(This one might divide people along the Atlantic)

Heyyy, what to you mean by that?

I believe that a creative person will be so whether he is being paid or not. Is an amateur better, or more noble, because he is unpaid. If so, why. It seems to me that this is a sort of reverse snobism.

Was not Einstein, or Marie Curie, creative even though they were being paid? Is a photographer that sells a picture any less creative than one that takes them and hangs them in his hall.

Tell me, do you believe I think this way simply because I am from Canada and thus across the Atlantic?