There are a bundle of initiatives out there working to make communities or organizations more supportive and encouraging to artists. But often, these efforts are missing a crucial cog: a definition of what they mean by ”artist.” I’m not suggesting that there should be a single definition that we all claim as true (that would be a significant waste of collective time). But, rather, every initiative needs to define the target group for their specific purposes…and define it out loud. Without that clear and common definition of the target, it’s hard to know if you’ve succeeded.
Back in 2002/2003, the Urban Institute took a reasonable shot at it as part of its report on Investing in Creativity: A Study of the Support Structures for U.S. Artists (project details available on the U.S. Artists Report web site, where you can also download the final report). Their definition might provide a useful start.
For the purposes of their initiative, the Urban Institute included as ‘artists’ all adults who:
- have expert artistic skills;
- have received artistic education or training (formal or informal);
- attempt to derive income from those skills;
- and are or have been actively engaged in creating artwork and presenting it to the public.
Among that group, ”professional” artists are those that actually do derive a portion of income from their skills [as an acoustician acquaintance once said, ”all you need to be an acoustician is a client”].
If you need a definition, it’s not a bad place to start. Who’s got another? Let me know by posting a comment below.
Andrew — While not exactly on-point to your question, I actually wrote a book about this — “Artful Work: Awakening Joy, Meaning, and Commitment in the Workplace.” I studied how artists think about their work and challenged others to adopt the paradigm that drives the work of artists. So my “definition” is more about the artist’s internal process than about any external criteria.
There are seven assumptions in this paradigm: all work can be done artfully, the reward for the work is in the doing of it, the ambition of the work is joy, all work has a spiritual component, it demands that the artist owns the work process, it requires consistent and conscious use of the self, and there is an acknowledgement that as the artist does the work, the work also does the artist.
The usefulness of Andrew’s comments to me were the sentence “I’m not suggesting that there should be a single definition that we all claim as true (that would be a significant waste of collective time). But, rather, every initiative needs to define the target group for their specific purposes”.
Should Richard’s comments be directed at a conference looking at the differences between creative and non-creative labour, his comments would be invaluable. Should they be applied to an arts organization trying to define who should be the recipients of project money, or to a council trying to define the target for a new community arts inititiative, or should the adminisitrator of an arts organization be trying to design a database to categorize and house its members, Richards comments would open all the old battles that I am so sadly familiar with in my work with a local city arts council and that Taylor is trying to remedy with his comments.
Thank you for the question. In what I have seen, an artist is someone who truly loves their craft. Most have a talent that flows freely, but to fine tune their craft involves time, sweat, tears and money. They want everyone to love, to enjoy, and most importantly to understand their work. An artist is someone who works their craft even if no one loves, enjoys or understands. (Sometimes “the piece” is just between the artist and his maker.) The artist wants to make a living off of their craft, so that all their energy and time can be spent on the inside of the process of their craft because there lies their soul.