There has recently been a lot of discourse around “Nepo babies”, celebrities whose careers were, if not entirely dependent upon, certainly helped by generational wealth and nepotism.

This is particularly relevant to discussions we’re having now around cutting funding for the arts, which will only serve to make creative fields more inaccessible to anyone who doesn’t already come from a place of financial security.

In the context of such an unequal society, funding for the arts becomes not important, but essential for the promotion of a diverse and fair creative industry.

At a time when people are struggling the most, cutting funding for arts will only affect those already hit hardest by the cost of living crisis. I spoke about it in relation to politics in last week’s column but when taking the first few steps of any professional journey, starting out with money in your pocket, or a well-connected family, can have an incalculable impact on how much success you are able to have, and the speed at which you are able to achieve it.

READ MORE: Rishi Sunak's Tory's far-right populism is an insult to Britain

Whether it’s getting fast tracked for an interview from your father’s golf buddy, or having a surname synonymous with success in a particular field, no industry is immune from people having, and benefitting from the connections of friends and family.

It's no secret that art in particular is often the purview of the rich, as it can often take years to make money at all, let alone enough to live on. Many artists have to supplement their income with jobs which take time and energy away from creating their art.

This takes its toll, to the point where creative pursuits can often become untenable to all but those who can afford the requisite investment of both time and money, effectively excluding impoverished and working class people from the arts.

Financial barriers unfortunately become apparent at a very early age, as families who are struggling with money do not have the funds to spend as much on their child’s interests and hobbies as they would like.

A study from Georgetown University which began in 1989 found, according to its lead author Anthony P Carnevale, “People with talent often don’t succeed. What we found in this study is that people with talent that come from disadvantaged households don’t do as well as people with very little talent from advantaged households.”

The right to a comprehensive and enriching education should not be something only accessible to those who can afford it, and everyone should be given the opportunity to develop and nurture their skills and passions.

This kind of narrative feeds into the “pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality presenting the world as a level playing field within which everyone has an equal chance at success if only they possess the right combination of talent and luck.

We’re led to believe in meritocracy, where achievement and effort are proportional and those who put the most in will inevitably get the most out of life. Tech moguls are presented as possessing a unique and innate business acumen allowing them to self-propel into the world of commerce, and the creative fields are portrayed as somewhere only the most talented and hardworking people find success purely on their own merits.

We can see just how disproportionate the return truly is on hard work and effort when professions which see workers on their feet, working long hours doing physically exhausting tasks are out striking for a liveable wage and fairer working conditions.

READ MORE: News changes... but The Herald will always have something to say

It’s convenient when those who are successful in politics and other fields can obscure their privilege and connections, because it allows them to be portrayed and perceived as inherently qualified for their positions. Leaning into the idea of being "self-made" can paint them as an underdog, add an element of edge or struggle to their brand and make them seem more hardworking, making it against the odds.

Despite being listed as the “2nd richest self-made woman in music”, Taylor Swift’s father invested heavily in the record label that signed her at a young age, she was flown out to New York for singing lessons, and had the financial flexibility to relocate the family to Nashville to help propel her career.

The issue with this framing is it's just that, a frame designed to portray a lived experience that often is inaccurately represented, or flat out lied about, erasing the work of friends, family, community, and the labour of other workers.

Kylie Jenner is referred to as the “youngest self-made billionaire” due to the fortune her cosmetics empire has amassed, which is a pretty creative interpretation of the situation. Putting to one side the beneficial impact that belonging to one of the world’s most famous families could have upon starting a company, the idea that you can make a billion pounds all on your own negates the time and effort of every person formulating, sourcing, producing, packaging, selling, and delivering the product, none of whom are recognised in the “self-made” journey.

The same goes for Jeff Bezos, the founder of a company whose workers, the ones actually packing and delivering the products generating his vast fortune, constantly speak out about poor pay and working conditions during their backbreaking shifts.

Elon Musk called former Labor Secretary Robert Reich an “idiot and a liar” for his assertion he shouldn’t claim to be self-made, despite Musk’s own father reporting profits from his emerald mine helped fund Elon’s living expenses and move to the US.

These grotesque fortunes are not solely the result of sheer genius as we are led to believe, often they simply combine the self-perpetuating cycle of generational wealth.

Does this mean that anyone who achieves success aided by an affluent start in life replete with connections and capital doesn't deserve their success?

Absolutely not, but it's disingenuous to paint these people as self-made when they draw from a rich seam of support, financial or otherwise.

The issue for many lies not in the presence of nepotism or generational wealth, but in a reluctance or even downright refusal to acknowledge these helping hands exist, and are used to pull people up and ahead of their peers.

Recognising the impact of community and teamwork in the creation of a successful business or person is not to negate the work they put in, but to acknowledge we are, through legislation, funding and investing our time, able to contribute to the success of those around us, and vice versa.

Just as it is possible for us all to receive help, advice and support from others, so too is it possible for us all to offer that to those around us. In highlighting the ways in which “self-made” is a misnomer, the goal is not to invalidate the hard work and effort it takes for someone to succeed in their chosen field, but to acknowledge we are all community-made, and in strengthening our communities and making them more equitable, we will be more able to thrive.