Would you totally support DC(23) to set up in an arts career if you could afford it?

[CornflakeMum]

Interested to know views, as DH and I differ slightly. This may be as we have different family experiences!

DC(23) is pursuing a performing arts career. Has done training and is now getting established. Living at home, with us currently supporting by paying food etc, not charging rent, but not paying them any allowance any more. They are currently running down savings from previous work for their gym/ going out etc.

It's an industry where you have to invest a lot of time and effort in the early years, often for no (unpaid) or little return. The more time and effort you can put in, the more you are likely to be successful/ make useful contacts etc. Also you're expected to 'make your own work' i.e. your own shows and films etc.

Most actors need to have day/ 'survival' jobs in bars/ shops/call centres, but of course any time spent doing that is time NOT spent investing in their chosen career, makes auditioning hard etc, so the likelihood of success reduces. This is basically why it's so hard for working class actors to break through.

So, if as a parent, you were in the extremely fortunate position to 'fund' your DC for e.g. three years, to get the best possible start to their career, would you?

Or would you insist that they get a 'day job' for at least some of the time? Why?

No, I wouldn't. I also wouldn't have encouraged thinking about this sort of area for a career. As a hobby, or something they can do alongside work that funds them, of course. But as their one and only occupation? No.

Because statistically, the chances of success are so low, and parents aren't around forever.

It's a sad reality, but so many creatives are on the breadline and survive on benefits because they didn't have a contingency plan.

Even if the whole family throws absolutely everything at launching him, his chances of making it are vanishingly small. Say he gets to 35/40 and isn't self funding (never mind being successful), what then?

There's quite a lot of discussion in the industry about the most famous actors these days all coming from well-off families, because they are the only ones who can afford those early years of establishing their careers.

I probably would if I could, but I would expect my child to take some industry-related work or casual work that can be dropped when a job comes in. Loads of actors work part-time as waiters or children's party entertainers, after school drama club tutors or costumed characters in Royal Palaces etc. She should not be depleting her savings. It's great that you give her somewhere free to live but she needs to earn her weekly expenditure somehow. Maybe suggest she finds part time work for her outgoings and then gives herself a programme of activities for the rest of the week designed to enhance her chances - obviously going to gym, dance and singing classes should be part of that, improving any instrument skills she has, circus skills, acting classes, building up her audition repertoire and improv skills, putting on a two-hander in a pub theatre with a friend who is also a strong actor, getting on the new-playreading circuit.

I used to be an actor and did all of these. I was actually not very good but I was what's known as a 'jobbing actor' - never going to be a star, but in work most of the time, because I just kept busy, and within a year or two of leaving drama school I was earning my living from acting not other work.

As an adult I’d definitely support them but I would expect them to earn money too. A friend in LA who has written and produced two films and umpteen plays has a ‘day’ job. It can be part time, but I think for their own self worth they need to be productive and earning in between auditions and workshops. I am surprised you say ‘he’s done the training’, as I thought it was never ending. As for the self generating work - that’s what my LA friend does (as a writer/director rather than performer), but still needs to pay rent! Sorry but it’s a bit precious that they are too exhausted after working a day shift to pursue their creative interest. Many people do exactly that - their passion and drive gives them the energy.
What your child has is a safety net. Enough support that they DONT have to serve beer five nights a week. Maybe two or three. Not performing arts but my son worked a full time job plus an extra 12 hours a week at another job because he thought it might help him reach his goals. It was tough but he got loads of experience which was what he needed.
So part time job seems to be the consensus. Or, you could say that you’d fully fund for a year then reassess. But the danger there is always being on the cusp of something great, and that one year turns to five. And I still think having a part time job of say 24 hours a week leaves loads of time to pursue their dreams.

I completely get what you’re saying but you’re acting like the choice is working 60 hours a week and never get time off to audition OR be fully funded by you

There is a middle ground

i would support my DC to give them the best start but I would expect them to be on the books for a children’s party company, or be contracted for 12 hours a week at a coffee shop or in retail.

Just so they can stop running down their savings.

Or you could just build a money bonfire.

Yes I would.

He should also work on doing something industry related that earns money. Running performing arts workshops, taking actor headshots, role -play, training to become a fight director. He won’t be in work all the time and you need something for the inbetween. If it’s connected then it keeps you networking and can create opportunities. Also finding something fully flexible. I have a friend who does deliveries between job. He’s just finished a panto, no work this month but he can pay the bills by dropping into that for a bit. He also teaches and writes his own work and has his own company that puts work on.

If he gets a full time day job that requires him to be in all the time he won’t be able to audition or take work on when it comes. But it doesn’t have to be all work or no work. It just has to be the right kind of work. And if you can support that and she’s really working at things then why not?

Id subsidise for a while. But I'd expect them to work too. There are much more than 40hours in a week and someone dedicated will work weekends and evenings on passion projects. Training and an agent means very little in terms of a career, your young one needs to hussle with free projects, and try to maintain themselves too.
I have friends and family in this area, not one of them has made it into a preformace career, but a number have combined their art/acting/dance skills with professional skills and had good interesting careers.

I disagree, a bit. Yes, they shouldn't fund her 100% but in your twenties, when you have no other responsibilities - that's the time to make a go of any creative work.

The industry naturally thins itself out - people decide their temp work is okay and make it permanent, or they find a second income that allows them flexibility. I know so many creatives and not one of them is on benefits. They go through feast and famine times - I know one who went from being a household name for many years to agency temp work for several years until some good work cropped up again. They are resourceful people. It's still a fun way to live.

DS2 is in his twenties, working two creative jobs - unrelated to each other. He actually earns a bit more from them both together than his mates working for one of the top four accountancy firms - and works slightly shorter hours most weeks, too. The finance workers will overtake him at some point, he knows that, but right now he is absolutely loving his twenties and they are not! Life is long and he can settle into a sensible job once he needs to fund mortgage and family, if neither of the two creative jobs start earning more.

I think this is important. It can lead to an interesting related career. I left acting because I stopped enjoying it, not because the work ran out. But the skills I acquired helped me secure the job I have now which I love so much and have done for thirty years.

The three creatives I know all use benefits. One of them, I think it's fine. He works as much as he can. Definitely not lazy and definitely chases work. The other two are very much picking and choosing. Only doing work in the local area. Not flexible at all in what they'll take on. Also getting older, so the chances of making it are getting less (due to their field) yet not prepared to reconsider their choice of career (40ish). Parents still funding them in addition to minimal work and benefits.

How long will the savings last to.pay for gym/going out? That would be the cut off point for me.
Additionally it does them good to get a job, any job,

If I was able to and they were working hard at it, I would. My children both perform (and my daughter performs at quite a high level) and their teachers and coaches are all working professionals and are able to attend auditions and professional work without losing their day job - so perhaps worth approaching local youth theatre and colleges for paid work within the industry. It’s good for the children seeing their teachers going off to perform professionally!

Their 1:1 singing and acting teachers we also have a flexible approach with so they can do their professional work too.

I think it's a fine line and a balance - the author who spends years as a copywriter and doing the novel in the evenings, the actor who does community arts facilitation for most months of the year, the painter who does graphic design 9-5 - they're all learning from the job they're doing while working on their 'proper' art... I don't think that being 100% bankrolled to only do the 'proper' work is necessarily the best approach for anybody in terms of pressure and mental health etc. I think the small related jobs are useful for many reasons including being seen to be "putting in the shift" by others in the industry who have been there before.

But yes, if i had the funds to 'lend' a sum of money for a Fringe show or similar where they could get good reviews for their portfolio, or to front up travel costs for a touring production, then yes I would do that. (I say 'lend' because actually I would have to accept it might not come back).

I probably would, yes, but support, not completely fund. She would have to do paid work to some degree eg bank/relief work. I know that's not unusual as I work in a sector where people from all different kinds of other sectors and circumstances work on a casual basis.

Dd had to get a day job, ds hasn't had to so far. Both got professional work but for dd it was not enough and she did leave the industry. Ds seems to be making a success of it so far.

Day job. There’s really no reason they need to be sat around at home all day in the hope of their big break.

I’ve known several people who use “I’ve got a performing arts degree and I’m signed with an agent” because they think it makes them a cut above from all the other unemployed people but they are in fact just unemployed.

I know two adult males trying to make it in the arts
One mid twenties, performing arts, lives with his partner who is in a well paid career, works part time in an unrelated but flexible field, and relies on 'go fund me' finance to put on a show once a year, his family think he has 'fallen lucky', to have his living in an expensive city funded by his partner, no obvious discomfort or consideration of him being a cock-lodger, only total pride in him being talented and following his dream. His security depends on keeping his partner though, as the family are not wealthy enough to fund him.

The other is now a retirement age visual arts creative who hasnt actually worked in any job for over 40 years, and has made only the barest crumbs of peanuts in selling his art, and has been totally funded by his average waged wife.They live very modestly, no holidays, no theatre trips/meals out, and dread retirement because she's only entitled to state pension, couldnt afford a private pension or savings because one wage was providing for the family then for the two of them, he isnt entitled to anything, so they'll be on benefits in retirement- miserable existance, and most would call him cock-lodger, but wife remains very loyal to him.

Oddly enough, the two males are in the same family, so learned behaviour or lazy/dreamer genes.. who knows?

I'd be encouraging your son to work in a paid job at least part time, hopefully in a related field, three years can easily drift and being discovered, or being 'the next big thing' is always just round the corner, encouraging that drift.

Personally cant abide a dependent partner/husband/wife, adults should adult and strive for independence, regardless of career choice.

I wondered about the age factor as well. Has the dc just graduated? If so, did they decide to go to uni after two year gap post school? What were they doing previously? Why did they wait before going?

I think if I had the money and resources (and inclination), then I would fund them for up to a year, but only a set amount per month. Any more, they’d have to earn. I wouldn’t be a cash cow apart from maybe pay for overnight accommodation if they had an audition.

Interesting insight into the industry.