I think you are reading too much specificity into the word’s usage. Yes, it could be used to describe people who are young, wealthy and female, if they are undertaking something in a superficial manner. But the term itself has no particular implications of age, wealth, or gender. A middle-aged man of limited means could just as easily be called a dilettante.
Ironically, that is how social work as a profession came to be. Lots of bored rich white women sitting around trying to figure out what useful thing they could do that was socially acceptable. I know! What if I started teaching poor people how not to be so degenerate? Yeah, we should start a movement!
There were less problematic approaches that grew out of that, like the settlement house model, but social work remains a gendered profession to this day, and it has not escaped my notice that I went to an elite school to get that degree and for many years, I wouldn’t have been able to be a social worker if it weren’t for having a male partner with a more respected and lucrative career. So maybe I am more of a dilitante in the original sense of the word than I wanted to admit at that time, but I would not fit the current definition of the word, as I do not “dabble” in either writing or my development work.
(Also, the insult was silly, because to whatever extent I was a dilitante in the original sense, wanting to have a child does not make one a dilitante in their career, that’s ludicrous.)
In some disciplines people who do it as their hobby or passion but have another job are referred to as avocational archaeologists / biologists / etc.
Its not that common a word so it might obscure more than enlighten, but compared to hobbyist or amateur conveys the sense that you are working on the same level of competence and commitment as a professional and your work is held to that standard.
OP specified internet artists, so I’m not sure why such a word as they are searching for is needed. Why can’t you just say “artist,” or a more specific type of artist, from general to as specific as you want to go (e.g. musician to pianist to jazz pianist to bebop jazz pianist).
If you are trying to say they do their art only on the internet, then “internet artist” (or “internet bebop jazz pianist”) sounds fine to me, whether they earn a living at it or not. Frankly, it’s none of my business whether they earn a living at it, and it’s none of anyone else’s business to tell me how good or bad they think that person is at their art.
Calling someone an ‘internet artist’ is bad enough. No need to further diminish the status of ‘amateur’.
I guess amateur [thing] is as good as it gets. For example, amateur astronomers find new stuff up there and amateur programmers/devs make useful freeware.
Home [thing] is sometimes for cottage industry like home mechanic or home daycare but also without compensation like home chef and home brewing.
“Aspiring artist” might do, as well.
I do say ‘‘artists’’ when referring to internet artist, but I’m just referring to their of income of their occupation are in, without any negative implications of ‘‘amateur’’, I think non-professional would be fine, especially when internet artists do fanart.
What terms should I use for internet artists who are unpaid without negative implications of amateur?
Musician.
Calling them ‘‘musicians’’ is not enough, when you’re referring to income their job has, I’m referring to artist like people who draw or paint things, not making music.
“Dilettante” also carries the connotation that your viscosity varies with the level of stress on you.
(c’mon, someone had to say it)
I wouldn’t say that word, since artists know very well about art, ‘‘non-professional’’ would be just fine, also, can unpaid artists be called ‘‘independent artists’’?, ‘‘independent’’ doesn’t always mean a professional, you know.
I came in to suggest “Independent artist”, But @Amber13 beat me to it. So I will just add my vote for that. An independent artist could be freelance, or self financing, or an artist who auctions their own work, or works on co tract or spec, or a hobbyist doing it for fun. It says nothing about skill, but does suggest the person is serious about it.
What is the line between “hobbyist who sometimes sells things” and a true professional? Volume of sales? Does it matter what, if anything, the art critics say about you?
Even independent artists are going to be spending lots and lots of time painting, of course. Someone who does it a little, maybe a couple of times a month, if they feel like it, probably an indication they are not so professional about the whole thing. I know we said we are not talking about musicians, but I know a professional musician who, when not actually in a concert hall or recording studio, sits at the piano practicing and exercising for 12 hours a day. Maybe that’s just his approach, but he is obviously obsessed with it and sometimes stressed out about it; it’s definitely not only just for fun.
I think that line has been very blurred in recent years.
At a certain point, it’s just gatekeeping. Almost nobody can live on a writer or artist’s income entirely. I think the rise of digital media has made it easier for more people to get a piece of that pie, but the pie itself is smaller than it used to be. Even the good musicians, artists and writers are paid way less.
Before I had a kid, I spent 6-8 hours a day writing on top of my job. But I have problems with balance in all things.
Oh, yes, many have an extra job (or two!). You can also add actors to that list; musicians have already been mentioned.
Yeah, I just lump any sort of serious creative practice into the term artist.
IMO, that (and non-pro) are the only terms suggested in this thread that don’t imply “second-rate” or just ignore the need for a modifier.
It seems to me the word ''amateur" has variable baggage. “Amateur astronomer” or “amateur archaeologist” is just fine, but amateur in the arts definitely has a negative, qualitative ingredient in it.
There are lots of cases in which people who will eventually become recognized as a great (or at least very well paid) artist in their field aren’t yet making enough money to live on what they’re paid for that. There are novelists who eventually were recognized as great who didn’t make their living on their writing at first. Just to pick a random example, I think the two Alice books are the greatest fantasies ever, but Carroll always made his living teaching mathematics at Oxford. There are actors who get by for quite a while as extras before making their big break. Harrison Ford worked for a long time as a carpenter before becoming a full-time actor. There are singers who took a long time to break through and give up their second job. To give an example, there’s Eva Cassidy, who I’m mentioning for the umpteen time on the SDMB. I consider her the greatest singer ever, and yet she never made a living as a singer before she died. She’s sold a thousand times as many albums after her death than before. Being only a part-time artist doesn’t prove anything about how good you will eventually be considered to be.