Is Art a Valid Profession?

Art is not just important to society, it is essential and inherent. Still, being a professional (making a living) in the arts does not make your art more valid than anyone else because "professional artist" by definition is an impossible occupation.

I've seen several statements discussing the idea of "civilian" vs "professional" in regards to communities with an artistic focus and found there's a commonly held misconception that skill-level in an artistic medium and professional involvement in that respective industry are directly related. While artistic virtuosity is often acknowledged and recognized(rightfully) I dislike the entitlement self-proclaimed "professional artists" often have simply because of how many followers they have or how much money they make providing creative services. This entitlement stems from the artists' inability to distinguish between a "musical/visual/performative" service and an artistic endeavor. As someone who considers themself both a professional musician and an artist, the goal of this essay is to explain how they're different.

Some people might think "If no one's gonna like my art what's the point of making it?" We are all connected by emotions and basic needs. Art is a form of emotive expression so it's always ignorant to assume that no one will like your art. That said, lived experience informs the way we individually feel emotion, so its also ignorant to assume that everyone will like or even understand your art. This duality proves to me that numbers shown by social media (followers/likes/etc), quantity of gigs or commissions, grants received, and yearly income cannot effectively determine the validity of one's art. The only things these numbers determine are the artists ability to monetize/market their skill and knowledge in a way that’s relevant to popular taste, but I'm reluctant to say that since "popular taste" is a vast, varried, and constantly changing idea relative to different cultures and demographics.

So what is art that is "valid" vs art that isn't? A definition should be objective, but "art" is near impossible to define without using several subjective words. That said, I can best define it as "a form of expression using skill, knowledge or experience in one or more mediums that is capable of communicating and/or evoking emotion". By this definition, if something is art then it is inherently valid.

Art cannot be owed, nor can it be forced into existance by a removed party or an employers will. Art is simply art and being an "artist" is not truly a profession because it cannot profit on its own. That may sound grim, but accepting that your art itself is not what's making you money or giving you self worth can be incredibly liberating. If you're free of self-deprecation caused by seeing numbers on social media or your annual income, you can better focus on the artistic practices than bring you joy. This is not meant to discourage, but rather encourage my fellow artists to learn how to monetize their skill, knowledge and experience in their respective medium(s). If you learn how to monetize and then choose not to, that's totally fine too and that choice in no way takes away from the validity of your art.

I'm sure after reading this several people will assume I'm expecting or even suggesting artists work without considering money, but that's certainly not the point nor is it my intention. I'm encouraging all artists (monetizing or not) to clearly make a distinction between a creative service and an artistic endeavor and where the two converge in your own personal schedule.