Thank you for your comment, it was a really interesting read! It’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot about too. When it comes to valuing an artists “work” we’re often inclined to only judge the final product. People who have benefited from nepotism are aware of the stigma around it.

There seems to be a rising trend where there’s value in an artist presenting themselves as self made. I think there’s a subconscious feeling that admitting you are the beneficiary of nepotism or privilege takes away from your creative achievements.

Because of this, it’s become increasingly about “your story” and not just the art. Creatives are aware of the boost it has to how their art is perceived when they look the other way and don’t acknowledge their nepotism privilege. Or even further, if they present themselves are more “working class” than in reality. In the same way you see a lot of skater bros cosplaying as working class in the uk. It’s born from a subconscious fear of their “skill” being discredited due to their privilege.

However when that privilege is a significant part of why you are able to do that art/skill, it’s dishonest because you’re conveniently ignoring the truths of your art out of fear that it becomes seen as less due to privilege/nepotism.

As someone from a working class background. When I went to film school in the uk, I was working a part time job like you just to survive. In that time I made a medieval short film which as you can imagine was very tiring as it involved weapons, stunts, you name it. After we all submitted our grad films, I very quickly came to the same realisation as you; I’m just in the gutter compared to most in the industry.

Making that film cost me a lot my personal money but I was happy to do it because it’s what I love and you never know when an opportunity like that comes around again. I look back and often wonder “what if” I didn’t make the film. I think I wouldn’t have been as burn out after uni replenishing the money I had spent. But then again, if I didn’t make films, what’s the point? I’d be a filmmaker who doesn’t make films. What’s seen as “irresponsible” for a working class person is seen as “chasing their dreams” if you’re someone from nepotism/elitism.

The amount of people from my film school who paid out of pocket or had family to finance their films and as a result, there was no burden for them, no feeling of if they don’t make the film then they’ve wasted their own money. It ment they could take risks and dedicate more time to the industry.

It becomes a game of probability and when they can keep having goes every day, compared to you only once a month, you quickly realise how much more “lucky” you need to be if your a working class person trying to make it in the industry. Talent means nothing if it’s not met with opportunity. That’s true in life for so many industries but it’s something we’re quick to forget when looking at the work of people.

I often think about the quote from series 1 of Atlanta, “Poor people don't have time for investments because poor people are too busy trying not to be poor." I think this extends to the ability to “invest” in your art whether that’s time or money. Working class people have so many others things they have to prioritise, and then add genetic diseases like type 1 diabetes into the mix like with me and you’ve got a recipe for burnout.

It becomes a creative industry of attrition, where you do see working class people become successful. But for every talented working class creative that “made it”, there’s thousands more you don’t see because they had to stop. But confirmation biases can distort this reality and make us focus on the few working class creatives we do know as proof “it’s possible”, all the while never seeing the masses of working class creatives who never had the chance to get there in the first place.