What Makes a “Real” Writer/Artist?

I’ve been plodding away in Anna Karenina, which is long but enjoyable.  Today I came to a section in which a few of the characters visit a painter in Italy.  The painter thinks to himself that they’re “dilettantes” who know nothing about art but pretend and make their comments.  I find it funny that they have nothing to do, so they take up painting, and then the “real” painter sees right through them.  He gets frustrated when they talk about technique.

This reminds me of the debate about whether or not writing can be taught.  The other day Ryan and I were talking about blogs and YouTube and how everyone thinks they can write and make films.  The Internet and technology allow us access to the tools and an audience to distribute our “art.”

So what makes an artist?  Does a singer have to study music and earn an MA?  Does a writer have to pursue the MFA?  Is it technique or inherent talent?  Can anyone with a digital camera call themselves a photographer?

If there are conditions to claiming the artist’s identity, then I wonder what they are.  Some say a writer is one who writes, as simple as that.  Others insist on publication.  For the longest time growing up, I wanted to run, I read about running, but I never actually ran.  It wasn’t until I started running consistently on my own that I felt comfortable calling myself a runner.  Should I qualify it by saying I’m a recreational runner since I am not an elite runner and my times are average?

If only we could fast-forward one hundred years and find out what the scholars of that day call art and who they canonize.