At What Point Can You Call Yourself an Artist? Philosophies, Histories, and the Weight of a Title

The term “artist” is deeply charged, carrying centuries of cultural weight, social expectations, and philosophical contention. It is a title that some wear with ease, while others struggle to claim it, unsure of their legitimacy. Is “artist” a designation bestowed by society, institutions, or peers? Or is it a self-defined identity tied to the act of creating? The question, “When can I call myself an artist?” reflects deeper issues about value, recognition, and identity in the creative fields.

This article explores the historical, philosophical, and social dimensions of what it means to be an artist, examining the contention surrounding this title and offering perspectives on when—and how—it might be claimed.

The Historical Weight of the Term “Artist”

From Artisan to Artist: A Shift in Social Perception

In the medieval and early Renaissance periods, those who created visual works—whether frescoes, sculptures, or altarpieces—were classified as artisans or craftsmen, valued for their technical skill rather than their intellectual contributions. Artisans worked under guild systems, producing work for patrons within a strict hierarchy that emphasized utility and craftsmanship over individual expression.

The Renaissance marked a turning point in the perception of artists. Figures like Giorgio Vasari, in his Lives of the Artists, framed creators such as Michelangelo, Raphael, and Leonardo da Vinci as intellectuals and innovators, elevating their status from laborers to geniuses. Vasari’s work helped establish the myth of the artist as a unique, divinely inspired individual, capable of transcending mere craftsmanship to produce work of profound cultural and spiritual significance.

This shift was institutionalized through the establishment of art academies, such as the Accademia di San Luca in Rome (founded in 1577) and the Royal Academy of Arts in London (founded in 1768). These institutions formalized the distinction between “high art” and “craft,” reinforcing the idea that true artists required education, training, and recognition by elite cultural organizations. As art historian Larry Shiner writes in The Invention of Art: A Cultural History, “The modern concept of art was born in the transformation of the artisan into the artist, and with it came the exclusion of those who did not meet the academy’s standards.”

The Romantic Artist: Genius and Struggle

The Romantic era further transformed the artist’s identity, introducing the notion of the “tortured genius.” Artists like Vincent van Gogh and Edgar Allan Poe became symbols of creativity as a form of suffering, with their struggles seen as integral to their work. This narrative perpetuated the idea that being an artist was not just about producing art but embodying a particular identity—one marked by sacrifice, emotional intensity, and a singular vision.

This Romantic ideal still lingers today, contributing to the notion that artists are exceptional individuals, set apart from others by their talent or vision. However, this view also creates barriers for those who do not fit this mold, particularly self-taught artists, makers, and those working outside the traditional frameworks of fine art.

Philosophical Perspectives: Who Gets to Call Themselves an Artist?

The question of what makes someone an artist has been the subject of philosophical debate for centuries. Here are several key perspectives:

1. The Act of Creation: Everyone Is an Artist

One of the most inclusive definitions of an artist centers on the act of creation itself. Joseph Beuys famously declared, “Everyone is an artist,” emphasizing the democratic and universal nature of creativity. For Beuys, artistic practice was not limited to painting or sculpture but extended to everyday acts of shaping and transforming the world. His concept of social sculpture redefined art as a collective process, suggesting that anyone who engages in creation—whether of objects, ideas, or social systems—could claim the title of artist.

However, critics argue that this approach risks diluting the term, making it so broad as to lose its meaning. If everyone is an artist, what distinguishes artistic practice from other forms of labor or expression?

2. Art as Intentionality

Another perspective emphasizes intentionality as the defining characteristic of an artist. From this viewpoint, it is not enough to create; one must approach creation with a deliberate purpose, seeking to communicate, provoke, or express an idea. Philosopher R.G. Collingwood, in The Principles of Art, argued that art is fundamentally about the expression of emotion and thought. “The artist does not simply produce a physical object,” Collingwood writes, “but externalizes an internal experience, making it available for others to share.”

This definition highlights the intellectual and emotional dimensions of art but raises questions about accessibility. Can someone who creates intuitively, without formal training or theoretical grounding, still be considered an artist?

3. Institutional and Social Validation

A more traditional view holds that the title of artist is conferred externally, through recognition by institutions, peers, or the market. This perspective aligns with Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital, which posits that legitimacy in the arts is tied to symbolic capital—degrees, exhibitions, awards, and other markers of status.

In The Field of Cultural Production, Bourdieu argues that “artistic identity is not an inherent quality but a social construct, shaped by networks of power and validation.” From this perspective, a person becomes an artist when their work is accepted into the institutional frameworks of the art world—galleries, museums, or academic programs.

While this approach provides clear criteria, it is inherently exclusionary, privileging those with access to resources and networks while marginalizing self-taught and nontraditional artists.

4. Self-Identification

In contrast, some argue that being an artist is a matter of self-definition. This perspective rejects external validation as the arbiter of artistic identity, focusing instead on the individual’s relationship to their work. As curator Sarah Thornton observes in Seven Days in the Art World, “To call oneself an artist is an act of claiming space—of asserting one’s place within a broader tradition of creation and critique.”

This perspective is empowering but also fraught with challenges. Many struggle to call themselves artists due to internalized doubts or societal pressures that equate artistic legitimacy with external success.

The Contention Around the Term

The title of “artist” is not just descriptive—it carries cultural and economic weight. Calling oneself an artist can feel audacious, particularly in a world that often demands proof of legitimacy through formal training, commercial success, or critical recognition. This contention reflects deeper tensions about value and identity in the creative fields.

Economic Pressures and Legitimacy

In a capitalist society, the value of art is often tied to its marketability. For many, calling oneself an artist feels contingent on earning a living from one’s work. However, this conflation of artistic identity with economic success undermines the intrinsic value of creative practice. As artist and writer Aliza Shvarts argues, “To create is to resist the commodification of life; to call oneself an artist is to claim value beyond the market.”

The Artist vs. the Amateur

The tension between “artist” and “amateur” further complicates the issue. While the amateur is often dismissed as less serious or skilled, the term originates from the Latin amator, meaning “lover.” Historically, amateurs were celebrated for their passion and devotion to their craft. Today, reclaiming the amateur as a valid creative identity challenges the hierarchies that separate professional artists from other makers and creators.

A Framework for Claiming the Title

Given the complexity and contention surrounding the term “artist,” here are some considerations for those grappling with this question:

1. Reflect on Your Intentions

Why do you create? Is it for self-expression, connection, experimentation, or critique? Understanding your motivations can help you define your identity on your own terms.

2. Separate Identity From Validation

External recognition is valuable but not necessary. Your worth as an artist is not contingent on sales, exhibitions, or degrees.

3. Embrace Process Over Product

Art is as much about the act of making as the finished work. If you engage with creativity thoughtfully and intentionally, you are an artist.

4. Claim the Title With Confidence

Calling yourself an artist is an act of empowerment. It is not about meeting someone else’s standards but honoring your own creative journey.

Conclusion: The Artist as a Living Question

The question of when someone can call themselves an artist is deeply personal and shaped by cultural, historical, and social forces. Ultimately, being an artist is not about meeting external criteria but about engaging with creativity as a way of seeing, thinking, and being in the world. To call yourself an artist is to claim your place in the ever-evolving tradition of human expression, challenging the boundaries of what art can be and who gets to create it.

Works Cited

• Beuys, Joseph. “Everyone is an Artist.” Documenta 5, 1972.

• Bourdieu, Pierre. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Columbia University Press, 1993.

• Collingwood, R.G. The Principles of Art. Clarendon Press, 1938.

• Duncan, Carol. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. Routledge, 1995.

• Shiner, Larry. The Invention of Art: A Cultural History. University of Chicago Press, 2001.

• Thornton, Sarah. Seven Days in the Art World. W.W. Norton & Company, 2008.