Is there such thing as commercial (photographic) art ?

Is there such thing as commercial (photographic) art ? I mean: the

goal of commercial photos is to sell a product or service, or to

inform about a company - right...? Is that really the goal of art ?

I'd say no. So what what would you call "commercial art" in

photography, if anything...?

<I>Is there such thing as commercial (photographic) art ?</I><P>Of there is. Just

because the original motivation in creating a work of art may have commercial., editorial,

or propagandistic roots doesn't mean that the work created doesn't stand on it's own

artistic merits outside of that immediate commercial context. Did you think Michaelangelo

, Da Vinci and Rembrandt busied themselves with the paintings, sculptures and

architecture sheerly for the sake of expressing themselves? The notion that the only art

work that can be considered "ART" is work that was done with no other moptive in mind

other than to be "Art" is a rather stupid half baked egocentric notion. <P>Would you have

us

believe that say "Citizen Kane" can't be considered a great work of art merely because the

makers of that film intended for it to make money? Or that Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel

frescos cannot truly be considered art because they are pieces of political and religious

propaganda?

Of there is. Just because the original motivation in creating a work of art may have

commercial., editorial, or propagandistic roots doesn't mean that the work created doesn't

stand on it's own artistic merits outside of that immediate commercial context. Did you

think Michaelangelo , Da Vinci and Rembrandt busied themselves with the paintings,

sculptures and architecture sheerly for the sake of expressing themselves? The notion that

the only art work that can be considered "ART" is work that was done with no other motive

in mind other than to be "Art" is a rather stupid half baked egocentric notion.

Ever seen Andy's painting of a soup can? That's commercial which is art.

Elis, thanks for this interesting post.

 

Only 2 observations for now:

 

1) I can't see in which way the word "egocentric" is related to the subject matter at hand, or even to the rest of your post.

 

2) Let's not confuse 2 things here: "art" works created to be sold - to make money for the maker, and "art" works meant to advertise for another product or service - and this product or service is then what will be for sale.

And for what it's worth, aslan, that painting by Andy W. is not art to me. Yet, it is "crafted".

1.0 When you write "I'd say no" you are giving your opinion --which you don't justify or

fortify with an underlying philosophy or even examples. hence "egocentric".

 

2.) I'm not confusing the two issues of a.) an individual making a living from the direct sale

of his or her work and b.) an individual helping others communicate a message --

whether commercial, political, religious, etc.-- and in doing so, making a living for

themselves.

 

Most "commercial art' doesn't survive as a "work of Art" outside of its original economic

context. But neither does most work that might be considered made for no other reason

than just to be 'art' survive the text of being viewed on its own. We nevr look at "art' on its

own merits-- that is something which is simply impossible. we look at it or

experience it through the internal filters of culture, history, class, race, economics,

sexuality, etc. and etc. we are equipped with when we experence through our senses that

object you may or may not classify as "art." even the classsification of something as "Art'

as distinct from it being something else is a cultural filter. And these internal filters

change over time as we come into contact with different ideas and cultures. The external

filters of the culture we swim in change too --sometimes more rapidly then out internal

ones, sometimes more slowly. Your impulse to ask this question and (hopefully)

considering replies that differ from the prejudices you asked the question with, changes

your filters. Just as my answering it makes me reconsider what I think. We knock our ideas

against rocks: some shatter, some crack, some dent and some survive whole. But I (there

is that nakedly exposed ego again!) digress.

The intentions of the artist are irrelevant. What counts is the work. Otherwise it would be necessary to carry out a qualifying process, for all potential works of art, in which we assessed the intentions of the artist to see whether the work qualified. As Ellis says, look at those painters who took commissions because they needed bits and bobs like food and a roof. At a sufficiently large distance of time we have no problem 'qualifying' their work as art. To take the opposite view is to say that all works of art must be judged, in part at least, not on their own characteristics, but on an observers assessment of the state of mind of the artist.

Yes of course there is commercial (photographic) art , it is everywhere, exept in Ireland.....and Tibet, and the Amazon, etc.

 

I would like to believe it does not exist though, reminds me of 'industrial organization psychology'. Smells similar too.

 

The long roads from New Jersey into New York are plastered with huge billboards of Commercial art. Advertising to the masses plus art based photography equals commercial art. Billboards, photos of Naomi Campbell posing for Lavazza, whatever you call it. Think about the money involved...huuuuge money, no wonder they call it art, calling it commercial crap wouldn't sell much Coca-Cola or Lavazza.

 

'The goal of commercial photos is to sell a product or service, or to inform about a company - right?'.

 

Yes, and commercial photos are probably the biggest source of art for many people, the masses. When the masses have been conned into buying Coca-Cola worldwide, then the they will pay for that brand, and they call it art.

 

I understand what you mean though. It's like when people say 'Oh my gosh I lurve that music artist', when very few of the 'musicians' of the popular culture can even read music...It is the world we live in, not the people in it.

 

Ok, I agree that the goal of art is difficult to pin down. But for me it would seem foolish to assume there is only one goal, or that art in itself has a goal....after all, it is people that make art, and what are their goals?

 

Personally I would love to see art at a more affordable level, so often it is expensive. However I also want to see the very best artists earn a good heap for what they can do, because I respect their ability.

 

Contribution of a rare talent, photographic or otherwise, to society might not be called commercial art now, but who knows, with money to be made, who knows.

"1.0 When you write "I'd say no" you are giving your opinion --which you don't justify or fortify with an underlying philosophy or even examples. hence "egocentric"."

 

How silly of you, Elis. Am I perhaps entitled to explain my opinion a bit later ? I just didn't want to influence anyone into "my" own line of reasoning, so for the "ego" bit, you'd still need to explain what it's got to do with my way of phrasing this. Just in case you forgot, I am French. Perhaps I didn't phrase this as well as you would, but I don't see what this has got to fo with my or anyone's ego. And in case you wonder, I do not consider myself an artist, or at least very rarely so, and NEVER when I take a commercial picture.

Steve, I must disagree. It is the intention of the artist which created the art in the first place.

 

Let's say a photo of a face was hung for sale in a gallery. Would you buy that photo of a face (use your imagination) or would you first ask yourself why should I buy it? Let's say the 'artist' photographed the face because, just because. Now let's say that the 'artist' photographed the face because he had intent to do so, the human condition called intentionality. You might be interested in 'why' he photographed the face. Who the face was, and many other reasons 'why'.

 

To me 'art' raises qustions of 'why', and hopefully it will be of aesthetic interest.

 

'Commercial art' is of little interest to me because I prefer the road less travelled, my own long and winding road, and I don't drink Coke.

<I>I do not consider myself an artist, or at least very rarely so, and NEVER when I take a

commercial picture.</I><P>I was find it interesting when people opt to put on their own

set of blinders, bit, harness and hobbles. I don't think any of the great French commercial

photographers have your bias. I know for a fact that Elliot Erwitt and Irving Penn don't

think this way and that Ansel Adams, Helmut Newton and Avedon didn't either. As some

who also makes their living making photographs I hardly think most of the work I do

qualifies in any way as "art" but I approach each assignment as having the potential to

produce something that could be considered "art". A criticism I've often heard from other

photographers aboput mty work is that i only take on "cream" jobs. That simply isn't true

but maybe it is thespirit I take towrds even mundane Pr jobs yields those "cream" results. I

often getthis criticism in a different form from potential clients : they think that I have to

be too expensive or that there jobs jsut won't interst me. That is also not true. I like to pay

my dues and have to pay rent just like the next guy.

Ben, yes, of course it is correct that the artist's intention underlies the creation of the work in the first place, but I'm saying that the intention of the artist has nothing to do with whether an observer values the work, or what value they place on it. Often we don't know the intention of the artist, or we think we do but others disagree, or we have to second guess it, or the artist was rooted in an ideology and culture so vastly different from our own that whatever their intention it has no real meaning for us today. The artist stands at their particular view point - culturally, socially, historically, ideologically and is subject to the particular pressures and imperatives their life has thrown up, and we, as viewers, stand at our viewpoint, subject to the context of our own life. We shouldn't devalue art by thinking we can transcend the work itself and see directly into the mind of the artist.

I agree Steve, I cannot see into anyone's mind and I don't try to.

Art does stand alone and I do respect that in itself.

However the intent of the artist is also of interest to me, and perhaps gives another facet to the experience of seeing photgraphic art.

A criticism I've often heard from other photographers about my work is that i only take on

"cream" jobs. That simply isn't true but maybe it is the spirit I take towrds even mundane

PR jobs that yields those "cream" results. I often get this criticism in a different form from

potential clients: they think that I have to be too expensive or that their jobs jsut won't

interest me. That is also not true. I have to pay my dues and pay the rent just like the next

guy.

I do commercial photography.

 

I do art photography.

 

I make my art photography available commercially.

 

I have "art" photography purchased by corporations and hanging in lobbies all over the country. Really big prints to so it must be art.

Is it art or is it commercial? Who cares...

 

I've done the starving artist thing btw and it gets old.

It's good to produce work and have it sold and seen, isn't that what every artist really wants in the end, other than the outlet of creative self expression?

 

Is that a Sears Poncho or a real Poncho?

Sorry- I meant to say : Is that a real Poncho or is that a Sears Poncho.

Don't know much of an answer to this question or if it's a real poncho ( I mean Mexican )

or a Sears one, but what I do now for sure is that she had a Camarillo Brillo flamin' out

along her head, I mean her Mendocino bean-o by where some bugs had made it red. : )

Phylo-

 

Cool- I knew I botched that line. At least someone got it.

 

I know you liked that other photo- here's another.

Took it in 76, I was 15 or 16, Canon ftb w/ cheapo 50mm lens.

 

Is it art or is it commercial?

 

Let's call it endless blatant self promotion:

 

http://www.randysantos.com

 

http://www.dcstockimages.com<div></div>

"The notion that the only art work that can be considered "ART" is work that was done with no other motive in mind other than to be "Art" is a rather stupid half baked egocentric notion."

 

Well color me "stupid," "half baked" and "egocentric" then. Why? Cause once it's about money, it's no longer about art.

"Your rules aren't my rules:)"

 

- Thomas Gardner 2005

 

I think there's plenty of room in commercial photography for art just as there's plenty of

room in the "art" world for crass commercialism.

 

no black and white answer is going to fit everything and everybody right?

"Your rules aren't my rules:)"

 

- Thomas Gardner 2005

 

Sounds like a cool dude:) If you're going to quote me, at least have the transparency to include that what I was responding to. Context is a horrible thing to waste.

 

--------------------------------

 

"I think there's plenty of room in commercial photography for art just as there's plenty of room in the "art" world for crass commercialism."

 

"no black and white answer is going to fit everything and everybody right?"

 

Not gonna get an argument out of me on your last, but at least be honest that it's about money when it comes to art so one know's up front, what door the person's walking into the room through. I have little to no use for commercial artits who claims purity of invention. On the other hand I admire a commercial artist for their constantly improving inventiveness.

 

When a museum like the NYMOMA hypes a photographer, in the name of art and then galleries start hyping this same individual's effots, me thinks there's collusion to drive up the price of someone's photographic print, exclusively for profit as it's now about money and not art. Honesty is gone, it's now about the last fool and seperating this fool from their money. Hardly seems ethical, doesn't it. But a commercial artist, is providing an up front professional service. Yes there's a difference, in this case between puity of thought and service providing commercialism.

 

I tell my customers, straight up; "If you think I'm here just for money, you're crazy but if you think that I'm not here for money, then you're even crazier:)

Cool picture of Zappa you got there again Randy! You where there in 76...Damn, I guess I

was -2 years old back then.

I agree context is important and I did take your comment out of context.

 

personally I don't consider myself an artist. I consider myself a working photographer and

I try to be as creative and "artistic" as I can in my work but........

 

what about this........

 

I got an email from a woman last week with an art gallery who would like to show some of

my work. The images she'd like to show are "commercial" insofar as I shot them on

assignment while being paid.

 

so am I an artist now or what?

Phylo- in 76 maybe I was a bit older than you but I certainly acted like a 2 year old- hey- I'm an artist dammmmitt!

 

Re: Zappa- talk about a non-commercially viable artist-

at least you got the reference- I thought maybe I was being to obtuse.