The Value of a Title (It's Not A Hobby, It's A Life.)

[camrogers]

qamar posted recently on Creativity and Education, as a followup to a 20-minute talk by an academic from TED (which stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design.)

She opened with "All children are born artists. We don't grow into creativity, we're educated out of it." Which prompted a response by morgan303 in the comments and on her own journal - the full contents of which are behind the cut:


A wonderful friend of mine posted something very cool, but while I thought the crux of what she was getting at was one of those excellent things that the world should sit up and take notice of, I took issue with a single statement: "All children are born artists."

And I got that flash of something between anger and resignation that I get every time I hear that word abused.

It's a word that's thrown about like confetti these days and it makes me furious. And it's so deeply-ingrained in our culture now that everyone does it.

You draw furry porn? You're an artist. You have a DeviantArt account? You're an artist. You draw a bit as a hobby? You're an artist. You did some night classes in still-life? You're an artist.

Wrong.

You have a nice little hobby. An artist is someone who dedicates their life to their craft or who, at the very least has put enough study into it that they can say they are honestly educated (self or otherwise) enough to stand up and give themselves the title.

I do my tax every year; that doesn't make me an accountant. I cook dinner for me and patchworkkid; that doesn't make me a chef.

There is nothing in the least wrong, in fact there is everything right, with practicing art as a hobby. I'd encourage absolutely everyone to exercise their creativity to the utmost in a multitude of different ways. I spent a couple of very good years teaching drawing to people who'd never held a pencil. But it doesn't make you an artist.

I have made so many sacrifices for my profession. I scrape by to pay the rent, I spent most of my teenage years being ridiculed and even forbidden from following my career by one of my parents, I gave up a promising career as a classical singer, I spent years at uni soaking up as much information as I could and honing my skills, and most of my spare time practicing. I don't clock off at 5pm, I don't stop thinking about it and I struggle constantly to make something I think is worthy. So I really resent anyone who thinks they might like to have a little dabble being labelled an artist. It's a term that suffers so much abuse from both sides; either it's applied to hobbyists, or it's used to excuse or describe sets of negative behaviour ("artistic temperament" anyone?). You don't get this in "regular" professions; they're not cheapened like this.

When I say I'm an artist I do so with trepidation and a frisson of hesitant pride, because in doing so I apply to myself a title also held by some of the very greatest minds and talents in the history of humanity, and a collection of thoroughly extraordinary people - Duchamp, Barney, Burne-Jones, Vali Myers, Pollock, Malevich, Alma-Tadema, Da Vinci, and all the other names on that beautiful roll-call.

Thanks to the current usage of the word I'm also placing myself alongside any schmuck with a pencil and an internet connection. This also applies to writers, photographers, or pretty much anyone else working in the creative arts. Sure, it's muddy territory, it's subjective, poorly-defined, open to interpretation, and no-one in thousands of years of human history has yet managed to come up with an answer to the question "What is Art?" (it's up there with that other big one, "Is there a God?" and I can't help but suspect the two are inextricably linked).

But these are a collection of the most important professions we have. These are the people who make the culture that has defined civilisations. You don't have to have changed the world to qualify for the title, but at the very least you should have dedicated as much of your life to it as anyone else working in a professional field. It's bad enough that we barely get paid; having any dabbler claim the title you've paid for in blood, sweat and tears (literally on all counts in my case) is infuriating.


The word 'artist' (like the word 'hero' and a great many other things) has no currency any more, and we're poorer as a culture for that lack of respect. I don't say that because of how I make a living, I say it because it's obvious enough that I can draw you a flow chart on the subject.

A world in which nothing is respected means nothing is taboo.

A world in which nothing is taboo means it's a world in which nothing is sacred.

Living in a world without anything sacred means we never raise our heads.

All of which is an excuse for me to post this: the afterword to Christian Read's The Witch King, which I wrote back in 2005:

Nowadays the word ‘hero’ is practically devoid of meaning. You’re a hero if you save a baby from a burning building; you’re a hero if you get paid six figures to kick a ball in the right direction; you’re a hero if you accidentally leave the safety off your Steyr and wind up killing yourself and wounding two squadmates. Everyone’s a hero. The word has no worth.

The traditional comic book hero is designed to be your physical, intellectual and moral superior. A Fifties dad. A hair-ruffling G-man. A Bob Dobbs posterchild for steroids and conformity. A superman, for Christ’s sake. All buff, all male, all right, all the time. Hell, villains are more honest with themselves than that.

There’s something else heroes are: artefacts. Spandex-clad yes men were meant for an age when authority was to be trusted. Nowadays such notions become less relevant with each passing broadcast. Give me a King Mob, a John Constantine, a Gavriel, a Spider Jerusalem, a Bogart. Give me someone I’d be glad to buy a beer. Enough of the spin, the easy answers… enough of what we had last week, last month, last year.

People like that don’t walk a line between good and evil. They tourist on either side because they know that line doesn’t really exist. They are people like you and I, in extraordinary situations taking blows, making mistakes, living and dying and doing it with a style born of what I can only call honesty. They both succeed and fail, rise and fall. They are full of contrast, and therein lies their depth. When someone like that decides to do something you see the mechanism of that decision churning beneath their skin. They are real as you are real.

I believe the best anti-heroes know themselves, if only unconsciously. No matter how bad things get, no matter what or who they lose, they always have that one thing in themselves they can trust. Be it a black humour that sees them through, gleeful smarts or, as in Gavriel’s case, the quiet certainty that they have been underestimated. It is the immovable object they brace against when faced with an unstoppable force.

Which quite often results in them getting flattened. But, like Coyote of American Indian legend, they just as often pick themselves up afterwards, dust themselves off, and keep on walking… into whatever comes next. Their survival is their defiance. It is truth to self that keeps them going.

If you’ve ever kicked against the pricks, ever fought for the right to become the person you are, then you’ll understand what I’m talking about, and what this book is talking about. You can look into the eyes of these characters and see the writer looking back at you.

“Hate is nothing more than a sign that people are threatened by whatever you are,” Gavriel tells his brother.

The social mindset that has made the word ‘hero’ worthless is precisely what makes our anti-heroes so valuable: they’re not normal. They show us another, more intuitive, prouder way.

We must pay a price for them and we must pay a price to be them.


Cameron Rogers. October 4th, 2005. Melbourne.

EDIT 1/8/08: Updated with text of 303's post.

Comments

[the-christian.livejournal.com]

Available at http://www.amazon.com/Witch-King-Autobiography-Dark-Lord/dp/0957938896/ref=dp_return_1?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
and most fine comic retailers today! He said with half a grin...

But more seriously, me, I don't know what makes an artist. If you write a book and take some time off to work, do you somehow lose 'artist' status? Are you an artist is you produce commercial art all day? Is it publications? Showings? Distro deals? Is it having that 'passion' and knowing, deep inside yourself, where muppets and unicorns and your soul meet and dance that you are an artist(ugh)?


If you do a webcomic about sarcastic gamers and the mother-figures who love them and make ancillary deals off t-shirts are you an artist? Is it just money that defines it? (I'd be tempted to actually say yes to that. I often quote you when you once said I don't do it for the money but... I do it for the money.)

Personally, I'd imagine that notion of 'artist' is a bit of made up Romance. You do the work, other people engage with it, that's all I reckon matters.

Anything else and you end up sounding like the kind of bugger who argues 'what is art?' when you're over 20 years of age.

[patchworkkid.livejournal.com]

morgan303 spent a bit of time addressing the same question. I mean, defining an artist is as pointless as defining art. But I do know that just saying you're an artist doesn't make you one.

Look, for me, it's about a certain level of respect. And I can respect someone who is obviously passionate and committed to what they're doing, even if the end result does nothing for me. I can respect the work and focus they put into it, and the attempt to better themselves and their technique in the process. If they put in the hard yards and it shapes who they are as a person, then I have no problem calling them an artist.

It's also worth mentioning that the only reason this conversation is seen as ridiculous for anyone over 20 is precisely because the word 'artist' has become so devalued.

[the-christian.livejournal.com]

You know, back in the day, an artist was viewed the same as other craftsmen. Hell, those renaissance fuckers used to wear their lords gang-colours. You got apprenticed, did your journeyman stuff, then went your own way, looking for patronage in whatever form it took.

It's just a job, you know?

Or is it?

Me? Again, dunno. Seems to me that here in the Embarrasment of Riches we live in, we're so overwhelmed with leisuretime so that everyone consumes everything. Art itself has undergone a change in the value we assign to it.

You know longer save up for five years through plauge, Draculas attacking, Anti-popes and drought to go see some hot Glokenspiel playing motherfucker. You turn on the telly, art. You go to the movies, art. You buy a comic. Art. You read a novel. Art. Play a computer game. Art.

So perhaps we should redefine what 'creative' people do. If the word 'creative' send a judder of bonedeep hatred through me like a bell.

Then you get the high-culture lads who think that anything generic can never rise up to art, to muddy the waters. But I think we both disdain that thinking.

I'm trying to remember something - some SF writer had a 'fuck art' manifesto. Let me try and recall.

Tell me something, though - if it's work and focus and technique you admire (and I pretty much wholly agree) shouldn't someone with massive powers in, I dunno, real estate development or stock marketing or banking or some other white collar job be admired the same way?

Do forgive me for going on. You know this shit fascinates.

[patchworkkid.livejournal.com]

You know, back in the day, an artist was viewed the same as other craftsmen.

Yes and no. Yes merchants saw art as a commodity, but that's what merchants are for. And yes there was a similar sort of wheeling and dealing that we see today when it comes to vying for lucrative contracts - and all the backstabbing that can entail. The difference is that art was seen by many as the salvation of the world and the glorification of something great both within us and above us. It lifted our eyes. It was respected. Just because there existed in the same world, the same business, great names paying the rent by doing vanity portraits of patrons as Wise Men and Greek gods doesn't take anything away from that.


Hell, those renaissance fuckers used to wear their lords gang-colours. You got apprenticed, did your journeyman stuff, then went your own way, looking for patronage in whatever form it took.

I give you Clarion. I give you my experience with Dmetri Kakmi. I give you three-book deals.  All those things still occur in some fashion, sure.


It's just a job, you know? Or is it?

I may not be able to tell you what an artist is, but I can tell you what an artist/writer/businessman/astronaut isn't, and that's someone who says "I really should be working but I just couldn't be arsed," or "I'm waiting for my muse to strike."

Stephen King writes every single day of the year. He's a writer. I know someone who has written seven novels and never published a word. He's also a writer. That guy in the office 'with a book in him', isn't.

Anyway, this isn't meant to be a conversation about semantics. My point was that what we consider important changes reality. We live in a world in which Paris Hilton's chihuahua is important, and two-thousand years of philosophy is for 'fags.'


You know longer save up for five years through plauge, Draculas attacking, Anti-popes and drought to go see some hot Glokenspiel playing motherfucker. You turn on the telly, art. You go to the movies, art. You buy a comic. Art. You read a novel. Art. Play a computer game. Art.

I totally agree. It's quantity over quality. So you're saying this is a way in which our respect for artists is abraded? I'd agree with that. In fact, I'll go one better and cite this:

The greatest damage done by advertising is precisely that it incessantly demonstrates the prostitution of men and women who lend their intellects, their voices, their artistic skills to purposes in which they themselves do not believe and that it teaches the essential meaninglessness of all creations of the mind; words, images and ideas.
- Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy

Something you posted once. So if you want an example of something that's made the very concept of art worthless - no, worse than worthless: embarrassing - that's not a bad summation. (continued)

[patchworkkid.livejournal.com]

So perhaps we should redefine what 'creative' people do. If the word 'creative' send a judder of bonedeep hatred through me like a bell.

But why does it?  Are you ashamed of it?  Embarrassed?  Is it what you do or isn't it?  Why do we need to redefine anything - to make ourselves feel comfortable under the gaze of others?  I make stuff and I work at it - I fail to see the problem.


Tell me something, though - if it's work and focus and technique you admire (and I pretty much wholly agree) shouldn't someone with massive powers in, I dunno, real estate development or stock marketing or banking or some other white collar job be admired the same way?

They are.  Like morgan303 said, I make dinner for me and my partner but I don't call myself a chef.  I do my own taxes, but I don't call myself an accountant.  I do write a lot, and work very hard at it.  I call myself a writer.  If I sell stocks, I'm a broker.  If I sell land I'm an agent.  No-one blinks an eye when a person introduces themselves as such.  But introduce yourself as an artist and see how much cred you start the conversation with.

Another thing is - and I'm citing morgan303 again - when a person calls themselves 'artist' or 'writer' or 'musician' they are immediately standing themselves beside the greats of their field - not as an equal necessarily, but you're putting yourself in the company of legends.  It took me (and she) a very, very long time before feeling comfortable and confident enough in our achievements to do that.  Truth be told I'm still antsy about it, but I've had to get over it because being unnecessarily and constantly self-deprecating about one's life's pursuit does no-one any favours.

[the-christian.livejournal.com]

Answering out of order and piecmeal cos last night of E3 deadlines.

It's not that I'm embarrased of the word creative, it's just that I have two singular problems with that word.

1)Creativity is the least part of being an artist. (For the record, it's not a word I use a lot but sure I consider myself an artist.) People who do macrame and post weird pictures of C.S Friedman characters pashing off with Soul Reaver can say they're being creative.

It's a word that seems to go hand in hand with relentless amateurism. Which is good. Everyone should be able to access their creativity, be that seashell paintings, knitting or writing stories about Captain fucking Kirk. But I don't know any person with a serious body of work who rates the creativity that highly. So I tend to keep away from it.

I'd wager shiny tuppence that you'd partially agree with the proposition that coming up with ideas is the easy part.

Work is what makes you an artist. Working and by my personal defintion, being read is what crosses that invisible and possibly arbitrary line from hobby to not-hobby.

2) I see the word 'creativity' co-opted by corporate culture. You might remember that I posted a link a while back where some meatpuppet salaryman was talking about 'creative class'. When in fact, he was talking about 'thinking'.

But yeah, you're right. We're drifting towards semantics.


You know - I've been published since 95 and pretty much continually since 99. (Not artistic stuff always, however) And when I introduce myself as a writer, I'm still ask 'Oh, are you published?'

Because I'm a horrible person with the personality of a meathook, I have long since stopped being antsy over it. I'm proud of my work (when I'm not extravagantly embarrased by it)and I still feel that little surge of pride when I say 'Hi, I'm a writer.' Perhaps that is a sick thing but there it is.


If I can't take my work seriously* then who else is?

But I must say, those last are very good points.


*Not boorish, I should hope!

[patchworkkid.livejournal.com]

1)Creativity is the least part of being an artist. (For the record, it's not a word I use a lot but sure I consider myself an artist.) People who do macrame and post weird pictures of C.S Friedman characters pashing off with Soul Reaver can say they're being creative.

Someone once told me it's possible to recite the phone book and make it interesting. A friend of mine knew a guy who drew nothing but zombies - had BINDERS full of them - and they were truly excellent zombies. The guy was an artist, no mistake. A very, very focused and possibly deranged artist, but an artist nonetheless. And if I came across a guy doing etchings of CS Lewis/Soul Reaver slash, and they were good I dont see the problem in admitting it, even if the subject isn't to my taste. They've worked at a skill, spurred by their particular passion, and have become a technically and compositionally excellent artist as a result.

I think it was The Rite of Spring, when first performed, resulted in a theatre being demolished by rioting patrons. in the aftermath this was considered a success because it had provoked such passion in the audience. I reckon the sight of a lovingly-rendered Topsy and Cottontail having their molars scoured by an engorged revenant may also have a powerful effect on me. Does that make it art? How much time do we have?


I'd wager shiny tuppence that you'd partially agree with the proposition that coming up with ideas is the easy part.

Yes and no. I have a bunch of ideas I think would make great RPG modules, say, but if I'm going to spend 6-12 months writing a novel I want it to be something that I think has a chance of adding something to someone's life, even just a little bit. So yes and no: it's not a cakewalk, but it's certainly easier than then doing a book on the subject.


2) I see the word 'creativity' co-opted by corporate culture.

That I get. Actually, it squicks me for the same reason. Leaves me feeling bought, actually.


But yeah, you're right. We're drifting towards semantics.

It's not my strong point, and I'd rather get shouty.


If I can't take my work seriously* then who else is?

That's what matters first and last I think. But this conversation is still one worth having.

[the-christian.livejournal.com]

Bugger, just lost a big reply...

Arty types

[tooticky.livejournal.com]

Myself, I'd go easy on amateurs. There's still a serious point to be made in that amateurs literally perform their art or craft for the love of it - to be paid and to have that as your main source of income immediately changes the deal. Amateurs have the freedom to be as trivial (macrame and fan fic about Star Trek) or as serious and out there as they like because they're not depending on their efforts for their income. The moment you make your art or craft the main source of your income I think other factors such as having/developing/maintaining an audience and people who are willing to sell your work come in. I could play devil's advocate and say that professional work is less free and sometimes less challenging than it could be, because it's a product for a fee. ;)
We all love to mock 'hacks' as much as we like to mock the person who does night-classes in a daggy craft.
'Artist' is a tough word, and the Romantic movement has a lot of answer for. People get this maggot in their head about artists somehow being above filthy lucre and the market, or that art is 'inspired' rather than more like what we traditionally associated with a craft - you learn and you produce. I think the christian is right about the role of Medieval artists - they weren't seen as especially inspired or special, so much as the work they did glorified someone else, either their master or ultimately God. They were firmly within and reinforced the hierarchy of their world. They didn't necessarily paint what they themselves believed - they painted what they were commissioned to paint, usually propaganda of some kind, religious or political. They almost never left their names on their work. They were of the artisan class, not artists. Far more like our ideas of graphic designers, advertising and film industry folk today.
It was with the Renaissance that the idea of an individual artist with a name worth preserving started to develop. But the idea of artists as somehow outside the boundaries of class and the contracts of employment comes directly from the Romantic movement, along with the idea that you 'wander lonely as a cloud' until inspiration strikes and you suddenly churn out a master-piece. The Romantic poets, writers and artists were trying to describe their experience - as a rule they were male, sometimes they were already of independent means (and almost always of middle class), so they didn't have to scramble after patrons and publishers. They were often literally 'amateurs' and gentlemen to boot, set apart from the hoi-polloy and all demeaning commercial considerations. Irritating that the very ideas of class that we treat with such wariness or disdain also infiltrate our ideas of art.
To stand and say 'There's never been anything like this before. I have made it. You will love it (and buy it) Because It Is Art.' is a peculiarly Western notion born over the last hundred years. Artists who now go out of their way to produce art that no one can 'use' but are still expected to buy such as installations involving ox hearts and jello are the ultimate expression of this.
You're right. It's fascinating.

Re: Arty types

[patchworkkid.livejournal.com]

Myself, I'd go easy on amateurs.
I'm not going hard on amateurs.

There's still a serious point to be made in that amateurs literally perform their art or craft for the love of it - to be paid and to have that as your main source of income immediately changes the deal.
I'm not talking about money. As I said to Christian, I know someone who has written 7 novels, had none published, and he's probably more of a writer than I am because of it.

We all love to mock 'hacks' as much as we like to mock the person who does night-classes in a daggy craft.
I don't.

'Artist' is a tough word, and the Romantic movement has a lot of answer for. People get this maggot in their head about artists somehow being above filthy lucre and the market, or that art is 'inspired' rather than more like what we traditionally associated with a craft
I don't. In fact I said as much to Christian, with examples. And he quoted me as having said the same in the past.

I think the christian is right about the role of Medieval artists - they weren't seen as especially inspired or special
Yes, they were.

so much as the work they did glorified someone else, either their master or ultimately God.
That wasn't just what Christian said it was also myself. I also said the fact that they paid the bills didn't detract from the accepted importance of what they did.

They were of the artisan class, not artists. Far more like our ideas of graphic designers, advertising and film industry folk today.
I said the same to Christian, citing examples from the publishing industry, including my own experiences.

I think you may have missed my point. Aside from the fact that a lot of what you bring up I spoke of in my exchange with Christian, it's not about money and it's not about 'going hard' on amateurs. I can't hep but feel that you've seen all this as nothing more than my sledging people who haven't had a break in the industry. That's not it at all. It's about the worth of a word.

Re: Arty types

[tooticky.livejournal.com]

Ah no. :) Possibly I have missed your point. I guess mine is that the worth of and the meaning of that word and who it may apply to have changed greatly over time.
As for the thoughts on amateur versus professional, that was meant considerably more tongue in cheek than perhaps it was taken. I didn't seriously think you were sledging anyone, and wouldn't want to you to think I was either. 'Nuff said.

Re: Arty types

[the-christian.livejournal.com]

These are good points all and I think we're all in agreement when we can all go boo-hiss to those stupid Romantics, alone and palely loitering.


Amateurism is a tricky thing and increasingly a blurred line but then again, it always was. Let's take, I dunno, Kafka. He worked the vast majority of his adult life in an insurance company. He only quit a few years before his death. I think it would be hard to argue that Kafka was in any way amateurish.

Or let's look at William Blake. The chap had only one showing in his lifetime and it got one review. 'An unfortunate lunatic' they called him. So much of what he did was for commission. Again, hard to dismiss his work.

Returning to the now... I think we're seeing artist returned to mainstream and away from that Romantic notion of artist as outsider. It's turning back into a job. Film, television, music, these are all art-by-committee. If not made plurally, at the very lease they can be dictated to by the Money. (Which is a return to a patronage kind of idea.) The artist is a job again. And so... the term "artist" is again devalued. Leaving us back ten comments ago. So, yeah... I'm a productive debater!


I think my real worry is that... none of us really has the right to say 'you're an artist' and 'you are not.' I can remember reading a biography of Mozart a few years back and the impression I got was that it was so easy for him. He only really started studying when his boss made him. (Please note, I'm claiming no expertise here. Just an impression.) He didn't work hard, just did his job, slept around and kept holding out for cash.

Or Andy Warhol, who seemed almost pleased to keep himself uninformed about the art around him.

So yeah, I dunno. It's just a label. Just a title you can claim or not claim. I don't know what has the power to appoint it, either.



I'm feeling a tad unable to get my points across with this...

Re: Arty types

[patchworkkid.livejournal.com]

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i.he>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i.He worked the vast majority of his adult life in an insurance company. He only quit a few years before his death. I think it would be hard to argue that Kafka was in any way amateurish.</i>

For sure. I think he also worked like a bastard at his writing, didn't he?


<i>Or let's look at William Blake. The chap had only one showing in his lifetime and it got one review. 'An unfortunate lunatic' they called him. So much of what he did was for commission. Again, hard to dismiss his work.</i>

See, the fact that he worked so long at his craft - even if it was for commission - makes him an artist in my book (his later success aside.) What this also means is, though, that I have to look at someone who cranks out cynical shite for ad companies and admit, if he really applies himself to what he is doing for the love of what he's doing, that he's an artist.

morgan303 I've heard admire the work of people who do nothing but portraits of furries, even though it's the furthest thing from anything resembling her bag. But she can admit that some of those people are damn fine artists.

So if we're talking about being able to use the word 'artist' comfortably in this day and age, I still think that having respect for another's level of commitment and craft is a mighty fine benchmark for that.


<i>Returning to the now... I think we're seeing artist returned to mainstream and away from that Romantic notion of artist as outsider. It's turning back into a job. Film, television, music, these are all art-by-committee. If not made plurally, at the very lease they can be dictated to by the Money. (Which is a return to a patronage kind of idea.) The artist is a job again. And so... the term "artist" is again devalued. Leaving us back ten comments ago. So, yeah... I'm a productive debater!</i>

My beef is about respect for what we do, and over the course of this coversation that's become blended with the use of a few key words (like 'artist'.) So to get it back to that, with regards to what you said above, the creation of ideas and images has become more of a job now, yeah. Definitely. And that's largely because every single artform we have has been bent to the service of the world's newest artform, and the only one the United States pioneered itself: advertising.

Most of it is by committee, yes. But look at how much love and attention the auteur gets: Tarantino, Jackson, Barney.

Maybe we are back where we started, with most of us being hack workers, while a few get to be rock stars.

You mentioned above that when you introduce yourself as a writer, you get asked 'have you been published?' I get that too. When I say 'yes', the next question is almost always 'Have any been made into movies?'


<i>Or Andy Warhol, who seemed almost pleased to keep himself uninformed about the art around him.</i>

I wonder about that. I'm increasingly coming around to the idea of staying alive as a creator by constantly making right-hand turns. It ties back into that whole depth-via-contrast thing I keep banging on about. Warhol may be a good example of that. I'm all for doing something shocking, small- or large-scale, provided it's about something rather than just being about itself. If that makes sense.

It occurs to me that's kind-of a guerilla attitude, and if that's the case maybe it's better for us to be underestimated, discounted, invisible. I dunno, thinking out loud now.


<i>So yeah, I dunno. It's just a label. Just a title you can claim or not claim. I don't know what has the power to appoint it, either.

I'm feeling a tad unable to get my points across with this...</i>

A conversation about this can be nifty, because it's pretty much unresolvable... although I can't help but feel there IS a really simple answer. I guess it's a half-sore point - the respect issue - because I'm tired of being patronised by white-collar halfwits. Although that has cut right back since I got published, which actually only pisses me off more.

Maybe I feel protective of the entire endeavour and watching people shortchange themselves gets my back up. Stuffed if I know, really.