{"id":1315,"date":"2009-06-18T09:53:45","date_gmt":"2009-06-18T16:53:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/wp\/2009\/06\/amateur_vs_professional\/"},"modified":"2009-06-18T09:53:45","modified_gmt":"2009-06-18T16:53:45","slug":"amateur_vs_professional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/main\/amateur_vs_professional.php","title":{"rendered":"Amateur vs. professional"},"content":{"rendered":"

The rise of digital media and networked communications is bashing apart the traditional boundary between amateur and professional, particularly in the creative fields. As Clay Shirky defines the ‘professional’ in his fabulous book Here Comes Everybody<\/i><\/a>:<\/p>\n

A profession exists to solve a hard problem, one that requires some sort of specialization…. Most professions exist because there is a scarce resource that requires ongoing management: librarians are responsible for organizing books on the shelves, newspaper executives are responsible for deciding what goes on the front page. In these cases, the scarcity of the resource itself creates the need for a professional class — there are few libraries but many patrons, there are few channels but many viewers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The problem is that digital media and networked communications eliminate scarcity (although not the need to filter…which just gets shifted downstream). And that elimination or shift directly challenges the role of the professional, leading to significant (and well warranted) wringing of hands among creative professionals.<\/p>\n

This blog post on ”The Difference between Amateurs and Professionals<\/a>” is a perfect case in point, as it hits all the expected points and entirely misses the point at the same time. The post suggests that the professional photographers are defined by:<\/p>\n