I believe someone who creates art, if they gain money or not is an artist. its the want to create art and the person enjoying the art that makes them an artist. Some people create art just for money, not because they enjoy it- I do not believe this makes them an artist. To be an artist you have to enjoy the experience of creating the art- not creating it for money benefits. the same applies for musicians :)

posted Jun 30, 2011

↓ back to reply

This is an interesting question but I don't think artist and hobbyist are mutually exclusive. You can be an artist that makes tons of money and you're well known but you do it because you love it and you may even have another job. I think it's optimal when you can make money off of doing something you truly enjoy. I've run in to this problem a couple times myself.. used to make jewellery a lot because i loved it, then people wanted to buy it and I started selling it. I don't really make jewellery anymore now. It's just not as fun as it used to be...

posted Jul 8, 2011

↓ back to reply

One of my little brothers is a football player. That doesn't mean he gets paid for it— it's something he does just for fun in high school. He likes the sport. He's good at it. So he does it. He dedicates much of his free time to it and is physically conditioned for it, and he is diligent about eating healthy and keeping himself in shape for the sake of playing.

Would anyone in their right mind call him a football hobbyist because he doesn't make money from it?

Is a "hobbyist" also someone who is TRYING to make money from their art and hasn't yet? Are they not an "artist" until they turn a profit? If this is the case, then Vincent van Gogh wasn't much of an artist.

posted Jul 8, 2011

↓ back to reply

Can I just say I've also never ever ever EVER encountered anyone, in any art establishment in which I've studied, or anyone in any environment outside of an art establishment, trying to differentiate between "artists" and "hobbyists"— let alone even bringing up these two words in a comparison at all?

It just seems like someone trying to make a mountain out of a mosquito bite. It's a non-issue to me, because no one ever made it an issue. You make art, you choose to call yourself whatever the fuck it is you want to call yourself, the end. But whoops, now that we've decided this dichotomy can theoretically exist, we must try to flesh it out, with little room to be objective in our decisions... why? This isn't a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know what is the practical value of making, defining, and becoming accustomed to this distinction. Because right now, it just seems pointless to me, and I can only really see it used to speak condescendingly about different lifestyles.

posted Jul 8, 2011

↓ back to reply

Why can't someone who does it as a hobby be considered an artist? ;D

posted Aug 14, 2011

↓ back to reply

An artist, in my eyes, is someone who never stops creating, someone who constantly seeks out oppurtunitys to display work, someone who does not care whether the work looks 'nice' *cringe* or whether people like it, they just want people to see it and think about it.

A hobbiest, in my eyes, is someone who can go without creating for a period of months and not really miss it, someone who is happy if they get offered an exhibition but doesn't really mind if they never show their work at all, and someone who is trying to please an audience with pretty images rather than make art about their feelings, life, ideals.

posted Aug 15, 2011

↓ back to reply

It's something I've encountered quite often, personally. You many have not encountered it, but I've gone to many art exhibitions where artists "insult" other artists, in a way, by saying "Oh, they're just a hobbyist." I've heard teachers (not very good ones...) tell students that they are "just a hobby artist".

I've always found it really strange, and it's something I don't really understand, so I wanted to get some opinions or see if anyone could try to explain why some make this distinction. I could care less what people chose to consider themselves as, and I'm not trying to insult anyone with bringing up these terms, I just want to know other peoples opinions out of curiousity.

I think the distinction is pointless, and damaging rather than productive, but I just wanted to hear other voices on the situation.

posted Aug 16, 2011

↓ back to reply

WHOAH. I hope I continue to not encounter people acting like that, then! It's just so demeaning and really is just an ad hominem attack, it seems. Like the work is perpetually held back to the perceived lifestyle flaws of the artist, regardless of how successful or intriguing the piece is... Fuck dat shit.

Also I wanna totez clarify that my posts in here were not being angry at you, I geddit that it was a question you posed from something you heard. But the distinction makes me UBER angry, and I am angry that someone has decided it matters!

posted Aug 16, 2011

↓ back to reply

No probs, I got that you weren't angry at me at all. I just didn't want to come off like I support the distinction or anything haha.

posted Aug 16, 2011

↓ back to reply

This is something that is sort of frustrating for me personally.

My girlfriend is an artist, and a talented one at that. I may seem bias (like she says I am) but I thought she was great at what she does before we were even romantically entangled.

The thing is, she doesn't think she is an artist. I don't think she would classify herself as a hobbyist either but rather just avoid being tagged at all. To me, she is an artist. She creates art and loves to do it.

I do like what Lilly H. said. If someone truly is an artist, then it probably runs through their blood. I know when I step away from my guitar or camera for long lengths of time I do miss them quite dearly. Someone who is a hobbyist might only create art when there are random times available for them to do so. An artist might be the type to actually MAKE the time to create.

Either way, it's an interesting debate. If someone classifies themselves as an artist, then that's what they are. Simply because that's what they want to be known as. In the end it all becomes subjective.

posted Aug 16, 2011

↓ back to reply

A topical development: DeviantArt's new ID update gives you the option to identify yourself as an art "hobbyist."

posted Aug 16, 2011

↓ back to reply

People have such different reasons, motivations and circumstances for creating things that would be considered art that it's difficult to classify any of it. Art is in the eye of the beholder, even if the creator was only making it for profit. The definition of art itself is so foggy that the definition of an artist is up to each individual. I personally avoid using the term because it is so vague and controversial

posted Aug 17, 2011

↓ back to reply

A lot of times I find "hobbysts" to be more true, because they never have exterior motives for creating. Artists miiight tend to have more of a commercial appeal, and could possibly be more talented, if they're able to live off their work, but that's not necessarily true, and is a really big statement.

posted Sep 12, 2011

↓ back to reply

An artist tends to be a lower class person who creates art for the sake of money.
A hobbyist is someone who is from a higher class who creates art for the sake of art. Art pour l'art.

I knew I learned something from my theorist classes.

posted Oct 24, 2011

↓ back to reply

My art is a hobby.

My hobby is art.

posted Oct 24, 2011

↓ back to reply

That is the lamest thing I have ever heard...

posted Oct 24, 2011

↓ back to reply

some of the most refined and revered artists were people who never made any money out of their art. Does that make someone like Van Gogh a hobbyist?

posted Oct 24, 2011

↓ back to reply

I think that if you SHARE your art, you're an artist. Like, for money or not. Those people who play original acoustic songs to their webcams and post them on youtube, I'd consider them artists. Myself on the otherhand, I write music and I won't let anybody hear it, so I'd call myself a hobbyist.

posted Oct 25, 2011

↓ back to reply

Don't blame me. I didn't make that up.

posted Oct 25, 2011

↓ back to reply

I want to dropkick whoever did.

posted Oct 25, 2011

↓ back to reply

if you do art you're an artist. simple

lookbook.nu/blakemcinnes blakemcinnes.blogspot.com https://chictopia.com/BlakeMcInnes

posted Oct 26, 2011

↓ back to reply

I think your answer is dead on!
:D

posted Oct 28, 2011

↓ back to reply

so that means because I'm not from a higher class I can't make art for the sake of art?

really whoever made this up needs to get shot in the face

posted Oct 29, 2011

↓ back to reply

Yeah I think that's what the guy said.

These sounded really familar:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_art's_sake

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Mechanical_Reproduction

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Benjamin

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sand

posted Oct 31, 2011

↓ back to reply

I think it’s very unfair for you to generalize artists like that, artists come from all different backgrounds that what contributes and gives meaning to an artist work.

posted Nov 1, 2011

↓ back to reply

I consider myself an artist even though I don't make ANY money. 'Hobbyist' sounds horrible in my opinion. I think you're an artist if you're capable of creating art, NOT selling art.

posted Nov 5, 2011

↓ back to reply

I think anyone one who creates art is an artist.

posted Nov 5, 2011

↓ back to reply

the way you phrased it, I don't think those things are any different. you could say like there's a difference between people who do crafts and people who make art, but I think it's bull to try and draw a line between artist and hobbyist. like, if you put any thought at all into what you're making I think it's art, regardless of whether you do it for a living or if you're any good or whatever. just thinking about it bugs the hell out of me.

posted Nov 6, 2011

↓ back to reply

This is lame indeed! I think it's terms stupid people use to consider their works better than others. Something like defense of your "art" territory. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

posted Apr 19, 2012

↓ back to reply

I wouldn't define artist as someone that makes money from their work. I draw and paint. I give my creations to people as gifts as well as keeping some for myself. I wouldn't consider myself as any less of an artist as those that have their paintings displayed in a gallery.

I think it is a phrase used by maybe an elite group of artists that are threatened by other artists.

I don't really like art snobbery. It's even worse in the photography world. If anyone on here has ever been on flickr and visited the Flickr Central group forums, you'll see there's a clique on there that constantly belittle those seeking advise and help. I've had a look on their streams as well and they're not even all that, so I don't really get where they think they can get away with saying such blatantly nasty things to people. That's why even though I'm a photographer myself, I don't generally enjoy hanging out with other photographers. It's usually a "who's got the biggest lens" competition.

posted Apr 19, 2012

↓ back to reply