It is unfortunate that driven by the media's thirst for controversy - this story, the debate about the economics of the Fringe, has become adversarial with Kath Mainland, chief executive of the Fringe Society, "defending" the Fringe against my "attacks".
My concerns are about social trends and the wider cultural ecology reflected in this, the world's biggest performing arts festival. I want space to discuss them intelligently in all their complexity.
Ms Maitland wants evidence that things are harder and without an expensive study we must rely on anecdotal evidence, which suggests the Fringe is increasingly difficult because of conditions in the wider economy. As Mark Ravenhill outlined in his inaugural Fringe address, we are experiencing the biggest economic crisis since the 1930s depressionand new reports showing that half of adults in the UK are struggling to pay their bills. Inevitably that impacts on the arts sector in dwindling audiences and where the vast majority of people are not in regular employment.
The Fringe is not excluded from these conditions.
The myth, constantly being reiterated by profiteers, is that a free-market economy is fair and accessible. As public subsidy is being squeezed the Fringe financial model looks increasingly attractive as an excuse for cuts and a justification for economic rationalists pursuing profit.
The Fringe model may have been operating in the current mould for some time but that doesn't necessarily make it good or right in the current circumstances. While many year-round regional venues are struggling to attract audiences, the numbers of fringe festivals are increasing. I can see a trend developing where audiences choose not go to the theatre of an evening but instead spend their hard-earned cash in the excitement and buzz of a festival - where they can get more punch for their pound. In this scenario, the Fringe is no showcase to greater opportunities for unpaid or underpaid artists.
According to the website Ethical Consumer, the disparity between rich and poor is growing within companies as well as in wider society. It makes sense. Companies interested in working ethically are looking at reducing the ratio between the highest and lowest paid to bridge this gap. What does that mean for the arts sector, particularly in the context of fringe festivals where instead of being paid guests providing a service, artists are clients and the onus is on them to make ends meet and honour employment conditions. The disparity between paid and voluntary or paying is obvious.
This environment is particularly difficult for young artists and recent graduates. Initiatives need to be put in place to offer them greater support. With more than 1 million unemployed young people in the UK could the Fringe sytem be reinforcing a problem, not helping to solve it?
There seems a deep sickness at the root of our society where no-one wants to take responsibility for bad systems. I appreciate that the Edinburgh festival system is complex and beyond the remit of any individual, but believe we have a duty in the arts to aim higher, to use our collective imaginations to dream up better ideas and experiment with putting them into practice; not just on stage but in the way we manage ourselves and conduct our business.
In this context, the festival needs a re-think. Edinburgh, the grand dame of all fringe festivals, could take this lead, assume responsibility and reorganise the event.
The very fact that Fringe membership fees have been frozen and there is a higher percentage of commission on ticket sales going to venues, suggests that the Fringe Society understand there are problems.
During August there are so many extraordinary creative innovators here in Edinburgh.
Please let us have some meaningful conversations about these issues, not debates where arguments get polarised, but working groups where we can roll up our sleeves and focus on creative solutions.
There is a desperate need for new approaches and the arts could show real leadership. The Edinburgh Fringe is extraordinary and impossible things happen here every day - lets focus that energy and inspiration to work for the greater good.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article