is art elitist?

I had a very interesting conversation with my 20-ish cousin on Christmas night.  He was speaking to me about the plight of the young artist trying to break onto the scene.  He painted an abysmal picture of the quintessential 'starving' artist.  Over the course of he conversation, the following things came to light:

Many young artists are dreaming of being 'discovered'.  They feel threatened by the 'old boys' club that runs rampant - the moderately successful local painters and musicians and photographers who monopolize the venues, the people who own the venues, and the people who patronize the venues.  He spoke to me like this was something new.

Now, I'm not in the 'old boys' club.  As far as photographers go, I prefer staying off the grid, and have little to no desire to gain fame, earn accolades from my peers, or steal patrons from other artists.  I don't require any labels, memberships, or letters after my name to feel like as an artist I am being creatively 'right.'  There are those (both patrons and artists) who above all value the memberships and the accolades and the prizes that come along with a person being considered a 'professional artist' (whatever the hell THAT's supposed to mean) and I suppose I'm a bit of an anomaly (or cynic?) that way.  I'm an art for art's sake kind of girl, without the expectation of peer recognition or public support of my vision.  That people pay me to do what I love doing is a pleasant side-effect of apparently doing it well, or at least interestingly.  And I don't begrudge people who DO charge lots of money - I think it's amazing and wonderful that they can make a living and even gain fame or notoriety, and think they ought to be applauded for having either talent, or great marketing...

I have a background in marketing, and this young kid's description of their plight sounded less and less like elitism and more and more like there are a lot of lazy artists out there looking for their big break from the comfort of their seat at their favourite cyber cafe.  They somehow feel like they are entitled to success simply because they created something, even if what they created is crap.  They can't see that it's crap.  It's their art.

Aye, there it is, there's the rub.  I've often waffled over the idea of going 'pro' as a photographer.  I've already been approached twice and had it suggested I apply for membership and commence the process to becoming a 'master.'  Aside of not really wanting to take pictures as a full-time gig, a big part of the reason I haven't gone that route is because I take exception to the elitism that comes with membership, this perceived 'greatness' that is implied with the designation of a professional photographer.  Along with that recognition my market value goes up, and as a portrait photographer, I am expected to price myself accordingly or be viewed as unfairly undercutting the competition.  

Maybe I don't want to do that.  Maybe I don't want to be famous.  Maybe I don't want to be unaffordable.

Portrait photography is weird this way, because I believe it *is* something that needs to be accessible, meaning, affordable.  And affordable for people in lower income brackets (where many people reside) is cheap department store photos, which, if it's of their kids, is what they had to go get because the professional school photography outfits want you to take out a second mortgage these days to afford their crappy over-processed cookie-cutter mugshots.  (I barely recognized my son last year after they smeared his face with digital foundation - whoa!)  But department store (and school) photos, while perfectly functional as a means to record the passage of time, aren't really the kinds of pictures people hang on their wall and admire.  They glance, but never admire.  With every other 'professional' designation from lawyers to denists there is some sort of sliding scale... is this an oversight in portrait photography?  I suppose it depends on whether you view photographs of you and your family as necessary, or not necessary.  And when is a portrait art?

At the end of the day, ultimately the question is, who decides what is and what is not art, and who is a professional?  The artist?  The artist's peers?  The venue owners?  The patrons?  Is it elitist?