myself to a life of drudgery in a factory. I'd heard the Sex Pistols and recognised immediately that their music was born of essentially working-class anger and frustration, and that in itself was empowering. When was the last time you heard music like that, music that said something so strongly with so much genuine and justified rage?"

Instead, it often seems like the pre-pop values of showbiz have returned in the shape of The X Factor and The Voice, and in the almost masochist escapism of posh soaps like Downton Abbey. If today's art, music and fashion often seem oddly estranged from any notion of political or social awareness, could it be because the kind of people who enter these arenas no longer have the kind of life experiences or desperate need to express themselves that Gillespie identified.

Where have all the wrong people gone – the working-class mavericks like Mark E Smith and John Lydon and Alexander McQueen? Where is the beautifully incandescent anger of the excluded that the Who or the Sex Pistols or the Specials once articulated? Does it still have a place in today's pop culture? Does it still have a meaning? One thing is for certain: if it does, it won't be voiced by Mumford & Sons.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-14 04:15 by stupidguy2.

duplicated.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-14 04:16 by stupidguy2.

Fascinating article, thanks much Stupidguy2. Have to mull it over some, but my initial thought is that it's not much different in the arts community here in the U.S. now, is it?

Quote
latebloomer
Fascinating article, thanks much Stupidguy2. Have to mull it over some, but my initial thought is that it's not much different in the arts community here in the U.S. now, is it?

No its not, and that's depressing. Most successful actors today - Jake Gylenhaal, Joseph Gordon Levitt...I mean, you can literally reel the names off..
They all come from families with either entertainment background, or are wealthy, with their kids studying at presigious drama schools. The days of rags to riches stories are gone. I think something is lost in that.
I mean, I mentioned Steve McQueen, but there are so many others stars that came from nothing, and became stars through sheer star charisma. Now, things seem a bit safe, homogenous.

The problem is people waiting for a corporate controlled media and music industry to tell them who the next big thing is.

Real music has to be dug for. (Except the very top corporate sponsored acts) Dig on the Internet, leave your computers and go to the clubs and bars that feature live acts. Get out there and live it as a fan of real music. Real music is live. Real music can be covers or originals but real rock music is created by 3 to 5+ guys/girls sweating it out because they love it.

Don't let them die alone, lol.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-14 04:57 by Markdog.

Typical Guardianista bullshit..... Ignore 95% of what that rag prints!

Quote
strat72
Typical Guardianista bullshit..... Ignore 95% of what that rag prints!

But this is actually happening. Link to non-Guardian articles.. It's an actual issue in the UK cultural arts world. Cumberbatch, Redmayne, a dozen or so Toms and Ruperts... It's not slanted hyperbole ..it's a reality. And yes, it's roots are in Thatcherism cutting funding for the arts in public schools..(what Americans consider 'public schools) The rich, connected kids are dominating the arts. It's been happening in the U.S. as well for different reasons..
Name some actors, and with a few exceptions... They came from elite schools, and/or connected parents. In the US, we may not have the overt class consciousness like in the UK, but there are a s***load of actors who are the 'sons and daughters of..' The rich have always had entry into popular culture.. Look at all those lords and ladies and baronets that used to hover around the periphery of swinging 60s London, but now those kids are the stars.
I think it's fascinating and troubling..



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-14 07:28 by stupidguy2.

[www.theguardian.com]

This stimulated quite a lot of debate in the UK. James Blunt wrote a typically robust response in the Guardian ( if this is not posted correctly and you are interested Google James Blunt response to Chris Bryant. As we say in England he is a bit of 'a marmite' character - you love him or hate him

I suspect the article is cherry-picking the famous names with posh connections, and strategically overlooking the majority without such connections, in pursuit of publicity-getting controversy. I'm not a Blunt fan, but I agree with him that if anything being perceived as "posh" is more of a hindrance than a help in the music business, and that having such a background certainly doesn't fast-track you to success in the industry. (I know nothing about how it works in the movie biz.)

There's also nothing new about all this, incidentally. Think back to some of the 60s pop stars (Peter and Gordon, anyone?), and some of the aristos the Stones used to hang out with. (Marianne Faithfull, daughter of a Baroness, Tara Browne, Guinness heir, etc. etc.) But again, those weren't the norm.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-14 10:16 by Aquamarine.

It's been going on since Posh Spice

That is nothing new. Arts and literature is something that has always been reserved for the higher classes. Someone from the working classes making it is always the exception to the rule.

Brush it off with some Sleaford Mods. hah.

[www.youtube.com]

I'm pretty sure that ALO talked about this topic in his bio Stoned.
As far as I remember, he says that the 60's were a quite unique period, in which the young musicians could easily emerge. For him the reasin was the WWII. Everything had to be rebuild. He also said that a similar phenomenon occured after WWI with lot of crazyness and creativity.

Thus, I sadly agree with Stoneage "Someone from the working classes making it is always the exception to the rule."

Quote
djgab
I'm pretty sure that ALO talked about this topic in his bio Stoned.
As far as I remember, he says that the 60's were a quite unique period, in which the young musicians could easily emerge. For him the reasin was the WWII. Everything had to be rebuild. He also said that a similar phenomenon occured after WWI with lot of crazyness and creativity.

Thus, I sadly agree with Stoneage "Someone from the working classes making it is always the exception to the rule."

seems another major war is required to even out the artistic playing field.

Don't know much about the film part of the arts, but the development of music artists has certainly been dismal in the US for quite some time. Record companies don't make long term commitments into the development like they used to. Artists have to do much more for themselves in that regard and it's no surprise really that ones who already have money or parental and industry connections and financial support are going to generally be more successful at it.

You see artists like Myley Cyrus who is Billy Ray Cyrus's daughter more and more.

It's nice to think the cream will still rise to the top but I've seen less examples of it as of late. There are exceptions of course but I've seen bands like Wilco go from playing midwest college town bars to huge international success based on their ability to write good songs and be very persistent at playing tons of live shows. The hard work and great live stuff they did during the Jay Bennett period in the mid to late 90's is still paying dividends for them, imo.

Quote
Stoneage
That is nothing new. Arts and literature is something that has always been reserved for the higher classes. Someone from the working classes making it is always the exception to the rule.

Like The Beatles.
It always amuses me when people compare the Beatles to The Stones and say the Stones were the tough and grittier version of the Beatles. Hardly. The Beatles were from Liverpool, a rough town. Not like London at all. The Beatles toured small clubs in Europe in the early days, doing speed and getting into fights. The Stones? Not so much. When the Stones had the "bad boy" image in the 60s the Beatles were "been there, done that".

Quote
Boognish

Quote
Stoneage
That is nothing new. Arts and literature is something that has always been reserved for the higher classes. Someone from the working classes making it is always the exception to the rule.

Like The Beatles.
It always amuses me when people compare the Beatles to The Stones and say the Stones were the tough and grittier version of the Beatles. Hardly. The Beatles were from Liverpool, a rough town. Not like London at all. The Beatles toured small clubs in Europe in the early days, doing speed and getting into fights. The Stones? Not so much. When the Stones had the "bad boy" image in the 60s the Beatles were "been there, done that".

This is true. John and Paul were wearing rocking those long leather coats, black trousers and black boots when Mick was still wearing his cardigans.
And early Beatles live had a punky edge.

[news.bbc.co.uk]

List of British actors successful now:
Eddie Redmayne - Eton/Oscar winner.
Benedict Cumberbatch - Harrow School, actor parents. Oscar nominee/in everythng.
Damian Lewis - Eton. Homeland, Band of Brothers.
Dominic West - Eton.classmate of Prime Minister Cameron, married to aristocrat. The Wire
Henry Cavill - Stowe School/classmate of a few royals. Man of Steele
Rupert Friend, Webber Douglas Academy of Dramatic Arts. Homeland.
Jamie Campbell Bower - Bedales. Twilight/Harry Potter.
Tom Hiddleston - Eton. Thor and a other stuff you've seen.
Kit Harrington - descendent of King Charles. Game of Thrones.
Tom Surridge - went to school (Harrodian School) with Robert Pattinson (family connections) pretty boy/Tony nominee.
And these are just the more well-known ones, but there are as many dominating tv and character-actor roles in both British and American films.
What they all have in common is their pedigree, and access to presigious drama schools from an early age. Yes, they're talented, but didn't they have an unfair advantage to hone their craft?
That speaks for itself. Its not a stretch to think that there is a inordinate number of connected people in the arts, and that that has roots in social/political trends.
I'm not a Brit, so it doesn't affect me, but if you read the comments to some of the these articles, it does affect people in the UK, and how they percieve the arts.
And this is just the men. ANd then you get to music, where the Mumfords are constantly derided for thier entitled backgrounds. Florence Welch, Laura Marling.
This always existed to an extent, but it was never the norm. SOmeone from a 'posh' background, whether in music or acting, was an anomaly. Now, its the norm.
Adele and Amy Winehouse were exceptions.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-14 22:41 by stupidguy2.

'Posh' kids are rather harmless compared to former trader and super-sucker Damien Hurst...

He's an annoyance.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
latebloomer
Fascinating article, thanks much Stupidguy2. Have to mull it over some, but my initial thought is that it's not much different in the arts community here in the U.S. now, is it?

No its not, and that's depressing. Most successful actors today - Jake Gylenhaal, Joseph Gordon Levitt...I mean, you can literally reel the names off..
They all come from families with either entertainment background, or are wealthy, with their kids studying at presigious drama schools. The days of rags to riches stories are gone. I think something is lost in that.
I mean, I mentioned Steve McQueen, but there are so many others stars that came from nothing, and became stars through sheer star charisma. Now, things seem a bit safe, homogenous.

[quietly] johnny depp
(hillbilly high-school dropout)

Quote
Stoneage
That is nothing new. Arts and literature is something that has always been reserved for the higher classes. Someone from the working classes making it is always the exception to the rule.

I seem to be in the minority here, but I think it's (and always has been) the other way around. Not least because the privileged had far less incentive to work hard both to achieve and maintain success, so that even many of those who had initial success did very little to maintain it. Obviously the offspring of famous musicians and writers will get press, and this gives the impression they're in the majority, but there are so many musical and literary artists out there who DON'T come from a privileged background or artistic family heritage that they still far outnumber those who do. And again, I have no idea if the same is true regarding the acting biz.

Thanks for the article. It's quite interesting and the dominance of "posh" talent over working-class talent may well be a reason for the fact that there hasn't been a totally new youth subculture in a very long time.

Is there anybody else who finds the use of the term "messy kids" for the children of workers to be kind of disturbing? I'm not from Britain and I guess it shows.

Quote
CloudCat

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
latebloomer
Fascinating article, thanks much Stupidguy2. Have to mull it over some, but my initial thought is that it's not much different in the arts community here in the U.S. now, is it?

No its not, and that's depressing. Most successful actors today - Jake Gylenhaal, Joseph Gordon Levitt...I mean, you can literally reel the names off..
They all come from families with either entertainment background, or are wealthy, with their kids studying at presigious drama schools. The days of rags to riches stories are gone. I think something is lost in that.
I mean, I mentioned Steve McQueen, but there are so many others stars that came from nothing, and became stars through sheer star charisma. Now, things seem a bit safe, homogenous.

[quietly] johnny depp
(hillbilly high-school dropout)

Yeah, did Steve McQueen even finish high school? Dennis Hopper was a mad man, but he had a rough background...etc.

Those are the really interesting ones...that's the point I think some are making: that there are very few actors who are coming from hardship, working class backgrounds these days. Its a minority. And we lose something.
I remember reading a quote from John Turturro about Shia Labeouf, who is a hot mess, but a good actor when he has a good part. He was a poor kid, with an abusive heroin addict father and flaky mother who dressed him up as a clown to sell hotdogs on the street..and before he was 13, he hustled his way into making a living as an actor. Now that's a back story. Turturro said that what set him apart from his generation of actors is that he'd been through stuff, seen stuff and that's part of who he is, warts and all. Most young actors today don't have that, but they're well-behaved and shrewd. Turturro said today's culture is too facile. Lebeouf gets into trouble because (its not unrelated) he comes from a troubled background, and things get messy. But these are the guys that fascinate me because they're flawed. I love guys like Eric Roberts, Mickey Rourke etc...where is the next generation of these guys? So its not just the UK, but we have a generation of American actors that are dependable, but, for me, vanilla. Forget about drama school, what about life school?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-15 01:09 by stupidguy2.

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
Stoneage
That is nothing new. Arts and literature is something that has always been reserved for the higher classes. Someone from the working classes making it is always the exception to the rule.

I seem to be in the minority here, but I think it's (and always has been) the other way around. Not least because the privileged had far less incentive to work hard both to achieve and maintain success, so that even many of those who had initial success did very little to maintain it. Obviously the offspring of famous musicians and writers will get press, and this gives the impression they're in the majority, but there are so many musical and literary artists out there who DON'T come from a privileged background or artistic family heritage that they still far outnumber those who do. And again, I have no idea if the same is true regarding the acting biz.

Of course, because talent will win out. But I think the dominance of privileged kids is a new thing, and it may be the fruition of a social and political climate that began in the 80s in the UK.
I remember reading about all those great rock and roll stars from the 60s, and how they had all came from 'art school'
As an American kid, I wanted to go to an 'art school' like that and thought that England was this special place where geniuses were bred in some 'art school' I had no idea then that art school was the place they sent the trouble makers, the real ruffians. Those turned out to be Clapton, Keith etc..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-15 00:48 by stupidguy2.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
Stoneage
That is nothing new. Arts and literature is something that has always been reserved for the higher classes. Someone from the working classes making it is always the exception to the rule.

I seem to be in the minority here, but I think it's (and always has been) the other way around. Not least because the privileged had far less incentive to work hard both to achieve and maintain success, so that even many of those who had initial success did very little to maintain it. Obviously the offspring of famous musicians and writers will get press, and this gives the impression they're in the majority, but there are so many musical and literary artists out there who DON'T come from a privileged background or artistic family heritage that they still far outnumber those who do. And again, I have no idea if the same is true regarding the acting biz.

Of course, because talent will win out. But I think the dominance of privileged kids is a new thing, and it may be the fruition of a social and political climate that began in the 80s in the UK.
I remember reading about all those great rock and roll stars from the 60s, and how they had all came from 'art school'
As an American kid, I wanted to go to an 'art school' like that and thought that England was this special place where geniuses were bred in some 'art school' I had idea then that art school was the place they sent the trouble makers.

When you look back at it, it was a surprisingly short period when all the guitar heroes seemed to be art school dropouts (Keith, Page, Townshend, etc.). People still went to art school when I was college age, but I don't ever remember it being a place for troublemakers, in fact it was the hip place to go and you needed real artistic talent to get accepted. Of course, in those days tuition was heavily subsidized, so you didn't have to be privileged to go to art school or college. But the arts attracted a minority of the upper classes then just like today, I don't see a huge difference now, although what y'all have been saying with regard to actors is interesting, and seems like it might be more applicable there.

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
Aquamarine

Quote
Stoneage
That is nothing new. Arts and literature is something that has always been reserved for the higher classes. Someone from the working classes making it is always the exception to the rule.

I seem to be in the minority here, but I think it's (and always has been) the other way around. Not least because the privileged had far less incentive to work hard both to achieve and maintain success, so that even many of those who had initial success did very little to maintain it. Obviously the offspring of famous musicians and writers will get press, and this gives the impression they're in the majority, but there are so many musical and literary artists out there who DON'T come from a privileged background or artistic family heritage that they still far outnumber those who do. And again, I have no idea if the same is true regarding the acting biz.

Of course, because talent will win out. But I think the dominance of privileged kids is a new thing, and it may be the fruition of a social and political climate that began in the 80s in the UK.
I remember reading about all those great rock and roll stars from the 60s, and how they had all came from 'art school'
As an American kid, I wanted to go to an 'art school' like that and thought that England was this special place where geniuses were bred in some 'art school' I had idea then that art school was the place they sent the trouble makers.

When you look back at it, it was a surprisingly short period when all the guitar heroes seemed to be art school dropouts (Keith, Page, Townshend, etc.). People still went to art school when I was college age, but I don't ever remember it being a place for troublemakers, in fact it was the hip place to go and you needed real artistic talent to get accepted. Of course, in those days tuition was heavily subsidized, so you didn't have to be privileged to go to art school or college. But the arts attracted a minority of the upper classes then just like today, I don't see a huge difference now, although what y'all have been saying with regard to actors is interesting, and seems like it might be more applicable there.

But because it was subsidized, all talented kids had access. Apparently, its not like that anymore. It seems like only priveleged kids have access to any kind of artistic training or even exposure.

Here's one of my favorite current actors, James Maclvoy, offering his two cents.
[www.hollywoodreporter.com]

I'd say a major reason (more than prejudice) is quite simply is not being able to afford to live - to support yourself whilst trying to make it.

In the past (even as recently as 15-20 years ago when I'd just graduated) it was possible to find a place to live in London with little/no money.

I worked in a call-centre for a while as a student and met a number of people there who were jobbing actors and musicians. They took flexible work enabling them to attend auditions at short notice, and almost always this work was low-paid - and many experienced periods of unemployment.

At the time it was much easier to obtain benefits (welfare) in times of need, and it was easier to find cheaper housing whilst on a low income (now it isn't simply that it isn't affordable but also much harder to find landlords willing to accept people on low/no incomes).

Now things are different and I guess many people can't afford to support themselves whilst trying to make it in acting or music. They need to buy food, pay the rent and bills, and therefore have to just get any full-time job that enables them to get by.

I do vaguely remember a friend's boyfriend who was in a (very minor) band in the 90s. I'm sure he got some kind of jobseeking benefit or grant aimed at people trying to make it in the arts (including acting and music). Maybe I've got confused and I certainly can't remember what it was, but I'm fairly sure nothing like that exists now.

Quote
billwebster
Thanks for the article. It's quite interesting and the dominance of "posh" talent over working-class talent may well be a reason for the fact that there hasn't been a totally new youth subculture in a very long time.

Is there anybody else who finds the use of the term "messy kids" for the children of workers to be kind of disturbing? I'm not from Britain and I guess it shows.

Excatly, or any iconic stars..

Quote
MarthaTuesday
I'd say a major reason (more than prejudice) is quite simply is not being able to afford to live - to support yourself whilst trying to make it.

In the past (even as recently as 15-20 years ago when I'd just graduated) it was possible to find a place to live in London with little/no money.

I worked in a call-centre for a while as a student and met a number of people there who were jobbing actors and musicians. They took flexible work enabling them to attend auditions at short notice, and almost always this work was low-paid - and many experienced periods of unemployment.

At the time it was much easier to obtain benefits (welfare) in times of need, and it was easier to find cheaper housing whilst on a low income (now it isn't simply that it isn't affordable but also much harder to find landlords willing to accept people on low/no incomes).

Now things are different and I guess many people can't afford to support themselves whilst trying to make it in acting or music. They need to buy food, pay the rent and bills, and therefore have to just get any full-time job that enables them to get by.

I do vaguely remember a friend's boyfriend who was in a (very minor) band in the 90s. I'm sure he got some kind of jobseeking benefit or grant aimed at people trying to make it in the arts (including acting and music). Maybe I've got confused and I certainly can't remember what it was, but I'm fairly sure nothing like that exists now.

And they give up..only rich kids can stick it out and even they they can develop some kind of fan base that utilizes their connections. If they're connected, they can be in the hot 100 Brits Under 30 in Tatler whether they're successful or not. Eventually, they will experience some kind of success.
By your spelling of i]whilst[/i] I'm guessing you're a native Brit. Thanks for your insights, because that's kind of what I wanted to know: how brits feel about this. As Americans, we love 'posh' ..Downton Abbey, Brideshead Revisited, I love that stuff, and its been suggested that Americans' fascination with upper class Britishness, or at least our perception of it, helps foster this trend.

Quote
stupidguy2

Quote
MarthaTuesday
I'd say a major reason (more than prejudice) is quite simply is not being able to afford to live - to support yourself whilst trying to make it.

In the past (even as recently as 15-20 years ago when I'd just graduated) it was possible to find a place to live in London with little/no money.

I worked in a call-centre for a while as a student and met a number of people there who were jobbing actors and musicians. They took flexible work enabling them to attend auditions at short notice, and almost always this work was low-paid - and many experienced periods of unemployment.

At the time it was much easier to obtain benefits (welfare) in times of need, and it was easier to find cheaper housing whilst on a low income (now it isn't simply that it isn't affordable but also much harder to find landlords willing to accept people on low/no incomes).

Now things are different and I guess many people can't afford to support themselves whilst trying to make it in acting or music. They need to buy food, pay the rent and bills, and therefore have to just get any full-time job that enables them to get by.

I do vaguely remember a friend's boyfriend who was in a (very minor) band in the 90s. I'm sure he got some kind of jobseeking benefit or grant aimed at people trying to make it in the arts (including acting and music). Maybe I've got confused and I certainly can't remember what it was, but I'm fairly sure nothing like that exists now.

And they give up..only rich kids can stick it out and even they they can develop some kind of fan base that utilizes their connections. If they're connected, they can be in the hot 100 Brits Under 30 in Tatler whether they're successful or not. Eventually, they will experience some kind of success.
By your spelling of i]whilst[/i] I'm guessing you're a native Brit. Thanks for your insights, because that's kind of what I wanted to know: how brits feel about this. As Americans, we love 'posh' ..Downton Abbey, Brideshead Revisited, I love that stuff, and its been suggested that Americans' fascination with upper class Britishness, or at least our perception of it, helps foster this trend.

Hey, I'm a Brit! Or I was then, anyway. And I still don't see there's much difference today. Americans were fascinated with poshness back then, too. (I certainly don't remember any bands in the 60s and 70s getting benefits to support themselves, either, or at least not the ones I knew, so I really don't think they're in a different position today, though I haven't lived in the UK for a long time so couldn't swear to it.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-07-15 01:26 by Aquamarine.