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 They are unpublished writers, artists who virtually never sell anything, musicians who put tracks online that no-one really listens to and actors who only do unpaid roles.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 haven't been through the thread, but there are some famous artists, I'm not sure if van Gogh was one

😂Cancel the cheque!

Exactly right!! Great post.

*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 suppose the question is though, it's this misrepresentation? Or is it totally OK to say you're an artist even if you never sell anything and can only afford to live because someone else pays for you? People here are arguing it both ways, which is interesting.

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

And that's the crux of the question really - where is the line between professional and hobbyist?

Sorry, don't know why there was a mix of bold and italics there!

This is an interesting point. If you are supported by a partner/benefits and spend your time watching TV, drinking tea, scrolling MN 😁 etc then most people see you as lazy. But if you are producing something creative in that time it's (potentially) seen differently, even if the thing you produce is crap and of no interest to others (in your lifetime, you might be the next Van Gogh after all 😉)

What I am getting from this is that you really want to be supported by a partner.

I don't get it

And that's the crux of the question really - where is the line between professional and hobbyist?

I agree, it's a tricky one to be decisive about. For me, anyone who writes is a writer. But if you never earn enough from it to do it full time and nothing else, then you're not a professional writer, you're doing it as a hobby, or out of personal interest.

Doing something full-time doesn't make it your profession if you are relying on the bank of mum and dad/a generous partner/state benefits to enable you to do it. IMHO.

Van Gogh has been mentioned again and again on this thread.

Ah, there was me thinking I had a unique nugget to share 😂

Is it possible that this is something to do with tax in some instances?

You were a bit late to the party with it, sadly 😄

Not really - I think I'd feel a bit guilty*. Likewise if my parents were supporting me. I'll take a lottery win though 😁

• maybe this is part of it though? I'd feel bad having someone else pay my way so think these writers etc should, too? Though logically no-one should, if all parties are happy. I'll blame my guilt-heavy upbringing for that, I guess.

By the way is anyone else here wondering who the authors on this thread are and if they've read their books? 👀

If any of them write contemporary thrillers, I almost certainly have as I get through those really fast, and usually read several a week.

@SwanPools both professionals and hobbyists are artists - there is no "bigging" oneself up.

I also know a lot of people who have a normal day-to-day job, but when asked they will say they are an artists even if it earns them less money than their other job, because one is tied to their passion / identity and other is just a random source of income they have

You just reminded me I dated a guy from old stunning looking told me he was in PR on a fag break I saw him illegally Bill posting. No wonder I had to pay everything.

I do understand why, if someone is entirely financially supported by a partner, and descriptions such as 'stay at home parent' or 'retired' don't apply, they might prefer 'artist' to the rather dated sounded 'housewife/househusband' even if there is minimal art being produced.

Not everyone's definition, but here's a guide from the SAA themselves:

Beginner, an artist who has been painting for 2 years or less

Amateur, someone who has been painting for a while but doesn’t make money from their artwork.

Professional, we would generally suggest that an artist who earns up to 50% of their income through art is classed as a professional.

You don't have to earn 100% of your income from art to be considered a pro! Many people earn money from trade, shares, property etc. as well as part-time jobs

SAA is the Society of All Artists in the UK

That's interesting. I definitely don't think you have to make 100% of your income to be a pro. But if it's 0%...

Unless they have young kids at home or they have health reasons not to work wouldn’t “sponging loser” be more appropriate?

I have no issues with people pursuing their passion/talent and calling themselves whatever they like (except professional, because if you don’t make money from it you’re not a professional) but I can’t summon any respect for someone who’s happy to piss about doing a hobby while being bankrolled by other people. Building it up on the side of a paying job until it’s lucrative enough to be your living, absolutely fine!

Unless they have young kids at home or they have health reasons not to work wouldn’t “sponging loser” be more appropriate?

That really opens up a separate debate. I have a house-husband, and it's great - he has my dinner on the table after work, my clothes washed and dried when I want them, he basically does all the housework while I work full time. We don't have children so it means I have very little to do when I'm not doing my paid job. He doesn't claim to be an artist, though.

@Greensleevevssnotnose 😂😂

I’ve had my fair share of ‘creatives’ mansplaining to me about music when their entire output is a few DJ sets on soundcloud that only their mates listen to. Tiresome.

I also know a lot of people who have a normal day-to-day job, but when asked they will say they are an artists even if it earns them less money than their other job, because one is tied to their passion / identity and other is just a random source of income they have

It's funny how it's only ever that way round though, isn't it? You don't hear many stories about someone who earns their living playing in an orchestra, say, who does the books for a couple of local businesses saying 'I'm an accountant at heart, that's what I really love. The music's just something I do to pay the bills.'