Anyway...I clicked a link that seemed to have a positive message for artists - as the poster stated: "a nice summary of the personality traits of as artist: http://clicks.robertgenn.com/s
"As an artist who is struggling to make it as a professional, and with many years of toil and learning behind me, I am often frustrated by the sheer numbers of “artists” out there who are simply people who decided to pick up a brush and, because they managed to paint a tree that looks like a tree, they figure they’re ready to break into the commercial market. Local art fairs are overflowing with such individuals and often, I think, the public is overwhelmed by sheer numbers; the market becomes over-saturated with art of “questionable” standards and it boggles the mind of the average Joe. Unlike any other profession, to be an artist there is no real accreditation process, no scoring system, and no firm standards (unlike golf where you might have the most beautiful swing in the world, but the bottom line is your score). Virtually anybody can claim to be an artist. What does that do for those of us who are truly committed to this vocation? Well I guess it means we just have to buckle down and make sure we get really good at it, that our work shines, and that we’re in it for the long haul, and I guess that’s what we should be doing anyway. It’s not a vocation for the dabbler, the hobbyist or the weekend warrior, it’s for those who can’t imagine doing anything else and are willing to do what it takes."
Now, I know the writer did not specifically target digital art, but what is the difference between "an artist struggling to become a professional" and “artists” out there who are simply people who decided to pick up a brush"? Who decides this? Where are the guidelines? Where are the rules? Where are the judges?
"Virtually anybody can claim to be an artist." That's true. I claim that distinction. Who says I'm not? Oh, yeah? Prove it!