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 They are unpublished writers, artists who virtually never sell anything, musicians who put tracks online that no-one really listens to and actors who only do unpaid roles.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’m with you OP. I used to be a music journalist (an actual, professional paid one) and the amount of hobbyists calling themselves music journalists was infuriating, because they’d happily offer to work for free just to get their names out there and in turn make it harder for actual professionals to get paid. I’ve no problem with someone pursuing a creative interest and I know that often you do have to start by doing unpaid work to build a portfolio - I’d have no issue if these people called themselves music bloggers or even writers, but they weren’t journalists or professionals.

Im surprised you know so many with partners happy to bankroll them tbh. My boyfriend is a musician and he does make a living from it but if he didn’t I sure wouldn’t be funding him!

If they make no money from it, then they maybe creative but professional they are not.

This whole thread is a beautiful example of why I rarely ask new people I meet what they do and instead always say what do you enjoy, what lights you up.

Most of my (creative professional 😂) peers, including me, have had a period of time where they worked a day job as well while building their creative practice/business, and quite a lot of us do multiple things and freelance bits because that's the nature of the creative brain too.

I get frustrated that as a society we put so much emphasis on success equalling earning money from something - my own
is divided very firmly into creative work (for clients, I love it but it's always to a brief and it pays well because I'm very good at it) and creative practice, which is what I make for my own joy. Prints etc are available for sale but I have no attachment to whether or not they sell because I create them for me, not for a market or audience.

Before I established the creative work side of what I do, I had a day job because I'm single and bills don't pay themselves. I can't really see why you'd say you were an xyz based what you do between 9 and 5, when what you actually do with your life and free time is what you choose what to spend your time on.

But regardless of whether you think you're a creative or not, or a professional or not, who wants to talk about work unless it's something you love? So asking what people enjoy gets a very different and much more interesting response.

The part that's potentially misleading to me is the 'professional' part of 'creative professional'.

If someone said to me they were a creative professional, I would assume they were either experienced in their chosen field and setting up working freelance as a viable line of work, or they had an established business with a decent track record. Whether they had another income stream wouldn't come into it as having multiple income streams is common.

Hobby creatives who rely on their living costs funded by their partner whilst they earn very little and do little to develop their own business skills wouldn't be a "creative professional" to me. They're unemployed and doing stuff they enjoy.

I’d be very surprised if your friend represents only writers who make a living solely from their sales. My agent, and the other agents at her big agency, tend to have a range of writers who sell varying amounts, but certainly of all the literary fiction writers I know, even the most successful (well-known name, has done author chats on here, Orange Prize-shortlisted) needs a day job. And it’s currently a crappy time to sell anything — I can think of three or four novelists with three or four novels to their name, reasonable sales, and their agents can’t sell the new one.

Like others, I think that the "professional" bit is misleading. But whether it's ok to say "I'm an author" depends entirely on context. If someone asks you what you do and it's heavily implied that they mean for work, then it's misleading. If someone asks you what you like doing, then I think it's fine. Some things are obviously not someone's main source of income, and sound fine to state "I'm a Morris dancer", for example. Also if you're talking to people who know your job then of course it's fine, if a colleague said "I'm an artist" I wouldn't assume that she meant she made money from it.

The deeper question to ask ourselves is why do we care so much about what people do in exchange for money, and not so much what they do for hobbies. I think it's because on some level it's an indicator of their worth and wealth, and we're secretly trying to place people in a social hierarchy. That's why "creative professional" feels deceitful, because it makes you place them somewhere on the social hierarchy that they don't really belong to.

But I don’t think the people the OP is talking about are using the phrase ‘creative professional’ — that’s her catch-all phrase for them. I imagine these people are saying ‘I’m a musician’ or ‘I’m a novelist’, not ‘I’m a creative professional’.

The deeper question to ask ourselves is why do we care so much about what people do in exchange for money, and not so much what they do for hobbies.

Its because the willingness of other people to pay you for what you do is a clear indicator of your skill/talent level at it. Has been since the prehistoric social evolutions that enable human beings living in groups to develop specialist skills beyond simple survival (eg hunting/gathering food, finding shelter & water etc).

Also for me there's a thing about laziness. A lot of these people want paying to do their hobby rather than support themselves with an actual job that needs doing. Yes it would be fun to just play guitar and sing all day wouldnt it, but hard working people do a useful job besides like being a nurse or a fireman.

It gets more annoying when people self indulgently have a hobby profession earning the bare minimum and then survive topped up by benefits, rather than taking the hit like everyone else and getting a job. It's about sharing the social load & doing your bit to support yourself if you are able to.

By OP's definition Vincent Van Gogh was not a creative professional.

Hobby creatives who rely on their living costs funded by their partner whilst they earn very little and do little to develop their own business skills wouldn't be a "creative professional" to me. They're unemployed and doing stuff they enjoy.

@LolaSmiles Replace partner with brother and you have just described Van Gogh.

I don't mind what people call themselves as long as it's not 'thought leader'. 🤮
I absolutely will judge you for that!

"Creative" isn't an issue as they clearly but that brief, it's "professional" that implies they earn money. If they only earn £10, they are still "professional", just not very good at it. I used to know an artist who was mostly lazy or drunk, culminating in a few wild weeks of working where he'd create something (often commissioned) and sell it for £10k-£15k. He probably only did 3 pieces per year. I don't know how you know how much your clients earn, but while it might not be a lot it may be more than you think.

@LolaSmilesReplace partner with brother and you have just described Van Gogh
Yes, and?
Isn't it generally accepted he only sold one painting in his lifetime?

He was in a fortunate position where someone else funded his living costs so he could do something he enjoyed.

It's not a statement about the quality of the paintings.

He wasn't a professional artist in his lifetime.

People who call themselves 'Creatives' usually aren't.

I think you can call yourself whatever you wish.

Furthermore, let’s be honest, the most creative and prolific authors and artists in history were often supported by family money.

Gosh, so much sneering.

I am a freelance writer. That is what I do to earn cash, that is what does down on my tax return. I work part-time and always have done since my eldest was born - just as many other parents do. Probably about 12-15 hours a week. I don't "publish" anything, because it's not that sort of writing. People have a very narrow view that writing = novels and that's not the case, most of my income is from blog posts and I also have a gig creating multiple choice questions for quiz websites. I also volunteer regularly 4 hours a week, am just about to complete a MSc and am applying for a PhD, look after my kids and do loads of other things as well.

So let me get this straight, it's OK for someone who works 12 hours a week in Tesco to describe themselves as a checkout operator (even though that takes up a fraction of their working week), but someone who paints, makes jewellery, writes or similar is self-indulgent and deluded?

Realistically Van Gogh was a massive outlier though. It’s a bit like when people go on about how ‘x entrepreneur dropped out of school!’ Well yes, but so did Donna down the road from me who is now on benefits, or Jacob who went to uni in my class and now lives at home smoking weed. The majority of people who paint aren’t going to be Van Gogh.

I know someone who calls himself a creative professional but refuses to get another job to supplement his income even though he lives hand to mouth on very meagre earnings. I find that more annoying than what he calls himself.

During the pandemic he didn't work at all and was moaning all over Facebook about lack of benefits support for people like him, even though he was fit and well enough to get a different job but chose not to as he felt it beneath him 🙄

KnittingNeedles
So your writing is your part time job and you look after the children. Iknow people who work part time for education companies writing content and resources. It's flexible and works around their children.

I'd say you're both writers/content creators/copywriters/something else linked to your particular area of writing.

It's a bit different to someone wanting to do their hobby, not earning anything for it/a little bit here and there, and then trying to present themselves as a professional in that area whilst someone else covers all the living expenses. They're not a professional jewellery maker/writer/musician, they're unemployed and are lucky to have a partner who is happy to fund the household so they can devote time to their hobby.

Well, no… you could be described as a part time freelance writer because you are a part time freelance writer. If someone asked ‘oh what do you do’ they want a basic idea of what your life is. So if you said ‘oh I’m a freelance writer plus I’m doing my PHD soon’ that wouldn’t be misleading. If you were on benefits and occasionally tinkered with a short story then it would be misleading to say ‘me? Oh I’m a writer.’ Because you know it would imply to the asker that you make your money through and spend most of your time on writing which is not correct.

And I’m not sneering - I’m one of the short story tinkerers! But if someone asked ‘oh and what do you do’ I wouldn’t answer ‘I’m a writer’ because that would give them a very misleading answer of what I do on a daily basis.

You're right. Sorry if that was misleading, I just didn't want the title to be really long! One will say she is "a creative" but the others say "I'm a poet", "I'm an actor" etc..

Well, the joke is that being a freelance creative feels a bit like being self-unemployed sometimes.

The thing is when you introduce yourself as X it's in a social context. It's meant to open up an ongoing conversation. When I describe myself as X it means that I can talk about it enthusiastically, I have interesting thoughts about it and if the person I've just met feels the same, we can have a great chat.

And there's an element of selling yourself a bit too. Everyone who's ever been in a creative industry knows that the next opportunity can come from anywhere - a random interaction online, a random conversation at someone else's party. "I'm a writer and I'm interested in this field" is more likely to get you that break than "the bulk of my income actually comes from a data entry job that I do an autopilot with my brain turned off".

I'm trying not to pick a side here, that's the point of the discussion. I guess I do find it odd to call yourself an xyz if you don't make £ from it, but then the whole point is it's making me question how we define ourselves. I am open to both POVs but had to set the vote one way.