Who Gets to Call Themselves an Artist? by Danielle Lin

Everyone calls themselves an artist these days.

To an untrained eye, every drawing and painting on earth automatically earns its creator a spot on the walls of the nearest art gallery. While ignorance is valid and everyone learns something new every day, sometimes it feels like people just don't care enough to understand how art works. And I don't like that. I used to smile politely and explain the entire art industry to anyone who asked, but now it depends. If that someone is a white-collar worker (typically male) from an entirely different line of work who has no interest in contributing to the arts whatsoever and just wants to test how much I know as a young (and in their eyes, naive) Chinese female to try to catch me in a "Aha! You didn't mention so-and-so" moment, I'll stop paying attention to them and strike a conversation with someone else.

Now I can just show them this article.

Art has evolved a lot throughout the course of history, and we love it for that. However, the downside to the radical expansion and democratization of the term "art" is that anything can now be considered art – so anyone can claim to be an artist. We've all seen our fair share of non-artists, who, after a couple trips to an art museum, claim that they've made "art" when making the decision, whether deliberate or not, to do something just slightly out of our expectations. Dirty sock on the table? Art. Pants worn inside out? Art. Cheese in fishball soup? Art. Because if Maurizio Cattelan's Comedian (also known as the banana on the wall for you people who didn't know it had a name) could fetch 6.2 million dollars, surely the regular person, with such wonderful and eccentric and creative ideas, could be an artist too and earn millions of dollars.

I know it's all said in good humour but it seems that no other profession is as parodied or casually mocked as the artist's.

So to answer the question of who exactly gets to be called an artist, I like to use the chef analogy. Imagine a chef in the culinary world. The chef creates the menu. The chef is devoted to their craft, and their creations often feature a signature flavour or ingredient. The chef often also works in an established restaurant, surrounded by sous chefs and waiters and suppliers. Now imagine your typical everyday person who cooks their dinners and experiments with a new type of ingredient every so often.

Only one gets to be called a professional.

Izzuddin Jalil's Sangkar Beton. (Photo credit: Danielle Lin)

It's the same for art. Imagine an artist whose works have been sold at an auction, exhibited in established galleries, actively works in their studio and is supported by a network of collectors, fellow artists, and collaborators. Now imagine someone who can draw a portrait or paint some birds in watercolour who managed to exhibit in a cafe or a local group show. The difference is normally what people don't want to point out loud – that they aren't really a part of "the pros" yet.

"Well, that's elitist."

Yes, and no. Consider this – would you call any other professional an elitist? Or do you just think that boundaries shouldn't exist in this specific field?

"You just said in your earlier posts that fame doesn't affect how good an artist is."

I did. And not once did I say that the professional makes better art. The professional treats art like a career and is actively involved in the art industry which consists of collectors and gallery owners, just like how you'd imagine a chef to have their team and everyone else in the culinary industry. I think the keyword here is the "industry." Because it's not as simple as "good art equals famous artist." There are many factors that go into building a professional art career – not just making good art.

"But some art that these professionals make doesn't even make any sense."

And people line up at 5-star restaurants to sip on caviar juice and nibble on lobster tails. Does it make any sense? Maybe. It's subjective. But that's the thing about art, whether visual or culinary. It was not designed for regular people with regular priorities and regular practical concerns. A whole industry exists outside of what normal people can understand or incorporate into their lives, and that is where the distinction lies. A professional navigates this industry, and, if they're truly passionate about their art, desires to advance their specific fields with their contributions. A hobbyist (which, by the way, is not a term to be offended about) dabbles in the art form for their own pleasure and fulfillment. These two types of people are not mutually exclusive. A professional had to be a hobbyist before fully integrating the career into their life.

Sharini Yogi's The Time Table (Photo credit: Danielle Lin)

Oh, and one last statement that I hear a lot.

"But making art is supposed to be for fun. Why should there be a difference between professionals and hobbyists?"

And playing football is also supposed to be for fun. Why should some people who are really good at it be paid for having so much fun?

So the question isn't really about who gets to be called an artist. It's about who does it consistently and professionally, and who does it occasionally when it's convenient for them. Not every drawing is granted a spot in the nearest art gallery. There are people you have to meet, owners you have to chummy with. Years of dedication to your craft, through thick and thin. Professionalism that affects your opportunities more than you can ever imagine.

But if you're a man working in a white-collar job who wants to claim that you're an artist because you "live your life like it's an art" and you think realism is overrated because even you could paint that with hours of practice, then by all means, claim to be one. Whatever it takes for you to stay as far away from me as possible.