What is an Artist, Maker, or Creative? Understanding the Origins and Definitions of Creative Identities

In the modern lexicon, terms like “artist,” “maker,” and “creative” are often used interchangeably to describe those engaged in the act of creation. However, these labels carry distinct histories, meanings, and cultural connotations that have evolved over time. Each term represents not just a mode of production but a specific relationship to society, economy, and cultural value. Understanding where these identities come from and how they differ provides insight into the broader creative ecosystem and the hierarchies embedded within it.

The Artist: A Historical Construct of Genius and Aesthetics

Origins of the Artist

The concept of the “artist” as we understand it today has its roots in the European Renaissance (14th–17th centuries). Before this period, individuals who created visual works—sculptures, paintings, frescoes—were often seen as skilled artisans, grouped alongside carpenters, blacksmiths, and other craftspeople. Their labor was valued for its utility rather than its individuality or intellectual contribution.

This began to change during the Renaissance, when figures like Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo challenged the notion of art as mere craftsmanship. Their work was elevated not just for its technical skill but for its intellectual and imaginative qualities. Art historian Ernst Kris, in Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the Artist, explains that the Renaissance gave rise to the idea of the artist as a “genius,” someone divinely inspired and capable of transcending the limitations of ordinary labor.

This shift was bolstered by the rise of academies, such as the Académie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture in France (founded in 1648), which formalized the distinction between “fine art” (painting, sculpture, architecture) and “decorative arts” (craft, design). The academy system institutionalized the idea of the artist as an intellectual and creative innovator, separating them from the realm of functional or utilitarian work.

The Artist in Modern Context

Today, the term “artist” often implies someone engaged in producing work for aesthetic, emotional, or intellectual purposes, usually within the realms of fine art (painting, sculpture, installation, performance, etc.). The identity of the artist is tied to concepts of originality, individual vision, and cultural critique. This definition, however, continues to reflect Eurocentric and elitist frameworks, often marginalizing creators whose practices do not conform to Western academic or market-driven standards.

The Maker: Resurging Craft and Community

The Maker Movement and Its Predecessors

The term “maker” has gained prominence in recent years, largely due to the Maker Movement, which emerged in the early 21st century. Popularized by Make magazine (launched in 2005), the movement celebrates DIY culture, craft, and small-scale production, often with a focus on technology and innovation. Makers work in a wide range of mediums, including woodworking, metalworking, textiles, ceramics, electronics, and 3D printing.

However, the concept of the maker is far older than the modern movement. Before industrialization, nearly all production was localized and handmade, with makers fulfilling essential community roles. The Industrial Revolution (18th–19th centuries) shifted the focus toward mass production, marginalizing the labor of individual makers in favor of factory systems. The Arts and Crafts Movement (late 19th–early 20th century), led by figures like William Morris, sought to reclaim the value of handmade goods and traditional craftsmanship, framing it as a response to the dehumanizing effects of industrialization.

Makers in Contemporary Culture

Makers are often defined by their emphasis on process, experimentation, and community. Unlike the artist, who is frequently associated with personal expression and aesthetic innovation, the maker is tied to functional or material outcomes, such as furniture, clothing, or tools. The modern maker movement also intersects with sustainability, emphasizing small-batch production, local sourcing, and ethical labor practices.

Makers challenge the high/low art divide by blurring the boundaries between utility and creativity. However, their work is sometimes dismissed as less “serious” or “intellectual” than that of artists, reflecting ongoing hierarchies within the creative fields.

The Creative: A Contemporary Hybrid

The Rise of the “Creative Class”

The term “creative” gained widespread usage in the early 2000s, popularized by urban theorist Richard Florida in his book The Rise of the Creative Class. Florida used the term to describe a broad group of professionals—designers, writers, tech workers, marketers, artists—whose work involves problem-solving, innovation, and the generation of ideas. The “creative” is not defined by a specific medium or practice but by a mindset that prioritizes originality, collaboration, and adaptability.

Florida’s framework positioned creatives as key drivers of economic growth in post-industrial cities, tying their value to their ability to attract capital and innovation. While the term broadened the definition of creativity, it also commodified it, linking it to productivity and marketability.

The Ambiguity of “Creative”

Unlike “artist” or “maker,” the term “creative” is intentionally broad and inclusive, often encompassing roles that blend art, design, and business. A creative might work as a graphic designer, social media manager, or content creator, producing work that serves commercial or corporate goals. This has led to criticism that the term dilutes the value of creativity by prioritizing market utility over artistic or personal expression.

As art critic Ben Davis argues in 9.5 Theses on Art and Class, the rise of the creative class has blurred the distinction between cultural production and economic labor, turning creativity into a tool for capitalist growth. “The creative is no longer a visionary or a maker but a cog in the machinery of branding, innovation, and consumption,” Davis writes.

Key Differences Between Artists, Makers, and Creatives

1. Purpose and Intention

• Artists: Often focus on aesthetic, intellectual, or emotional expression, seeking to provoke thought, evoke emotion, or critique society.

• Makers: Prioritize material outcomes, functionality, and craftsmanship, with an emphasis on process and tangible results.

• Creatives: Blend artistic and commercial goals, working across disciplines to solve problems or generate ideas, often for corporate or economic purposes.

2. Relationship to Institutions

• Artists: Historically tied to academic and cultural institutions that confer legitimacy (museums, galleries, art schools).

• Makers: Operate outside traditional art institutions, often emphasizing grassroots networks, community workshops, and self-directed learning.

• Creatives: Frequently associated with industries like tech, marketing, and media, where creativity is framed as a tool for innovation and profit.

3. Perceptions of Value

• Artists: Seen as cultural innovators, but their work is often subject to hierarchical judgments based on medium, training, or market success.

• Makers: Valued for their skill and craftsmanship but often marginalized in discussions of “fine art.”

• Creatives: Positioned as economically valuable but critiqued for the commercialization of creativity.

Overlapping Identities and the Future of Creative Work

While artists, makers, and creatives are often framed as distinct categories, their practices frequently overlap. A single individual might identify as all three, depending on the context: an artist who makes functional ceramics might also work as a graphic designer or creative consultant.

The fluidity of these identities reflects broader changes in the creative economy, where traditional boundaries between art, craft, and commerce are dissolving. However, this fluidity also raises questions about value, legitimacy, and equity. As institutions and markets continue to shape perceptions of creative work, the challenge lies in ensuring that all forms of creativity—whether artistic, functional, or commercial—are recognized and respected.

Conclusion: Expanding the Definition of Creativity

The terms “artist,” “maker,” and “creative” each carry unique histories and connotations, reflecting different relationships to culture, society, and labor. While these identities are often used interchangeably, their distinctions reveal the hierarchies and assumptions that continue to shape the creative fields. By understanding these differences and their origins, we can challenge exclusionary practices and work toward a more inclusive and equitable definition of creativity.

Works Cited

• Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Harvard University Press, 1984.

• Davis, Ben. 9.5 Theses on Art and Class. Haymarket Books, 2013.

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

• Florida, Richard. The Rise of the Creative Class. Basic Books, 2002.

• Kris, Ernst. Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the Artist. Yale University Press, 1934.

• Parker, Rozsika. The Subversive Stitch: Embroidery and the Making of the Feminine. The Women’s Press, 1984.