You didn't even fricking read it did you? The article wasn't about whether or not you are worthy of being called an artist, everyone has the ability to be called an artist. The article was only pointing out how other people, laymen and actual artists view magic and magicians.
If you want to be defined by a dictionary, so be it. I'd much rather push through and be consider a real artist by my peers, instead of labeling myself as an artist for publicity reasons. Calling someone, an artist in the kitchen, is more of a tongue and cheek. If you are a real artist in the kitchen I'd think a better term for you would be master chef, chef, head chef, etc. You know something that actually sounds like something, other then something that could be applied to a stay at home cooking wife, whose good in the kitchen, an artist in the kitchen.
That leads me to the next point. People of the arts, sculptor, performing arts, painters, etc. are artists that is just how it works. Most of those people put a lot of hard work and effort into their art in order to invoke emotion, imagination, things that a common ACR or FISM ACR won't do. The article does acknowledge that some magicians are artists. But not artists of magic.
Teller is a terrific mime, David Copperfield shows drama, Cardini was a one man play, and what separates your magic from them? The answer is a little easier then you think, if their magic wasn't there, they as performers would be able to still invoke emotion, etc. Their art isn't in magic, but real performance art. Sure magicians could cop out and call themselves artists through the performing arts route. "You're an actor playing the part of a magician," Seems to make any Yahoo who performs the cups and balls routine with a blue, red, and yellow cup an artist. IF you magicians want to cheapen the title of artist, go for it. Just don't expect me to follow.
