I share your frustrations with the state of education particularly in the case of funding for arts programs and so on. I'm not sure it has anything to do with the erosion of the definition of the term 'artist', but it's certainly a sad state of affairs and it's possible that if we trivialize or demean the concept of art still further, it won't help. I think that the arts is simply an easy target for budget-cutting politicians because it's assumed that the economic and social benefits are more nebulous and people are less likely to stand up for them – as opposed to the sciences (though they're under attack as well) and so on.

I can tell you that no-one in Berlin it's difficult to seriously question the economic effects of arts and culture. We live in a kind of accelerated-motion petrie dish where we can watch artists move into a cheap, down-at-heel neighborhood and build a 'scene'. Then restaurants, bars and other buildings move in, buildings get renovated, the area becomes gentrified and artists can no longer afford to live there. It's happened in about 6 distinct parts of the city during the 10 years we've lived here.

One final thought… my inner idealist talking again… perhaps if the idea spreads that 'everyone is an artist', or at least that anyone can be, more people will try it, and they will discover that it's actually quite difficult to be a good one… and maybe they'll end up respecting people that devote themselves to a craft more, rather than less. Hey, we can hope!

Here's what I see in practice: school boards continue to cut art programs, because they're deemed the least important. Or maybe unimportant.

Governments continue to slash culture sector funding, in spite of the considerable return on a relatively small investment. Not only do artists (visual artists, performing artists, craftspeople, filmmakers, writers, designers) create jobs–and many of them create their own jobs–but a thriving culture scene attracts people to a community, to live, work, and raise families.

Official statements grind the idea of fiscal responsibility into the public consciousness, but what I believe is happening is a value judgement of another kind.

So here is my deep concern about expanding the definition of art and artists: will people who either read Linchpin or simply skim through excerpts or reviews absorb the whole intended message–artists as game-changers, as passionate people who take risks–or will they take away the simpler message–we're all artists now–and assimilate that into their thinking without elevating their opinion of artists?

I would like to believe the notion of an electrician being considered an artist creates a new exchange of ideas. That is, something that elevates the narrow, stereotypical notion of who artists are and what kind of work they really do. But in light of the pervasive attitude in society and the continued actions of decision-makers, I'm not convinced.

The thing is, the electrician in my admittedly simple example will never be forced to justify his place or to defend his value in society. I've seen (and been in) too many “art matters” protests to be particularly hopeful that a new definition of artist will make a positive difference. At least, not where I live.

The climate might be more favourable where you are, Tobias, and if that's the case, please send some of that forward thinking over here.

The problem as I see it is not calling oneself an artist, it's laying claim to the definition of a word that is very problematic to define in exclusive terms. Any exclusive definition is inherently pretty subjective and potentially loaded. Since it's much easier to define in inclusive terms, or to just not worry about so much, that's my approach.

I also agree that we can't simply throw established definitions of words into the wind and see where they land, but my point and I think Seth's, is that this word 'artist' is not actually all that clearly defined, and even people who have thought about it at some length (of which I am, incidentally, one) can have trouble precisely articulating our own position on it. Which suggests that, again, an inclusive definition is probably better than an exclusive one.

I understand the point you make, Tobias, but we have language for a reason. Language evolves, but if words are suddenly redefined by anyone to mean anything they like, we won't be able to communicate.

If art wasn't considered a frill, if artists weren't so marginalized in society, it would be a lot easier to let the debate rest. But it will continue indefinitely.