Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mary Cupp
. . . if the success doesn't materialize, the fact doesn't turn them into a hobbyist . . .
|
I quite agree. One of my early instructors defined the total committment you are equating with the term "professional artist" thusly: "If you would continue to make your art, even if it were outlawed . . . you have the committment to be an artist."
Cezanne (and Manet) are perhaps not the best examples to apply that particular yardstick of non-selling "professional". Faced with the periodic non-salability of their work, both were independently well-off, and didn't
have to be economically successful artists to continue eating regularly. Were they "hobbyists" ?? Perhaps others of their social class considered them such, since the acceptable "real" work of others in their position was to enter the army, politics, or the church.
Much depends how one defines the terms. In this country, if your work doesn't sell, ergo you do not derive your livlihood from making art, the IRS decides for you. In this instance, you will summarily be identified as a
hobbyist!
I certainly don't think such categorizing based on the arbitrariness of the tax code has anything to do with the sort of deep, personal committment you speak of.