does engaging in fine arts projects that end up costing me money rather that earning it make me less of a professional?
I am asked by non-photo/art people all time if photography is my profession or if it is a hobby. I find myself in a bit of a quandary because I make no money with photography, but it certainly isn't a hobby. Calling it a hobby insinuates that i am a dilettante, and that is not the case. My knowledge and experience in most aspects of photography is top shelf, but put me up against a news photographer, a product photographer, or a wedding photographer in their respective areas of expertise, and I am at the very least inefficient. While writing this it occurs to me that photographers are like athletes (especially me - hehe). Most athletes will possess general physical fitness, but most of them excel in one area or another. Take Michael Jordan as an example. He is arguably the best basketball player of all time. He's also a good baseball player and golfer, but he's not really a threat to the pros in any sport other than basketball. Okay, Jordan is not the best example. Maybe pro athletes aren't the best example either, but I think you get my point. Just because someone is a photographer, it doesn't mean that they want to take pictures of blenders, or buildings, or weddings, or whatever. I suppose that after the proper practice and training some people have become photographic decathletes. I'm not there yet. I just think that like doctors and athletes, photographers can have specialties, and that doesn't make them unprofessional or less than adequate - even if their specialties are not lucrative and confusing to their families and acquaintances.
Do any of you know of any texts that discuss the nature of photographers rather than the nature of photography. I think I'd like to read them.