Have we ruined the term amateur?

I believe we have ruined the term amateur. The term origin:

Of French origin, ‘amateur’ originally denoted a lover of art and, by implication, often a collector. French sale catalogues of the 18th century were frequently of the collections of ‘un grand amateur’. By the end of that century, however, the word had taken on a different meaning in English, describing someone who practised art for pleasure and interest, but not for money, i.e. professionally. Amateur artists usually worked in the graphic media—drawing and watercolour—in which they received instruction from drawing-masters or drawing manuals.

Oxford Reference

Today the term is typically defined as one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science which is the second definition of an amateur at Merriam-Webster, where the first definition is still one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession. Is it that we have grown to admire the pursuit of a venture for financial gain over that of the love of it? How do we get back to a time when being an amateur at something doesn’t bring up the initial thought of not being as good as a professional. Does being an amateur make you think someone isn’t on the same level as a professional or is it just me? Should we even care how the term is perceived? Should we start new terms such as advanced amateur, master amateur, skilled amateur, or amateur because I don’t want to be a professional?

The more I have thought about my photography journey the more I have reconsidered how I classify myself. I think I’ll start calling myself a master amateur photographic artist.