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 They are unpublished writers, artists who virtually never sell anything, musicians who put tracks online that no-one really listens to and actors who only do unpaid roles.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

“It doesn't really bother me, as I said in the OP I don't have a horse in the race. I just wondered what others think. “

I think you are bothered 🤣

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..
I'd not say someone was a poet/actor/musician unless there actively making a living from it.

I've got friends who are musicians and they do some solo projects, play in ensembles, are session musicians and also teach. Some of them did other jobs alongside whilst they got their different income streams established but I'd say they were accurately describing themselves if they said they were a musician.

If someone wasn't earning much/anything and was choosing to spend their days playing their instrument and uploading stuff to social media of mixed quality, whilst their partner pays all the bills, I'd say they were unemployed and doing their hobby.

Same for people who say they're an entrepreneur when what they actually mean is unemployed and expecting their spouse to bankroll the next poorly considered idea.

I’m a published writer. I have another part time job though! I don’t earn enough from writing alone, plus I really like my PT job. Oddly, I describe myself as a [pt job titler]. I am shy about my writing.

Most of my author friends have other income streams: some teach creative writing, some are copywriters on the side.

I have come across people who call themselves writers and they aren’t published and don’t work in another field. So I see what you’re saying. But, as someone who is published and does have another job, I am not offended by it! I know how hard it is to get published and how much it means to writers to write.

I suppose the not-working part shows how unequal our society is, that some get that choice because of family or spousal money. But our vaguely broken society is hardly the fault of the person who is not suffering in it.

The underlying issue can be summed up as 'life isn't fair' I suppose.

You have person A who is very talented creatively but has to pay the bills with a 'day job' and is often too tired or busy with life admin to do very much towards their creative goals in their very limited free time.

Then you have person B who has a more mediocre skill but who is supported financially by someone else so can spend all their time working creatively and developing what abilities they have. They have the time and money to go on courses and workshops, to pay for one-to-one professional support, have networking opportunities and so on.

Person B is the one more likely to get a book published or have paintings exhibited, because that's the way life works. Person A resents that.

Or you could see it as admirable? No one is paying for this man. He’s prepared to live very simply and sacrifice things in order to spend time on doing what he loves. Even if he is an annoying person, and even if

This thread is quite revealing of a mix of both a certain kind of snobbery, tall poppy syndrome, and ignorance of the realities of making a living as a writer, musician etc, from people who know very little about it. It is an incredibly difficult thing to do, and there’s a lot of luck involved. It’s absolutely not a matter of talent meaning you can make it pay enough to support you, or having to have a job meaning you’re no good.

And no, to be fair I don't know exactly how much these people earn, especially as some are friends of clients (and one is a family member, but they do work. They will say "I'm a fashion designer" although they don't sell anything, and work as a nanny 6 days a week). But I do know their names so can see for ex that the actor's IMDB page has nothing but 2 roles in student films 20 years ago and the poet has a Blog but no links to buy any books. And that the artist's etsy page has made 4 sales in 3 years. I also have a friend whose husband is a musician but only output is a soundcloud page where each song has a few 100 listens. They may have huge success selling elsewhere, but it isn't the impression I'm given.

Yes I think this is a sad truth. Some creative industries say they want to do something about it, but struggle.

In my former life, I was a journalist. All the connected people got to work in the big publishing houses. It felt the same.

‘Tis the depressing way our unequal society, with its three tier education system, goes.

Does it matter though? I want a discussion on how we define ourselves in this society, not whether I am jealous or whatever. Pretty sure we would all love to be able to do what we love all day and not worry about paying the bills!

If you spend the majority of your time on it or try to, then I think it’s fine to call yourself an artist/song writer or whatever you specialise in. If you are actively trying to make a living out of it, whether that’s happened or not yet, I think it’s also fine to call yourself a professional.

What gets my goat (and I must admit I do have skin in the game as my annoying sil does this) is calling yourself an artist if you don’t even make art. (She hasn’t even finished a piece in about a decade, and just lives off her parents’ money.)

Creative – yes.
Professional – no.

I like running, therefore I am a runner. But running is not my job, and I'm not paid to do it. Therefore I'm not a professional runner.

(I am actually a 'creative professional' – I have a full-time decently paid job doing something creative. It does mildly annoy me when people assume my work is a twee little hobby.)

You are stalking them on IMDB, blogs and social media. I'd say you are deeply bothered.

If you looked up my friend M who is a self-supporting writer, you would find nothing in her name. That's because she has a pseudonym, thanks to the racist nature of the publishing industry, and writes under that name. People think she is living off her spouse's money.

Oh ok, in light of the dropping of the term professional I think it's fine to say "I'm a poet" if you spend significant amounts of time writing and sharing your poetry. If people engage with it then you're still contributing to society. And even if you aren't great, you can still be a poetd. Bad teachers can still claim to be teachers, bad builders still claim to be builders. Again it would only be a problem if you said it in response to "what's your job?"

I wouldn't say it's stalking! I'm admittedly very nosey but I'm only looking them up once.

A depressing number of organisations expect people to work for free these days and the 'creatives' who go along with that drag it down for everyone trying to make a living.

And AI is quickly exacerbating the situation.

Well, I continually see posts on here about ‘ideal careers’, emoting about how people would love to ‘be an author.’ In fact, nothing is stopping you writing. You don’t need training, special equipment etc. You can carve out half an hour a day to write — on your lunch break, by sleeping less, by cutting out TV. I wrote my first novel on maternity leave, which got me an agent, but it wasn’t till my third, written while working in a demanding FT job, that I found a publisher. That is the reality for most people of ‘doing what you love’, not being supported by someone else. The results and the hours aren’t visible.

Yes. I am traditionally published, and began when I was an SAHM, getting up at 5 am for years and years. I was lucky to get a publisher immediately because it's a niche non-fiction subject, but I didn't make very much money until my third book.

I know a few of these. Mostly writers who live off family money. I don’t mind them calling themselves writers when asked. What I do mind is when they are smug and superior about doing a creative job and try to put mine & DH’s jobs down (finance).

DH & I don’t have the luxury of family money so need to actually earn enough to buy a house here in London and pay the bills.

Surely it is a hell of a lot easier to succeed if someone else is taking care of the bills etc. though. If you have to work a full day, look after kids and then work at the kitchen table knowing you've got the choice between an hour of writing or getting to bed before midnight only to get up at 6am and do it all again it's a lot harder to be productive compared with someone who has no other responsibilities and a dedicated room in their home for writing from. But this is how it ever was with the arts, I know.

Yes, it's harder. Just like it is harder to get a job in any field or be published if you have a foreign name. Life's not fair.

I don't have a dedicated room in my house though. We live in a tiny flat and DH works from home too. I work from the library. If you are waiting around for everything to be perfect, it will never happen. Virginia Woolf was wrong about a woman needing a room of her own to write. If you want to write , you will write. Otherwise, no.

My OH and I worked very hard and lived quite low to establish our business. When we were in our fifties, we were able to sell it for a reasonable amount, enough not to have to work anymore ( not yacht territory, just living without working in a nice but ordinary house).

I did work in a creative industry, and when I ‘retired’ I could spend more time doing creative work. I did a lot, and people did actually offer to buy it or get me to do things for them. I never accepted, though I would give things away, or do them for ‘nothing’. I didn’t want the things I did for love becoming ‘income’ and so in the system.

But when I had to fill in the forms for purchases, or insurance , or residency in another country, I didn’t want to put ‘retired’ ( partly because it might have been queried ). So I put ‘artist’.

"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?"

If the person who paints/writes or whatever generates income equivalent to what they'd be paid from a job, for the same hours, then no.

If they spend 40 hours a week making jewellery, sell it at barely the price of the cost, & are topped up elsewhere by a partner or benefits, yes, they are deluded.

If you write regularly you’re a writer. If you run you are a runner. If you make jewellery you make jewellery.

If you do something then that is quite literally what you do, particularly if you are actively honing your craft and abilities and working on it over time.

It is a sad attitude to creative and cultural products if their commercial value is the only qualifier.

When I call myself a writer I’m not really talking about my day job as a freelancer, even though it pays well and supports me (I live alone). I’m talking about all the writing I do whether anyone wants to pay for it or not.

If they spend 40 hours a week making jewellery, sell it at barely the price of the cost, & are topped up elsewhere by a partner or benefits, yes, they are deluded.

What about low paid retail workers that might have their wages topped up with benefits, or a partners wage, are they deluded too ?

An old friend of mine is very much an artist, he’s now in his late 40s has spent most of his life alternating between living at his parents, or with a new partner. He’s had the odd period of employment, in a creative field and living off benefits. He sells his work too.
It’s not a life I would choose, I met him originally at art college and could have lived that way, but didn’t want to and got a sensible job instead, he’s very much an artist.
I think there’s honestly a bit of envy running through this thread and I mean this gently - starting with the op. It takes quite a lot of guts to put yourself out there and call yourself an artist, you are opening yourself up to others judgement of your work and ridicule, as demonstrated through this thread, when you do it, ‘deluded’, ‘naive’ , the works not very good, profitable etc.
If painting, writing, whatever is something you spend a significant amount of time on, via previous study or practise, regardless of profitability then it forms a part of
personality and it’s ok to call yourself an artist.