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 They are unpublished writers, artists who virtually never sell anything, musicians who put tracks online that no-one really listens to and actors who only do unpaid roles.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

Van Gogh sold only one painting during his lifetime, so I guess according to some of these definitions he wasn’t an artist

"Van Gogh only sold one painting" is becoming something of a 'cancel the cheque' on this thread.

How many times do we need to hear about Van Gogh on this thread 😂😂

It reminds me of once at a family reunion there was a chat about how many members of my family have creative talents. One of my close family members bragged that I was quite the artist and then a distant uncle, one of my mother's cousins, who I only ever saw at the annual family reunion and had hardly ever talked with bleated derisively that you couldn't actually call anyone an artist if they had never sold any their creations. Aaah, the look on his face when he was informed that I had sold my art at three craft fairs and had also sold 50 magnets to a tourist shop in one of the most swanky hotels in Copenhagen!

"Van Gogh only sold one painting" is becoming something of a 'cancel the cheque' on this thread.
It really is.😂

Though using him as a gotcha does seem like on GCSE results day when people love reminding everyone that some millionaire businessman dropped out of school with no GCSEs and look at them now, as if that makes much difference to the outcomes of the vast majority of people who don't get their qualifications.

I think you’re missing the point. It’s not as though Van Gogh is an isolated case in terms of being a commercial failure who lived largely supported by other people and died unknown — look at Emily Dickinson (two poems published, lived as a recluse, 2800 poems discovered after her death), Keats (died at 25 up to his eyeballs in medical school debt, with a few bad reviews), Emily and Anne Bronte, HP Lovecraft, Kafka (worked in insurance), or people like Melville and Zora Neale Hurston , who had some success followed by decades of abject failure — Hurston died in a welfare home after working as a maid. Plus there’s the opposite — writers who were huge bestsellers and well-reviewed in their day, and are now entirely forgotten. The market is a really bad judge of merit.

I think the question someone posted upthread about JK Rowling summed it up nicely. Was she a writer before she was published? Of course she was.

But she was a very poor, single mum who wrote in a local cafe as her home was not great - it was all she had.

It's leagues different from the wife of a banker etc, who can afford to indulge in a lovely hobby like painting, writing, blogging or showing off their great wealth via a lifestyle instagram account, and then claim to be a 'creative professional' etc.

I do think the OP has a very good point. The waters have been very muddied on this thread.

But no one is using the term ‘creative professional’ about themselves, it seems.

And actually, there’s not necessarily any difference in terms of raw talent between the wife (or husband) of a banker who writes in a mansion and a poor single parent writing in a café, any more than there’s necessarily any difference in outcome between someone like me who wrote multiple novels before getting published and someone whose first effort got a six-way auction right off the bat.

Effort, struggle, length of time trying — none of these necessarily make a novel any better than one that someone with all the right instincts and a trust fund banged out in three weeks.

Op. You can say you are whatever you like. Do can they.

Personally, I've just started training in a creative profession.

I'm still working in the sector I have been in for 20 years, to pay for the course and my mortgage etc.

I can't imagine saying I'm a creative professional until I start to earn money from my new endeavour.

There is an element of training not being enough in the arts. Quality of art by definition is subjective (look at modern art) and it often depends on the artist producing something that strikes a chord with the public. The line been failure and success of these terms are applicable is blurred.

I personally believe going people (especially from poor backgrounds) should not fall foul of thinking learning about a creative subject (dance, fine art, jewellery design, fashion etc.) at HE/FE level will lead to a career in these industries and there's are many in my local town that have got into debt unnecessarily in my opinion.

The arts will always be the preserve of the rich predominantly and framing creative industries as viable career options to swathes of non academic students is a deceptive motion.

young

I’ve had a few pieces of writing published, one of them won an award (not one of the big well known ones, a small industry award but an award nonetheless 😊). I could legitimately describe myself as an “award-winning author” because I factually am. But I never do, because it would feel like I was trying to big myself up as Hilary Mantel or Margaret Atwood-adjacent and I’m very very very much not, and make virtually no money from my writing. If I’m asked what I do in the context of “for a living” I say my very boring FT public sector job. If you only knew me superficially through work, or through my main / everyday SM profile, you’d have no clue as I write under my maiden name. I don’t really like talking about my writing and if it does come up, in a “what do you enjoy” context, I’ll mention it but I tend to play it down or make a bit of a joke of it. I’d rather be one of those people who has an unexpected talent that comes as a pleasant surprise than make a fuss about it upfront and end up disappointing people’s expectations.

Yet at the same time I hate that society has become so focused on people’s worth equating to how much they earn, and I don’t judge anyone else who calls themselves a writer (or an artist, or whatever) without much track record behind them yet. If anything I admire their self-confidence!

You damn well can call yourself an award winning author, and you should! You were given an award! I know several authors who call themselves 'award winning' who got 'cover of the month' from one of their blogger friends!

It's like being a 'best selling author'. My publisher uses this about me, even though my 'best selling' status hasn't been achieved in overall charts but in some of Amazon's more esoteric categories, like 'dog care' or 'tree and landscape management' (in books where a dog walks on the page once, or there is a holly bush mentioned - because there's not much competition in those categories!)

I think this is a really interesting thread, and that @SwanPools has asked a valid question. DH is a writer, nobody here would have heard of him but he writes a mixture of newspaper and magazine articles and interviews, a couple of (non-fiction) books, one of which is still paying him royalties 10 years after publication, and for websites across a whole range of subjects. This is how he earns a (not very good) living, he doesn't do any other sort of work and never has. A young relative does some writing, and would like to do more. He has had some stuff published but unpaid, DH thinks he has real talent and should definitely keep at it and is always offering advice, but young relative has to do other work to pay the rent. Both are entitled to call themselves 'writers' as this is how they see themselves and describes what they do/would like to do. But is there a difference between how others would view these 2 people? Yes, I think there is, personally.

Likewise we have 2 close family members who are both 'musicians'. One practises every day, gigs about 5 evenings a week and gets well enough paid not to have to do any other work. The other has a regular 9-5 job, practises a little in the evenings and does the occasional gig for beer money. He would like to do it full-time but either isn't good enough/dedicated enough/lucky enough to get there. I would say the first is a professional musician and the second is not – if he wants to call himself a musician that's absolutely fine but it's essentially a hobby at the moment.

It's definitely a grey area. I think anyone who writes is a writer, but if you're not getting paid for it, you're not a professional writer and nor is writing your profession.

I mean your friend is deluded though, isn’t he? He calls himself an artist but in fact he’s a sponger. He sponges off those close to him, including his parents and new partners, and lives on benefits that are meant for those in need, so he can indulge his hobby.

What a nasty thing to say about someone.
No. He’s trained for 6 years for a low paid vocation and is extremely talented, commercial success doesn’t necessarily equate to talent, it can just mean that individual has good business acumen, or has found a popular niche.
He’s doing ok for himself now, but it’s been a long lonely path for him. I think most of the people on this thread would prefer ’creative types ‘ to get themselves a job down the local supermarket, earning minimum wage and being miserable. Instead of earning the equivalent doing something they are talented at and enjoy.
Think it’s the enjoyment part that seems to be upsetting some.

someone selling their artwork may earn little compared to someone working a full-time entry-level job. This person on the other hand earns little compared to corporate direction, while corporate director earns peanuts compared to Elon Musk.

But all these people do work and are entitled to say they get paid for their work.

It’s not particularly nasty. You said he lives off benefits, his parents, and ‘new partners.’ It’s not the enjoyment that upsets me - great for him that he enjoys his hobby! It’s more the insistence he’s an ‘artist’ when any other man who lived off his parents, benefits, and new girlfriends/boyfriends wouldn’t be seen as a ‘television reviewer’ because they watch reruns of The OC and Dawson’s Creek. They’d be seen as a sponger who can’t be bothered working so lives off other people. He might be talented but why does that mean he needs to live off benefits and other people? If his talent is so special there is no reason he can’t indulge it in his free time while supporting himself like a functioning adult. The benefits system is for the needy, not the ‘talented.’

''@Keepthetowel · 18/04/2023 18:15
The definition some people use of being an artist is one painting sold every couple of years.''

The definition of being an artist is making art, using as a way to express yourself and being passionate about it.

Whether it sells or not and for how much is no how art is defined or valued.

It is can be a creative pursuit for its own sake, not necessarily a commercial one.

Most artists have other jobs as well.

Some of the most well known painters through art history never made much money out of it in their life time. Instead they found notoriety late in life or after their death.

I am a painter.

I sell my work and make half of my income from it. I have a part-time creative job as well (graphic/web design/copywriting).

I would still call myself a painter/artist whether I sell work or not. It is an essential part of who I am as a person.

It is my passion and what has kept me going through illness/disabilty and a shitload of hard knocks over the years.

I define myself as a painter because this what I love doing and makes me the happiest.

I also have an additional job to pay the bill but don't feels it defines me or is particularly personal, it is just another source of financial income that I am not particular invested in.

Making art is completely different: it is very much linked to my life/personality/feelings, not just a way to make money.

So I have no issue with people defining themselves by their passion, not just how much money in the bank that creative pursuit brings them.

I am one of the rarities who has been successful in a creative field (a very niche one), despite a working class background. Weirdly, I am almost ashamed of it, and never admit to the creative side of things if anyone asks me what I do. Partly due to imposter syndrome, and partly because of some of the attitudes on here/ tall poppy syndrome. I sometimes wonder if things are skewed because the majority of people who big themselves up as creatives/artists are hobbyists.

I sometimes wonder if things are skewed because the majority of people who big themselves up as creatives/artists are hobbyists
I think this is it.

On the whole I don't think that there's tall poppy syndrome as most people are very willing to appreciate someone's creative talents, regardless of whether it's their job professionally or a hobby. There's a lot of very talented amateur musicians/ actors /artists around.

I think what gets people's goat is when people misrepresent themselves, especially if done in a way that seems to focus on created an inflated impression.

E.g. Claiming to be a professional artist but what they mean is they do the some crafty things from Hobbycraft that they can sell at craft fairs/ claiming to be a musician but they actually expect their partner or benefits to fund their expenses so they can post to social media.

I'm setting my own business and work part time in something else, but if someone asked what I do I wouldn't tell them I'm an entrepreneur.

We see a lot of this in the writing community - to the extent that 'class' is now being considered part of 'diversity writing'. Because of the fact that most writers need to be supported by an earning partner if they want to write full time, it's seen as a very middle-class profession (very similiar to being SAHM).

It isn't, really. there's nothing about being working class that stops anyone writing books - just the perception that, unless you sit at home all day staring otu of a window and being struck with inspiration, you aren't a 'real' writer.

I haven't been through the thread, but there are some famous artists, I'm not sure if van Gogh was one, but others just as famous but whose work was only appreciated after they died and never sold much while they were alive. The stereotypical starving artist.

Were they not artists?

In 2097 one of those pictures could pay off your great grandchild's moon mortgage.

This is interesting - I am from a lower middle class, maybe working class background (immigrant mother who didn’t work nor had an education, working class-but-became-professional father) and I went to a shitty school in a very working class area. I am also embarrassed to describe myself as a writer, and instead call myself an [other pt jober] when people ask what I do.

So maybe it’s a class thing? I don’t know. I went to university and would consider myself very much middle class now, even though I hate the term and the system.

I am lucky - I can work part time to continue writing (and DH earns more than me). So I could easily fit into the category that makes people cringe: those who can afford to not earn as much to pursue the thing they love.

My work is published and well-received. The industry is also full of folk like me - people who work part time in an adjacent field and have a partner who has a steady income.