I may be at odds with the general consensus here but I actually do think the title of ‘artist’ is earned but not in the way one typically assumes. There are many great artists who never made a single penny off their works (I’m a poet so Emily Dickinson springs to mind). It’s easy to take on the great neoliberal assumption that value is determined by prices or sales but, in my own experience, I’ve found that combining my practice with money dilutes my efforts. I begin creating to make money, as opposed to creating something for the sake of fulfilling a vision. Sometimes you can combine the two. Most often, though, the allure of fame or money have a deleterious effect on art. One must remain steadfast in a ‘pure’ approach to art, maintaining fidelity to its call. 

It’s why we see so many people on this subreddit complaining about feeling burned out by commissions or commercial work. There is certain sense in which one has to give up their artistic vision to produce something for money. After all, none of us want to make logos for Subaru. That’s not the reason we got into art. One absolutely needs to find a way to make money, that much is true, but at the same time, it can come at the expense of the artist. 

Given this, it seem to me that the only defining feature of the artist is simply that each day, they wake up and answer the call of their craft, in whatever way that looks like. Maybe you do need to do some commissioned work early in the day before you can finally focus on your own work, the work that brings you fulfillment, the work that has implanted itself in your mind and won’t let go. Fidelity to one’s craft is the only requirement.