Absolutely! The industry is only sustainable if enough people can make a living in it *without necessarily becoming big names*…
As I said in my keynote, the dominance of the ‘successocracy’ driven by risk aversion and scarcity is just hacking through the branch the industry sits on…

I hope so too. One thing’s for certain - if we don’t address the terrifying drought in commissions and productions across the board, then scarcity will continue to drive risk aversion and the dominance of the ‘successful’ - i.e. privileged and wealthy - will still decide what we see on screens.

Thank you Fritha 🙏🏻✊🏻🙏🏻

Thank you Tracey 🙏🏻🙏🏻

Theatre, TV, film, dance, visual arts, music, you name it - it is now virtually impossible for anyone to make a viable sustainable living from the arts. Those who can afford to work for nothing can survive and thrive. Those who can’t fall by the wayside.

Schemes and quotas and promises all evaporate in the white heat of ‘not enough money and not enough work’… until we fix that, nothing will change…

16+ years of austerity has destroyed arts education and public support for the arts across the board. And then we wonder why only the most privileged can afford to stick it out… we need root and branch reform of how we fund, sustain and support the arts. Full stop.

theatre, TV, film, dance, visual arts, music, you name it - it is now virtually impossible for anyone to make a viable sustainable living from the arts. Those who can afford to work for nothing can survive and thrive. Those who can’t fall by the wayside.

Given that this technology is currently subject to lawsuits over it causing psychosis, self harm, suicide, and even murder, and given that repeated studies have found it is inaccurate and misleading at least half the time, what definition of "safe" are you using here?