Calling yourself a creative professional if you don't make any money from it

[SwanPools]

Through my work (hence NCed for this) I come across a number of people who will say they are in a creative profession, but who don't actually earn any money from it (or extremely little, say a few hundred a year). They are unpublished writers, artists who virtually never sell anything, musicians who put tracks online that no-one really listens to and actors who only do unpaid roles.

They do however invest a lot of time in their chosen activity and don't have another job. All are financially supported by their partners. They don't have young children or clean their own houses (this may be where I come in...) so couldn't be described as SAHPs or even housewives/husbands (as to me that implies looking after the home most of the time, not hiring a cleaner). They aren't retirement age either.

Should they be saying they are an xyz if they don't financially support themselves with it, or is that a money centric view and if it's how they spend their time then they are an xyz? At what point do they earn enough money from it to say they are one? Is earning any money OK or does it have to be at least min wage (for example)?

I don't have a horse in this race, I don't think I would say I was an xyz unless I made money from it but I also don't like that we define people so much by how they get their money.

IANBU = they shouldn't say they are an artist/writer/musician etc unless they make money from it
IABU = it's how you spend your time that matters, even if you earn nothing from it

I've met some writers through work.

All actually writing stuff that people read.

I was 99% certain that the vast majority of their income came from benefits/side hustles. As the number of writers actually making a living from writing is tiny.

Just remembered that DH has written a book. Every now and then we get a royalty for about £0.36p.

A lot of people don't want to pay creative professionals. Sadly you often have to do a lot of work for free to reach the point where someone will pay you to do it.

I do think people with successful partners like and need validation in their own right and this is one way of doing it.

There are a couple of issues here:-

Some people have a genuine natural talent but don’t get the breaks Or don’t want a ft career from it
Some people are without talent and like presenting themselves in a certain way.

I have many friends who are musicians. That's their passion/vocation. Only a couple of them can say it's their job, the ret have to "make do" with teaching jobs to supplement their income.

There's no way I'd claim they aren't musicians.

My friend is a literary agent and represents lots of authors making actual money.

They are successful authors. Their works sell many, many copies & they are popular and widely sold.

I think a huge number of people are vain and cannot see past their love of the activity to the fact that they are not good enough at it to earn money doing it.

Sadly you often have to do a lot of work for free to reach the point where someone will pay you to do it.

Thats because these are hobbies. Enjoyable activities many people love to do, for fun, without remuneration.

People are perfectly willing to pay enough to the truly exceptionally talented people. These people are exceptional because there are not very many people that talented.

The lack of money in the creative industries generally means those that can actually survive economically are shielded by family support.

This has meant currently and historically the middle/upper classes are responsible for a lot of our literature, art and music.

I get a bit annoyed reading about the background of musicians and finding their 'edgy' working class background was anything but and they actually were from solid middle class backgrounds with supportive parents

I find this interesting too OP. On the one hand, I think it’s a shame we’re meant to define ourselves by what pays the bills and I have many friends who are artists/musicians/writers who definitely supplement their income with other related but less creative jobs. But then they live in an expensive city and none of them have family money or high earning partners.

on the other hand, I roll my eyes a little when I see a piece in a magazine about Wonderful Creative Lady, which starts with a description of her beautiful
sumptuous home, the many fabulous children, the luxurious table set for a delicious afternoon tea, etc etc before going on to wax lyrical about the amazing jewellery she makes or whatever. I didn’t realise for a very long time that such Wonderful Creative People probably didn’t become that rich through their endeavours but probably started rich and therefore can afford to be creative. So now I often am a bit cynical when I hear or read about someone who is an artist or jewellery designer or ceramicist etc. I can’t help thinking in some people it’s a bit pretentious but I recognise that’s often an unfair call.

I'm a wildlife photographer. I don't earn money from it - I work in a school to support myself financially. But I still consider myself a wildlife photographer. Let people be who they want to be. If they see themselves as an artist, so be it. Money should not be a contributing factor in terms of who someone is.

This is also very true. Not that there's anything wrong with being middle class or with pursuing your passion if you have financial means to do so. I would do it if I could.

But there is a certain class of person in our society which does "creative" or "worthy" work and is sniffy about people who have to pay the rent. Sometimes it's a bit tedious. I've met an awful lot of people over the years (and lost a few friends) who have looked down on me for having a "corporate" job (ie one that pays a salary and in which I don't have total creative freedom) because they were off making films, making paintings, making poetry etc. To a man/woman they were all supported by parents/spouses/grants.

I can live with the fact some people have more creative freedom than me, that's life. I find the assumed moral superiority a bit exhausting though.

I agree OP I do find this annoying, when I was single it used to really wind me up on dating apps when men described themselves as musicians, artists, DJs etc. then after you’d get chatting they would admit this was a ‘hobby’ that they didn’t make much income from and actually they were (for example) a teacher.

Maybe it’s because I work (very successfully) in a creative industry and I was looking for a like minded person and excited to meet someone of the same ilk. I felt it was dishonest and disappointing when the truth came out.

But if we are all honest, you work in a school and you enjoy wildlife photography. That’s completely different from misleading people into thinking your full time job is a photographer.

I am a “creative professional” and support myself and children on it. (Single parent until very recently)

Your point is interesting- at times long ago when I didn’t have as much work as I do now, I was definitely the same person with the same skills.

However I have never said it was my job was it wasn’t, it’s a bit cringey to do that.

I'm a bit torn on this.

The truth is they are in a very privileged position in being able to live their lives in this way without needing to get a job with a more reliable income but I think the world is a better place for having creative people in it who persue their passions regardless of whether it is profitable or not.

No reason why you can't describe yourself as a struggling author or artist who is doing a cleaning job to pay the bills. I hear Hollywood is full of actors who work in bars and restaurants!

on the other hand, I roll my eyes a little when I see a piece in a magazine about Wonderful Creative Lady, which starts with a description of her beautiful sumptuous home, the many fabulous children, the luxurious table set for a delicious afternoon tea, etc etc before going on to wax lyrical about the amazing jewellery she makes or whatever.

In those articles there is usually a sentence tucked away somewhere about how Wonderful Creative Lady's husband is a hedge fund manager/investment banker.

I imagine all the wives selling each other jewellery round the dining room table, like super rich Avon ladies.

I think it's fine to call yourself an artist, musician, poet or whatever irrespective of whether you make money from it. Plenty of great writers were unpublished or barely published in their lifetimes- Gerard Manley Hopkins and Emily Dickinson spring to mind. I don't think anyone would suggest they weren't poets. Van Gogh couldn't support himself from his art and had rely on his brother. I don't think anyone would suggest he wasn't an artist.

Calling yourself a "creative professional" perhaps suggests you do make money from it but it's a slightly cringy term anyway, money-maker or not.

Refer to yourself however you like, OP.

https://onbeing.org/poetry/small-talk-or-in-my-hand-galaxies/ I like this poem about (among other things) who gets to call themselves a writer.

Van Gogh wasn't a creative then..He didn't make a sou.

Snap with PP.

But why define yourself by the thing you do 9-5 to pay the rent rather than the thing you put your heart and soul into, which you may be more highly skilled at, and which you are more likely to make a lasting contribution in?
Being properly committed to a creative endeavour is different from enjoying it. I enjoy singing but I am shit at it and have never tried to improve. On the other hand I am a talented writer who has worked hard at it for many years. There’s an enormous difference even though writing is very far from being my livelihood.

How do we quantify 'success'? If I were in a relationship and therefore had another full time wage coming in, I would be a very successful author indeed, by the lights of the many many authors who make less than £10k per year. But, because I am single and therefore have to support myself and pay all bills singlehanded, I can't live by the unpredictable royalties alone. So I have a day job.

Am I successful? Or not? I make a reasonable amount of money, but because royalties can vary so hugely depending on whether there's a new book coming out or whether my publisher has given the backlist a bit of publicity, I don't make my entire living from writing. So I'm sure a lot of people think I'm 'trying...bless.'

In those articles there is usually a sentence tucked away somewhere about how Wonderful Creative Lady's husband is a hedge fund manager/investment banker.

Totally.

I suppose because it’s standard to give your actual occupation in certain circumstances (like the dreaded dating apps) and when you portray yourself as something else because you’d rather that was your occupation, it’s misleading and unfair to others who assume that’s what you mean.

It's an interesting question. I know a few people who describe themselves as actors but have not earned a penny as an actor for years. One in particular has been a 'temp' for nearly 30 years but definitely defines himself as an actor and not the profession he temps in full time. He went to RADA so I guess it's about his identity.

It's also a way of not quite being able to admit you didn't make it in the way you wanted. I am in reality a failed actor myself although I absolutely made my living at it, but not in the area I wanted to. I called myself an actor because I didn't want to admit to myself that I was a bit of a failure!

Unless she is a very unusual agent a fair number of the authors on her list will have other jobs or sources of income.
I wonder how many years it took Hilary Mantel before she was earning the equivalent of a comfortable middle class salary. She was a mid list literary fiction author, albeit a greatly admired one, for decades until she broke through, and literary fiction is not the best paying genre.

I've just had my first book published by traditional means and know I'm very lucky to have done that. I would describe myself as hobby author as I'm working on a sequel.
It's not about money, just something I enjoy doing during my early retirement.