Someone can be creative without being a professional.
Someone can also be a professional creative without being innovative.
We’ve allowed recognition, money, equipment and titles to define creativity more than creativity itself.
We have become so accustomed to measuring value through monetisation that we sometimes forget that commercial value and creative value are not the same thing.
So, who gets to be called a creative?
The person with the camera?
The person with the followers?
And that’s why an unknown creative can spend years making incredible work while nobody considers them “one of the creatives.”
Then they blow up.
Suddenly,
“She’s such a talented creative”
But she didn’t suddenly become a creative
You just finally noticed.
We often use social proof to determine value. If many people already approve of something, we’re more comfortable believing it’s good.
So sometimes, we don’t actually discover creatives.
We wait for other people to discover them first.
The equipment can improve what you’re able to produce, but the equipment isn’t what creates the vision.
One of the biggest problems within creative spaces is that we often confuse recognition, access to equipment, and professional titles with actual creative ability
But what happens when someone has the creative ability but not the resources or the audience?
Are they less creative because they haven’t been recognised yet?
A person shooting on an iPhone isn’t less creative because they don’t own an ARRI.
Do we have to be professionally recognised before we can call ourselves creatives?
You’re a photographer because you own a camera,
You’re a musician because you have studio equipments. We unconsciously associate being a creative with having access to creative tools.
A creative is someone who uses imagination and expression to bring an idea into existence. It could be through music, film, photography, fashion, writing, design, art, or storytelling.
But somewhere along the line, we started treating “creative” like a professional title.
I woke up this morning listening to my friend’s music, and today it hit me, she’s talented and deserves so much recognition. The world is unfair, you guys only help those who are already made. She has been consistent for 3 years.
An artist can still be growing and already be established. And sometimes, the difference between “upcoming” and “recognized/emerging/becoming” isn’t talent or readiness,
It’s simply visibility.
The Mislabeling of “Upcoming” Artists
We’ve normalized calling almost every rising artist “upcoming” but that label no longer fits the reality of many creatives.
In the industry, “upcoming” is often used for anyone who hasn’t become a constant presence in the mainstream.
The goal isn’t to remove the word completely. It’s to use it accurately. Labels should reflect where an artist is, not where we assume they are.
When we use better language, we give creatives the recognition they’ve earned while still acknowledging that growth never truly stops.
It makes them appear smaller than they are, sometimes even affecting how they see their own progress. Meanwhile, many of these so called “upcoming” artists are creating work that’s intentional, original, and sometimes even more impactful than what is already being celebrated.
Not every artist who isn’t mainstream is “upcoming.”
Some are independent artists.
Some are emerging artists.
Some are developing artists.
Some are established creatives who are still growing their visibility.
Too often, the “upcoming” label shrinks artists.
Some creatives spend years building careers, growing communities, and making an impact, yet they’re still introduced as “upcoming.” At some point, the label stops describing a stage and starts limiting perception.
Success isn’t only about mainstream recognition.
The Mislabeling of “Upcoming” Artists
We’ve normalized calling almost every rising artist “upcoming” but that label no longer fits the reality of many creatives.
In the industry, “upcoming” is often used for anyone who hasn’t become a constant presence in the mainstream.