So, as is probably apparent from my website, my photos, my blog posts, gallery shows and so on, I am a pretty busy photographer. But what makes me a professional? This is something I think about sometimes. Unlike a doctor or a lawyer, there is no license to be an artist or photographer. Frankly, I think this is a wonderful thing, because creating a credential that limits artwork would defeat the whole purpose of artistic creativity and therefore the practice of photography.
This post gets quite complicated and a little philosophical, so I understand if you become bored or simply don't want to read it. For your convenience: Tl:dr (though I view it as insufficient), what makes a photographer a professional depends entirely on the photographer themselves, rather than any external validation.
What makes a photographer a "professional"? Is it the experience? The credentials? The awards they've earned? Could it be the number of clients? I argue that a "professional photographer" is neither one of these or all of these. I say it's something in the middle. I also say that it's totally arbitrary as to what the difference is between a "professional" and an "amateur".
For the purpose of this discussion, the most accurate definition of a professional according to Meriam-Webster is "participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs." If that is the literal definition of a professional then, for clarity's sake, let's define "amateur." According to Miriam-Webster (again) there are two appropriate definitions for the term "amateur", but I think the most accurate is this: An amateur is "one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession."
Looking at these two definitions, it is clear that the difference lies in "gain or livelihood." In other words, compensation for their skills and time. A professional photographer is compensated where as an amateur is not.
Confused yet? Don't worry, it gets worse.
I'm joking! Probably.
Let's talk about income first. I know, boring. So boring. Hear me out though. You don't necessarily need to make lots of money consistently to be a photographer. I know full-time photographers who don't even make enough money to be taxed, but they still are professionals in my mind. Why? Because of intent and time. Like I pointed out above, the difference between an amateur and a professional is compensation. This is not just the reception of compensation, but rather the intent of compensation and the goal of achieving compensation. Yes, a professional fine art photographer is making art for their own self-expression. However they are making it, at least in part, for others to appreciate and buy. They are also putting time and effort into making these sales. An amateur, on the other hand, is intending to make art for arts sake. If they make money off it or someone buys it from them, hey that's great! However, because of the lack of intent to make money, they may not be a professional in this context. For example, I sell my work deliberately and accessibly so that other people can buy it.
Okay, so we have intent. What knowledge does a photographer need to be professional? Do they need to know absolutely everything about their topic? I argue that no, a photographer does not need to know absolutely everything to be a professional. That would be ridiculous. Shocked to hear that? Well, hear me out.
Doctors and lawyers don't know absolutely everything in their fields, yet we still hire them. Why? That's because they have the skills and the resources to practice their art. Furthermore, if a doctor or lawyer doesn't know something, they use their pre-existing knowledge and resources to research and learn it. So, that means that a "professional photographer" really only needs to have the base knowledge and the skill necessary to practice photography well, as well as the resources and interest to expand their knowledge as needed. So in that sense, for someone to become a "professional photographer" they don't need a certain credential or formal training. They just have to be skilled, knowledgable, and interested.
Ok, so knowledge is necessary, but how you get there is fairly lenient. What education do you need to be considered knowledgeable? Do you need a particular degree or certificate to call yourself a photographer? What about the practice of professional photography? I argue that, in the case of photography and art, credentials are great but not necessary. What is necessary is skill and experience. We have already agreed that knowledge is necessary. Since credentials are not, I would say that skill and experience are what is necessary to practice photography. How you got those skills and experience is pretty much up to you. A great way to do it is to read blog posts!
Do I need to have a base amount of income first before considering my self a professional? Is there a certain number of hours I need to put in to be considered a professional? I think both of these are preposterous. There are photographers who make less than 1000$ a month and those who make more than $20,000. I argue that both are professionals. Photography, especially in the context of a small business or an individual artist, will likely have a fluctuating income. That is just the nature of the job.
Okay, so I have the knowledge and the paperwork to call myself professional. What if other people don't think I'm a professional even though I know I have the skills and practices to be one? Well, the best answer is another question. Why do you care? No one has to hire you, and no one has to buy your work. However, you work like a professional, you think like a professional, and you have the skills and intent of a professional. Plus, most likely, people have told you they like your work! How are you not a professional? Once we boil it down to the essence of professional photography, you become a professional once you decide to practice professional photography.
But wait. What if a photographer wants to be a professional, but has no interest in learning? What if someone buys a photographers work once? Does that make them a professional? What if no one ever buys their work? What if its not their full-time job? What if its not even a part time job? While I would love to answer those questions, that seems to really be better equipped for an entirely other post, or even a series of posts!
And Remember: Ignore other people's non-constructive criticism. They serve no purpose except to pull you down. Ignore them. You are an individual and an artist.
Cheers!
Comments