The arts is currently largely defined not by people who want to work in it, but by people who do not want to work anywhere else.
A lot of people who would be far happier working in the economic sphere, in the world of business, have displaced into the arts. Why? Because they find the world of business too boring, too uninspiring, too harsh? Because of the stress of working in industry and commerce? Because of the sheer romance and excitement of the artistic realm in comparison to the predictable, mechanised world of business?
However, this has not stopped them bringing their natural tendencies towards ruthlessness and competition into the artistic and cultural realm. In Edinburgh, they have created a Fringe, which is a playground of Darwinism. My own show, “Win, Win, Win!” which was a critique of the harsh competitiveness of the business world, the world of cutting throats and back stabbing, of winning and losing through survival of the fittest, was, partly unsuccessful at Edinburgh because its satire failed. The festival it found itself in was simply too much of a genuine example of what the show was trying to satirise. The Fringe made use of every supposedly outrageous technique the show tried to criticise. BATTAP - being all things to all people - was practised everywhere - the Law of Regression Progression, where the aim is to get ahead by making others go backwards was followed and supported by the resource model (as usual, you pay for everything, even a smile), by the reviewers some of whom obviously feel better and ‘higher’ for being really nasty and sarcastic about human endeavour and striving (I got good reviews in the nationals so I don't have a personal axe to grind here - but I saw it done to others, with relish and usually very little genuine wit), by performers as they jostled for position on the Royal Mile. It was really hard to see the genuine co-operation and sense of community attempting to express itself (which is natural to the artistic realm).