Art as a non-essential job

I found this graphic on Twitter recently (circle theirs, not mine), and it's a great example of what I mean when I talk about wide vs narrow artists.

Absolutely no one, not one single person, uses the word "artist" to refer to someone who designs pants.

Could you argue that they're an artist? ABSOLUTELY! They totally are. But that's not what the word "artist" means here, and it's beyond disingenuous to imply that it is.

The image above (and the corresponding outrage) is a prime example of narrow vs wide. A narrow artist, someone who draws or paints, is not essential. Again, I'm using the word "essential" the way the graphic intended: society can function without them.

Should society? Hell no!

From that point of view, telemarketers are far less essential.

But it's obvious to me there's (unintentional) conflation between strict "essential" and wide "essential" (can we survive without this / do we want to) that is largely caused by the (intentional, on Dodd's part) conflating of wide artist and narrow artist.