Who Gets to Be a “Real” Artist?
December 9, 2025 – Los Angeles: This Crash Course Art History video examines the question of who gets to be a ‘real’ artist, which has always been a shifting and biased one in the world of art history. The line between a celebrated professional and a forgotten amateur often has less to do with skill and more to do with class, gender, and formal recognition.
The Case of Pollock and Sobel
The arbitrary nature of this distinction is starkly illustrated by the comparison between abstract expressionist Jackson Pollock and Ukrainian-American artist Janet Sobel. Sobel, a middle-aged housewife with no formal training, created her dynamic, “allover” drip and spill paintings in 1945 — at least a year before Pollock created similar works that would make him famous.
Pollock gained fame and fortune for this style, while Sobel faded into obscurity. Critics like Clement Greenberg, while impressed by Sobel’s work, ultimately dismissed her as a “primitive painter and housewife,” positioning her art as less serious than Pollock’s. This early dismissal highlights how a perceived “outsider” identity, particularly a lack of formal training, can fuel the quick relegation of an artist to the status of an amateur.
The Evolution of the “Amateur”
Historically, the term “amateur” carried a vastly different connotation. In early 18th-century Paris, an amateur was a respected, wealthy individual who studied and created art for fun and cultural influence, rather than for a living. These individuals, such as Claude-Henri Watelet, mingled with professional artists at the Royal Academy and shaped the public’s taste. The title simply meant they didn’t require art for income.
However, the meaning began to drift negatively by the mid-18th century as art criticism became more popular and accessible to the wider public. The term “amateur” soon became a way to describe anyone who didn’t fit the Academy’s narrow mold. Women, for example, were frequently relegated to the category of amateur, even though many continued to create and display work in private spaces, as critics deemed their art-making to be a hobby rather than a career.
Art Outside the Academy
The 19th and 20th centuries saw powerful art created entirely outside the traditional European art structure. In 1875, Kiowa warrior Woha was among 72 Indigenous men imprisoned at Fort Marion, Florida, in an effort to force assimilation. During his three-year incarceration, Woha created profound sketches depicting his life before and during captivity, evoking a feeling of suspension between two colliding cultures. His poignant, impactful work has since been shown in institutions like the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Smithsonian, demonstrating that formal training is not a prerequisite for preservation or artistic merit.
By the 20th century, the mainstream art world finally began to pay attention to work by artists without “official” training. French painter Jean Dubuffet coined the term Art Brut (or “Raw Art”) in the 1940s to describe the work of children, incarcerated people, and psychiatric patients. He saw this work as open, honest, and free from the rules and commercialism that he felt plagued formally trained artists.
Yet, even this new category created another limiting definition. Dubuffet eventually began weeding out artists he decided were “too trained or deliberate,” creating another box around who could or could not be considered an “Outsider Artist.”
The story of Martín Ramírez, who created hundreds of complex drawings during his decades in psychiatric institutions, further highlights this struggle for recognition. Despite efforts by local artists to champion his work, official recognition for Ramírez didn’t arrive until long after his death.
A Dynamic Web of Influence
The lines that divide art worlds are constantly shifting and are deeply embedded with societal biases around class, gender, and race. Art is made in official studios, but also in homes, hospitals, and prisons.
It is not important to know who is “in” or “out,” “amateur” or “professional,” but rather to explore the dynamic web of influences that inform all artists’ work.
Yesterday’s amateur may be today’s subject of a massive museum show, proving that recognition is an unpredictable and fleeting factor in an artist’s legacy.