Austin Improv

This is always been a funny question for me.

Profession:
1) a vocation requiring knowledge of some department of learning or science: the profession of teaching.
2) any vocation or business
6) a religion or faith professed.

If so, then it should be treated as one. I don't consider myself a "professional" improviser based on the first two definitions because I think of animation as my primary career. BUT I kind of agree with definition #6. And I have made SOME money (at least the troupes I've played with have been paid). HOWEVER... I've made less than $10 persuing improv (seen probably $1 of those dollars (got it signed by my Leading Brands troupemates), and I KNOW I've spent a quite a bit more than that on classes and travel.

Hobby:
1) an activity or interest pursued for pleasure or relaxation and not as a main occupation.

For me, improv is really a "hobby" -- a life enriching persuit that I do even though I never expect to make money doing it.

Occupation:
1) a person's usual or principal work or business, esp. as a means of earning a living; vocation: Her occupation was dentistry.
2) any activity in which a person is engaged.

And strangely, I've performed in more improv shows, before many more audiences, than the number of games and/or animated shorts I've made (or probably even worked on)! But then there is the time element. I've "occupied" more of my time with animation, that's for sure!!!

I imagine this is in the same train of thought a "starving studio artist" might go through.

Hm. What's the consensus on this??

(BTW, I want to clarify my vote for "Yes, but..." and say that I now think I should have put "Yes, and..."

I think I've spent more money on doing/learning improv than I have earning it for myself. Over the years, GGG has racked up a pretty nest egg, and I feel good about that.

Improv has always meant way more to me than librarianing or whatever it is I supposedly do for a living. Whenever people ask "what I do," I always tell them both. And if they're on their toes, they look at me like I'm crazy.

I'm actually not a librarian anymore, so at present, I'm just an improviser. Yay me.

'Improvisor' was what I put as my job on my tax return last year.

Starving artists still claim art as their profession. Many of us are starving improvisers, but I don't think that makes us any less of an improviser not to make a middle-class living out of it.

What Beeler said.

It only recently occurred to me that one of the main differences between artists and other people is the willingness to define themselves that way. Certainly there are plenty of people calling themselves artists who are nothing of the sort, but there are just as many people (or more) who have some talent and the desire to make art but who won't define themselves that way, and because they won't commit to it, they wind up not making art. I have been one of these people for most of my adult life.

I have a longstanding rule that when someone asks me what I do for a living, I answer with the job that actually pays the bills, but that doesn't mean that's how I have to define myself to myself. So for the first time in my life, I'm actually starting to think of my life as creative work supported by moneymaking work, instead of moneymaking work enlivened by creative work.

Short-term effects: I have no idea where my rent is coming from next month, but I'm happier than I've ever been in my life. Go figure.

i own businesses that primarily serve to give me income for doing improv. right now, i have to work a stupid job part time to suplement the meagerness that is the aforementioned income. i think that within a couple years, i will be able to rely solely on the improv and booking money, and that's an investment in my happiness that i'm willing to give space to see if it pays off. also, i just inherited 2.3 million dollars, so i may not be headed back to work on monday.

beard
i would say that improv is my profession, even though i make better money at a meaningless job 20 hours a week.

I think anything can be a profession if you put enough time and energy into it. I think of improv as a profession, and to make money I have a 'job'. The difference is that what I consider a 'job' is the mundane money-maker which prevents me from living in a dumpster somewhere off Lavaca and raiding trash cans for meals. My profession is "Improvisor" and this is how I can say I am doing something more with my life other than growing old.

Do I consider myself a "Professional" improvisor? Not in the least. Keith Johnstone, Del Close were professional. If we had to name some professional level improvisors in Austin, I'd be leaning towards Those in The Frank Mills, Get Up, McNichol and May, The Available Cupholders, and Coldtowne. As a newbie to the scene I'd say I'm still on the farm teams waiting for a call up to the big leagues. And I'm content with that at the monet, because I know I just have to put in more time performing and take a few more classes and such. But honestly, I'm just enjoying the great community and supportive atmosphere which is Austin Improv.

I think you can define a professional by the amount of time s/he is putting into it. I don't just tinker around with painting when I feel like it, sometimes I really have to *work* at it. Same with improv.

who here spends 40+ hours per week trying to make themselves a better improviser? festivals=conferences, seeing other shows=reading trade publications, rehearsals=meetings, etc. etc. there's a great deal of substance to what we do, we apply ourselves, we take responsibility for ourselves as artists, we create and explore while at the same time exercising discipline.

pro!

Though probably not intended, this is a question of semantics. To be a professional at something, one simply needs to get paid. In that sense, yes, it can be a profession. As far as it being a sustaining profession... that answer is in most cases no.

Same goes for actor, though. Less than 5% of the actors in SAG make enough money to have that as their only job.

If the question of a "real" profession mean something you can make a living with... then improv is not as easy as some other fields. That said, anything can be a "real" job, if you're talented enough and lucky enough.

I think it's easier to call yourself a professional artist and what not, when you've a trust fund to take care of you.

And what do you mean by improviser? Teaching? Performing? Directing? Owning an improv theatre?

Pro·fes·sion·al (pr-fsh-nl)
adj.

1.
1. Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people.
2. Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior.
2. Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.
3. Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football.
4. Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job.


n.

1. A person following a profession, especially a learned profession.
2. One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation: hired a professional to decorate the house.
3. A skilled practitioner; an expert.

There is more than one meaning applied to the word, "professional". Money isn't everything.

Thanks for the f-you, Beeler. I stand corrected yet again. However, most definitions do refer compensation and I believe that the "expert" ones are relatively new in the English language simply made so through continued misuse. I could be wrong again, though.

kaci_beeler wrote:Money isn't everything.

It is when you don't have any.

York99 wrote:Thanks for the f-you, Beeler. I stand corrected yet again. However, most definitions do refer compensation and I believe that the "expert" ones are relatively new in the English language simply made so through continued misuse. I could be wrong again, though.

It's just that, I don't think this is a simple question of semantics. I think to a lot of us it is much, much more than that.