Definition of an Amateur?

Aug 10, 2008
2,023
2
33
In a rock concert
So an artist is defined by how much money he makes?
That seems more to me like the business side of magic than the art.

That's what I was gonna say! anyway, the reason that I decided to change the relation between amateur and profesional was that precisely, because everybody here was saying that a pro is the guy who "makes"money out of magic, that's why I changed the relation to


Amateur-Artist



Check out my post on Page 2 so you see what I am talking about.(ThrallMind)

Cheers and have a nice day!:D
 
Jun 7, 2008
1,648
0
30
DC area
www.youtube.com
i go with the words or robert houdin

"a magician is not some one who juggles, or performs card tricks. A magician is a man playing the role of some one with supernatural powers."

so what im saying is that when a laymen just thinks that person doesn't think they are good or don't put a lot of effort into their tricks and just wants to know the tricks and not know how to perform it well.
 
Dec 4, 2007
1,074
2
www.thrallmind.com
So an artist is defined by how much money he makes?


No.

A hobbyist doesn't really make any money off his hobby, and most definitely does not get his main source of income from it, whereas an artist more than likely does.

I would also say an Artist creates, whereas a hobbyist may just use other peoples material.

-ThrallMind
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
The textbook definition of an amateur is one who does not practice a skill professionally. This has been brought up several times, but apparently nobody is bloody listening because they thing that amateur is a derogatory word. Given some of the reactions I've seen to the word, one would think it was a racial epithet.

I am an amateur cook. I do not make any money from cooking my own meals. Not a dime. And I'm okay with that. The fact that I am an amateur cook is not a bad thing, nor does it define me as a person.

A second definition of amateur is one who is unskilled. Again, I don't take that as being negative. To me, the second definition reflects a person who has not begun the road to mastery and may not wish to take that road at all. That's fine.

I fiddle with DIY projects a little so that I can make my own props. I'll never be as good at that as Hollywood art directors and prop teams, and that's fine. I don't need to take the path of mastery on that one, I only need my skills to be adequate for my personal purposes.

Why is it that being called an amateur must be taken as an insult?

I'm probably going to avoid this topic for a while from this point on as you're all starting to talk about what defines an artist versus a hobbyist or amateur, and when a topic like that comes up the pretentious levels go through the roof and there's enough flames to start a raging forest fire.
 
Nov 20, 2007
4,410
6
Sydney, Australia
The textbook definition of an amateur is one who does not practice a skill professionally. This has been brought up several times, but apparently nobody is bloody listening because they thing that amateur is a derogatory word. Given some of the reactions I've seen to the word, one would think it was a racial epithet.

I am an amateur cook. I do not make any money from cooking my own meals. Not a dime. And I'm okay with that. The fact that I am an amateur cook is not a bad thing, nor does it define me as a person.

A second definition of amateur is one who is unskilled. Again, I don't take that as being negative. To me, the second definition reflects a person who has not begun the road to mastery and may not wish to take that road at all. That's fine.

I fiddle with DIY projects a little so that I can make my own props. I'll never be as good at that as Hollywood art directors and prop teams, and that's fine. I don't need to take the path of mastery on that one, I only need my skills to be adequate for my personal purposes.

Why is it that being called an amateur must be taken as an insult?

I'm probably going to avoid this topic for a while from this point on as you're all starting to talk about what defines an artist versus a hobbyist or amateur, and when a topic like that comes up the pretentious levels go through the roof and there's enough flames to start a raging forest fire.

Steerpike, whilst I agree with most of your comments, I don't think it's correct to say that there's much flaming here, that would be a generalisation, at least in this topic.

The reason why being called an amateur is taken as an insult is because people take the second definition of yours to heart, and generally do take it as a negative connotation firstly because judging and being judged is extremely prominent and secondly because we're self-important by nature, and the definition implies a value judgment. Hence we disregard the fact that it doesn't have to be negative, but choose to read it in that way.
 
Sep 1, 2007
3,786
15
Steerpike, whilst I agree with most of your comments, I don't think it's correct to say that there's much flaming here, that would be a generalisation, at least in this topic.

I didn't say it had started yet. But when people start trying to figure out who's an artist and who's a hobbyist it doesn't take long for everyone to start showing their inner douchebag.

The reason why being called an amateur is taken as an insult is because people take the second definition of yours to heart, and generally do take it as a negative connotation firstly because judging and being judged is extremely prominent and secondly because we're self-important by nature, and the definition implies a value judgment. Hence we disregard the fact that it doesn't have to be negative, but choose to read it in that way.

I can't be held reponsible for the fact that everyone takes things way too personally.

I have to wonder if this would be less of a problem if people on the road to mastery (or at least imagined they were like some here I could name) would stop treating people lower on the totem pole than them with disdain and scorn. Of course, telling such magicians to stop acting like children is like trying to teach algebra to a ferret.
 
Nov 20, 2007
4,410
6
Sydney, Australia
I can't be held reponsible for the fact that everyone takes things way too personally.

I have to wonder if this would be less of a problem if people on the road to mastery (or at least imagined they were like some here I could name) would stop treating people lower on the totem pole than them with disdain and scorn. Of course, telling such magicians to stop acting like children is like trying to teach algebra to a ferret.

Oh, sure, but I'm not implying any such thing, that you're responsible, merely stating my observations about magicians in general. And they seem to agree with yours.
 

Bizzaro

Elite Member
Sep 1, 2007
464
10
Vegas
www.smappdooda.com
OMG it's the crotch flaming guy from America's Got Talent!

WHERE!? Oh.. right..

Consider this. Many of the top sleight guys make more money elsewhere. Simon Lovell is a writer as is/was David Regal. Would you consider them amateurs because their main income came from a diferent artform? Looking back in history, the people who were pros to us had other jobs. Income doth not make you a professional. Hell Dean Dill is a barber.

This debate is on perception. Since perception is based on the individual, then there is no right answer. There are differences sure, but who cares what you call them as long as they are good and don't hurt the art.
 
Dec 14, 2007
817
2
I think Regal and Dill would both happily consider themselves amateurs. Larry Jennings had no problem with the appellation.

There is a difference between being an amateur and acting amateurishly.

Brad HEnderson
 
Feb 27, 2008
2,342
1
33
Grand prairie TX
An amateur is a magician whose main source of income is not from magic.

A professional is a magician whose main source of income is from magic.

You could be an incredibly talented magician, even better than many professionals but if you don't make a living with magic you're an amateur.

Somebody who tries to learn hundreds of effects but never learns any of them well is a bad magician. Amateur would not be the correct term.

Can you really split/define an artform into professional and amateurish?
Would you consider our artform the same as painting,dancing or filmmaking?
What im saying is like in movies,a director can be considered a professional because he/she might have made an over the top SFX movie and made a killing at the box office thus making tons of money. But some people could consider him an amateur because one can say all he has is technique and nothing else or,form seeks substance not substance form.Or that his direction is mediocre etc.you understand what im getting at?
Thats why it is difficult for me to really divide this art into amateur and proffesional.
Just sayin'.
 
Nov 20, 2007
4,410
6
Sydney, Australia
Can you really split/define an artform into professional and amateurish?

Yes, yes you can.

I think you missed the point of Squ!rrel's post.

The official definition of professional and amateur is not based on skill, as in your example. Amateur behaviour can refer as an adjective, as Brad pointed out above. However. According to our definition of professional vs. amateur, it is defined by whether or not your main source of income is magic or not. A bad filmmaker, a bad dancer, a bad painter, is still a professional painter. Just a bad professional artist.

You're mistaking the definition of professional and amateur for a judgment of the skill of an artist, which, in a formal situation, is a fallacy.
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results