by Your article (workers’ creative today have no chance in Great Britain, leading artists on February 21) indicates that the higher percentage of privately trained people in leadership roles in the arts is due to a “manipulated system” that the working class excludes, although it emphasizes the case, the fall in the specialist and spiritual sciences, which are drawn to the obvious conclusions, The obvious conclusions fail.
If the provision of art lessons in the state sector has almost disappeared, young people who are unable to pay for private tuition fees and whose schools do not have an art or drama departments are very disadvantaged from the start if they want a career in the arts. How can children explore and regain their creative potential if they cannot test it in an art department, a music room or in a stage of the Assembly Hall?
The support of teachers and practitioners who know from experience how to develop artistic or performative careers can be transformative, but governments of all stripes devalue the art and humanities in schools and further education.
It is much less fair to rely on Fortune-maybe family members who already work in the relevant area or live somewhere with access to activities after school, creative writing workshops or drama groups. At least in the past 20 years, regional theater, museums, opera companies and those who work in charity organizations for art and culture have rightly made efforts to increase access and address inequalities.
If the cultural secretary wishes a more diverse workforce in the arts, a good start would be to increase public funds for art education, especially in regions where the provision is scarce. Presenting the topic as one of the privileges of the upper class is a simple and misleading investment by the government in the next generation of potential cultural leaders who enable schools, universities, cultural organizations and charity organizations that deliver creative programs to extend their reach.
Cathy Baxandall
Ilkley, West Yorkshire
• In your article about the creative of the working class, the urgent need for continuing public investments in the arts are emphasized. Without them, we risk a generation of talents. Combating the arts promotes creativity, trust and critical thinking – skills that are essential not only for the creative industry, but for every sector. However, access to the theater is becoming increasingly unequal, and parents and teachers report a decline in school trips, especially in disadvantaged areas in which increasing transport costs create additional obstacles.
Theater employees across the country are working hard to close this gap and to carry out Outreach programs, youth drama clubs and creative projects that introduce thousands of young people into the magic of live performance. But their effects are limited without public investments. For this reason, the theater of the Society of London and the British theater is committed to every children’s campaign for the theater – to break the number of visitors and ensure that all children, regardless of their background, have the chance to deal with live performances.
As the cultural secretary rightly said: “Every child and adult should also have the opportunity to access live theater, dance and music – to believe that these rooms are belonging and for them.” With an appropriate investment and commitment, we can make this vision of a reality.
Hannah Essex
Co-Chief Executive, Society of London Theater and British theater
• In your article it is asked why the arts are not an attractive choice of career for those from the working class. After we worked in the bodies of two theaters, the biggest problem was the inability to offer competitive salaries in the departure of employees. If you come from a less privileged background, why would you choose an industry that would condemn you to live in relative poverty?
Raj Parkash
London
• Do you have an opinion of everything you read in the Guardian today? Please e-mail us your letter and he is considered for publication in ours Letters Section.
