Mudkips said:
Cool!
I am a food critic.
I am a film critic.
I am a writer.
I am a plumber.
I am an electrician.
I am ...
I am an artist.
You don't have to get paid to do something to be a doer of said thing.
You do have to actually do said thing, and do it competently, to be a doer of said thing.
Most hipsters do as little as possible (the least of which being what they claim to be doers of) and do even less competently.
We hate you because you're aligning yourself with hipsters.
The 'hipsters', in this case, are not really in the wrong (there's no real evidence in the article to suggest that these people are hipsters, by the way).
Also, I study acting and act (and do so at least competently enough to be accepted into college to study it), so I would say that I am an actor; as acting is an art, that would make me an artist. I am an amateur artist, yes, but an artist nonetheless.
Edit: To brianjones-yeah, my definition of art and artistry actually is pretty broad and egalitarian. In my case, though, I don't think that it's reaching. I don't take an acting class that just anybody can take; I take an acting class that is only for acting majors, thus requiring to have at least some talent to get into them. It is the main thing in my life that I focus on and the thing that takes up most of my time. If I am not an artist by your definition, then so be it. I only know that I identify as an artist, as do my classmates, and our professors speak of us as artists as well.