What's in a word? - amateur versus professional photographers

PSA Journal, Feb, 1995 by Richard Thornton

There is a stigma attached to the word "amateur" which is widespread throughout our culture and also quite specific to photography. If we don't like someone's pretensions to art we are likely to term their efforts "amateurish." Yet, if we objectively survey the field of photography and related disciplines today, we find various levels of knowledge, competence, experience and artistry in photographers whether they are known as professionals or amateurs. My computer word processor's rather terse and abbreviated dictionary defines amateur as:

One lacking professional skill and ease in a particular pursuit.

This definition could certainly pertain to many beginning photographers. Yet, we all know amateur photographers who, having studied their avocation for years, demonstrate both a high level of skill and an ease in the pursuit of their interest. On the other hand, I know professional photographers who are nervous and ill at ease on most assignments and whose competence is not solid and consistent throughout the range of their activities.

Perhaps we need a second opinion. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines "amateur" this way:

1. Devotee, Admirer 2. One who engages in a pursuit, study, science or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession 3. One lacking in experience and competence in an art or science.

We can certainly concede definition number one. Definition number three pretty much agrees with my word processor's definition. Definition number two, on the other hand, suggests a new direction for us to take in our quest to find the true meaning of "amateur." If we pursue something as a pastime we are probably not receiving remuneration for our efforts. In fact, it may cost us a great deal in terms of both money and time.

Now we can proudly throw our heads back and shout to the world that we are indeed amateur photographers. We love our science-art so much that we aren't even a little motivated by greed. We do it for free! We even spend our hard-won or ill-gotten (it makes no difference) cash just for the privilege of making images with our little or big (it makes no difference) cameras. We are, after all, artists - and proud of it!

Just a minute. Hold on here. Don't we sell a print now and then? Aren't we glad to take on an occasional assignment for compensation to defray costs? (They used to say that film is cheap, but you don't hear that much anymore.) Wouldn't many of us desert the amateur ranks for the pros if we thought we could make an equivalent living? Aren't many of us part-time pros? Redundant, but revealing, questions. We amateurs are not unsullied by the profit motive any more than all professionals are brilliant photographers.

Language is always in flux and meanings remain or change according to the tide of humanity which uses it. No doubt we'll ultimately have to "go with the flow" and live with whatever construction society puts on the "a" word at the moment. Just remember, if someone lumps you into the amateur category, there is no stigma attached.

Which reminds me, did you see Frank's slides at the club meeting last night? I thought the judge was exceedingly charitable with his scoring. Frank's work is so - so, well - amateurish!