JESSICA CLANCY is a local independent artist participating in the Fringe.

I RECENTLY read the Fremantle Herald’s Thinking Allowed questioning the trajectory of the Perth Fringe Festival (“Why Fringe is a farce,” January 31).

Concerns were raised about the number of artists vying for media coverage, alongside unease about increasing commercialisation and over-saturation within the festival.

Having submitted a press release to the paper the week before, I noticed the decision to devote significant space to reflecting on these broader challenges rather than featuring specific shows. 

While I may have hoped to see more direct artist promotion during the festival period, I did appreciate the conversation being opened about the pressures facing independent artists.

Independent and underground festivals should absolutely be scrutinised to ensure they are not swallowed by the unchecked jaws of commercialisation. 

It is incredibly difficult for artists like myself to build a sustainable livelihood in the current arts landscape. At the same time, I think it is important to acknowledge what Fringe continues to provide.

Fringe creates an inclusive space within an industry defined by competition and rejection. It supports new works. It sends reviewers and awards judges to small shows. It creates a structure, and a deadline, that prompts artists to experiment publicly, in front of audiences who are often willing to engage with works in progress.

I am genuinely grateful to Fringe for providing a platform to experiment in a relatively low stakes, semi-professional environment where exploration is encouraged.

My show had no marketing budget and no major backing. Yet Fringe still sent reviewers and award judges to see it. At times, they were among only 10 people in the audience.

I also want to respond to the notion that the number of acts has “dramatically” increased in recent years. There has been growth, certainly, but what has also increased is the pressure on artists to market themselves relentlessly.

We are operating within a broader culture of techno-capitalism and “side hustle” economics, where every creative project is expected to function as a micro-enterprise. So while a 10% increase in the Fringe program since 2023 may be contributing to audience fragmentation, the marketing environment – particularly social media algorithms – has made organic visibility significantly harder to achieve.

Once Meta recognises you are promoting a product, your reach is throttled unless you pay for sponsorship. Even your closest friends and family may not see your posts. 

This was far less pronounced even a few years ago. The monetisation of visibility disproportionately impacts small, independent shows that rely on personal networks to build momentum and sell tickets.

In terms of market saturation, calls for a cap are understandable.

However, I would be concerned if Fringe became significantly more selective. It remains one of the few spaces where artists can participate simply because they are artists.

I don’t expect to make money at Fringe, although of course I would like to, and believe artists should be able to. 

I didn’t make much when I first performed Golden Age Girls seven years ago, and I won’t make much this year with Resonance either.

The harder truth is that most independent artists rarely make money on new work anywhere. 

That is a systemic issue within the arts economy, not unique to Fringe. 

It is arguably being exacerbated by techno-capitalism, which has not only further commodified creative labour but monetised the visibility required to sustain it.

Thinking of independent artists like myself who contribute to the electric pink wash across the city during Fringe, the crowded laneways, the overflowing pop-up bars clinking under festoon lights… I believe there are practical measures that could soften the financial risk.

Sliding scale

A tiered or sliding scale registration fee model, particularly for first time or self-produced local artists.

Consideration of caps on commission percentages for participating venues.

Clearer reporting on average artist returns after costs, allowing participants to make informed decisions – as has been suggested in recent discussion.

Centralised marketing support for smaller shows, such as rotating “local spotlight” features across Fringe’s own channels to counteract pay to play social media systems.

Exploration of a micro-grant pool or rebate system for local emerging artists who demonstrate financial loss after the festival.

While compensation rarely matches the labour involved, Fringe continues to offer artists something different: a yearly prompt to create boldly, take risks, and share emerging work with audiences willing to be part of that process.