6 ms·

Him sitting next to author reminded me how I always think you are a writer when you pay your bills through writing, same with art etc. I find so many that say t

Him sitting next to author reminded me how I always think you are a writer when you pay your bills through writing, same with art etc. I find so many that say they are an "artist" yet thats not how they pay their bills. Sure you may make fantastic art but you are not an artist. You never here someone say I am a basketball player just because they play basketball as a hobby. Doing something that pays your bills is totally different than it being a hobby or even being great at it.

gnaritas 10y ago
Not everyone defines themselves by what pays the bills, plenty of artists do menial jobs to make ends meet. How they pay their bills is a bad measure of who/what they are, you shouldn't reject someone's self definition because you want to judge them by how they make money. You are not your job.
- pm90 10y ago
  This is a good point. The profusion of people who claim to be artists or writers, but aren't really, has really colored the perception of many people though (including myself). I was quick to mentally agree with the op comment before yours made me realize that there are probably many genuine artists who have not been "discovered" and thus have to find other means to pay the bills while continuing to create art.
- AndreyErmakov 10y ago
  >> You are not your job. Very true. I hold the same liberal view as to what people truly are. An interesting idea just struck me. If a seasoned software developer quits his full-time job to work on a startup of his dream, while taking a part time job at a bar to be able to pay his bills, who is he then? Is he no longer a professional software engineer? Is he now a bar tender? An entrepreneur? What is he truly then during this period? By the same token, if say an economist has been getting frustrated at his job and starts learning web programming, building simple personal sites for himself and friends, is it insufficient to call him a programmer, even if we would all agree he is only a junior one? Where do we draw a line? If someone is serious about a new vocation and invests a lot of time and energy into mastering it, then by all rights he's already in part what he aspires to become.
gokhan 10y ago
AFAIK, van Gogh was quite unsuccessful paying bills with his paintings, always borrowing money from his brother.
maldusiecle 10y ago
William Carlos Williams and Wallace Stevens are good examples of brilliant authors who couldn't support themselves with their work alone. (In fact, economically, almost no poets can support themselves by book sales alone. They tend to go for grants or teaching gigs.) They were better artists than the vast majority of those who put out writing which can support them.

gnaritas 10y ago

Not everyone defines themselves by what pays the bills, plenty of artists do menial jobs to make ends meet. How they pay their bills is a bad measure of who/what they are, you shouldn't reject someone's self definition because you want to judge them by how they make money. You are not your job.

pm90 10y ago
This is a good point. The profusion of people who claim to be artists or writers, but aren't really, has really colored the perception of many people though (including myself). I was quick to mentally agree with the op comment before yours made me realize that there are probably many genuine artists who have not been "discovered" and thus have to find other means to pay the bills while continuing to create art.
AndreyErmakov 10y ago
>> You are not your job. Very true. I hold the same liberal view as to what people truly are. An interesting idea just struck me. If a seasoned software developer quits his full-time job to work on a startup of his dream, while taking a part time job at a bar to be able to pay his bills, who is he then? Is he no longer a professional software engineer? Is he now a bar tender? An entrepreneur? What is he truly then during this period? By the same token, if say an economist has been getting frustrated at his job and starts learning web programming, building simple personal sites for himself and friends, is it insufficient to call him a programmer, even if we would all agree he is only a junior one? Where do we draw a line? If someone is serious about a new vocation and invests a lot of time and energy into mastering it, then by all rights he's already in part what he aspires to become.

gokhan 10y ago

AFAIK, van Gogh was quite unsuccessful paying bills with his paintings, always borrowing money from his brother.

maldusiecle 10y ago

William Carlos Williams and Wallace Stevens are good examples of brilliant authors who couldn't support themselves with their work alone. (In fact, economically, almost no poets can support themselves by book sales alone. They tend to go for grants or teaching gigs.) They were better artists than the vast majority of those who put out writing which can support them.