Is there such thing as commercial (photographic) art ?

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

 

Oh what, again. LOL

 

"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?"

 

You're an artist if the gallery says you are:) Art and artist are such abused words. Personally, I think they're abused for the benefit of artists to make them something they aren't.

 

Art comes from the original usage of "Artisan."

 

# One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.

# A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.

 

Here's a long winded read on the matter:)

 

http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartists.html

<I>Well color me "stupid," "half baked" and "egocentric" then. Why? Cause once it's about

money, it's no longer about art.<P>

 

</I>Well you said it. I didn't. As I wrote in a follow up ost. I am amazed at the blinkers

(blinders?), bit, and hobbles some willingly adorn themselves with, then again I'm not

really keen on the whole bondage kink either. <P>What is the primary art in photography

anyway?

"Well you said it. I didn't."

 

Yeppers. Right there it is, at 12:12 P.M. :)

... You make so much sense to my delighted ears...:-)

Ok, seriously, I was about, soon or later, to introduce the word "artisan" as well or "craftsman". A commercial photographer may indeed use artistic means to produce an image with good aesthetics in order to seel a product or a service. But he will then be ARTISTICALLY POLISHING A FORM. Now what's art exactly, and what about content in arts ? Do you call work of art" a photo that has an artistic form, but that carries the following content: buy the XX chewing gum because it makes bigger bubbles ? That's the main course in this discussion - imo.

I'm sorry ... but this is a question that has been beaten around for millennia (literally ... were the Alsace cave paintings art or craft?) and will be beaten around for more millennia (if we don't cook our planet first). No one has found an answer cuz there isn't one. Ben talked about his "long and winding road" but the Beatles would actually sit down and say, "Let's write that swimming pool now." They explicitly discussed their desire to make art that FIT INTO THE COMMERCIAL CONSTRAINTS OF THE DAY. They were well aware of what people would and would not accept and set out to make commercial music. As they grew more popular - and powerful - they used their power to push the constraints into another area. Was it art? Was it commercial? It was both as most work is. Someone else mentioned Michelangelo. Well, artists of those days were dependent upon commissions from patrons just as many artists today are dependent upon corporations. Art is often a synthesis of the desires of the artist and the patron. Every film is a cross between the desires of the director, the demands of the studio, time and cost constraints and a thousand other factors. Are movies not art? Artists in the past were compelled to paint a Madonna and Child, a Last Supper, an Ascension. All of these were commercial art by the standards of the time. They were meant to awe people, to demonstrate the power and majesty of God and - more importantly - his earthly representatives. Plain and simple, they were advertising. And yet, they are still art because the details of each differ so much. We can look at five different last suppers. What they have in common tells us about the society; where they differ tells us about the artist. Lorenzo Lotto put so many odd things in his paintings that experts can't decipher them today. Yet, he was creating commercial art for a sponsor. Life is too complicated to categorize. Things aren't all black and white ... most things are gray. There is pure art and there is pure commercialism. Most things are both and whether it's worthwhile depends on your own taste and beliefs.

Its a great question Marc. Surely the answer lies between the poles of absolute art and absolute commercial. It seems in issues like these its so often an argument which begins with an 'either or' premise, but can quite clearly have a 'both and' answer.

I happen to feel that Irving Penn's and Karsh's portraits stand on their own as art. The National Portait Gallery in London happens to agree with me. Both men were exceptional craftsmen whose work became elevated to art by acclimation; we all felt their photographs were art, and so they are. Cartier-Bresson worked as a photo-journalist, as did Capa, but their work also became elevated to 'high' art status.

Pure art, created from the deeply personal need to create, only really seems to differ from comercial art, work created out of the animal instinct to eat (which may or may not be elevated to 'art status), in its final resting places; galleries and museaums, or trash compactors and paper recyclers.

Maybe the answer was in the question and we only have to understand it to know the answer.

Thomas writes ... "You're an artist if the gallery says you are:) Art and artist are such abused words. Personally, I think they're abused for the benefit of artists to make them something they aren't. Art comes from the original usage of "Artisan." Exactly. In renaissance times, artists were not socially acceptable. Painting, sculpting, and working with your hands was craft work that no gentleman would sully himself with. We make art because we want to. Some of us sell them. I've never tried. Therefore, I can honestly say that my "art" is made with no commercial expectations whatsoever (except ... I want people to like them, which is its own form of commercialism). Is Marc therefore not an artist because he sells pictures and I am one because I don't? Or, is he a successful craftsman and I an unsuccessful one? The line between art and craft is thinner than we imagine. Where that line is is determined by the viewer ? or the gallery.

"The line between art and craft is thinner than we imagine. Where that line is is determined by the viewer ? or the gallery."

 

Then, heaven forbod, there's another posssiblity, the creator of the piece:)

 

As the saying goes, "It's "Art" if I, (whomever "I" represents,) say it's art."

All this is very interesting so far, and there are a lot of things I agree with Bill about, actually. I agree that the dividing line isn't easy to find. And of course artist and artisans are not so different. But precisely, can we try to draw a line ? Or is it impossible ? Or is it useless ?

Well to all, I must say the whatever the intended use

might be, if the work is 'good art' by the standards of

the preson who does it [newbie/veteren is irrelevant here],

then he must have enjoyed doing it.

Is that not the reason that all of us started photography in the first place?

How about something pragmatic and simple:

 

 

If your piece is created with intention TO SELL then it is commercial.

 

If your piece is created with no intention to sell then it is art.

 

 

 

Acourse I'm not implying either one are inherently better than the other. One important criteria relevant to the argument is restrictions and compromise when dealing with commercial art. Most people, most of the time are compromising their piece (artistically) if it is commercial. It is really a much more complex topic though...

 

 

 

 

 

But precisely

"But precisely"

 

Don't know how that got in there...and I doubt there is a universal goal of art.

I would go further than Leslie, with whom I generally agree, and say if you create art with the intention of public display or exhibition, then it can not be purely art, because at least some commercial intent is inherent. Hands up all of those people who take or create photographs purely for the personal feeling of creation and accomplishment? Now hands up all of those who would be perfectly happy if no one besides you ever saw the work, got a chance to give feedback, buy the work, critique it, etc? You can't kid yourself into the delusion that only "I" the artist matters. Galleries are in the business of making money whether it be through sales, grants (sales to the govt) or donations (sales of tax credits). In that sense, its almost all commercial. Even unsuccessful artists like Van Gogh, and acknowledged failure during his lifetime, sought sponsorship by nobility and the merchant class making it commercial. The intent is to create work that soothes, arouses, tells the tale of the soul. That much is true, but not in a vacuum, which is where pure art exists.

Marc writes, ?I agree that the dividing line isn't easy to find. And of course, artist and artisans are not so different. But precisely, can we try to draw a line? Or is it impossible? Or is it useless ?? Thomas and Saurabh both suggest that art is in the eye of the beholder. Leslie suggests that if something is made to sell it?s art and if it?s not, than it isn?t. All of these points answer the first question. It?s just useless. Look, human beings always want to categorize things into black and white, good and evil, conservative and liberal. Joseph Campbell teaches that all religions are basically an attempt to understand duality: male and female, light and dark. However, the world just isn?t like that. It?s messy and complicated. Any subject you can imagine ? art, politics, football, insecticides, Frisbees, surfing, toy collecting ? you name it, and there are magazines and forums and more going on than an outsider would ever believe. The world is complicated and that means art is complicated. If it?s meant to sell, it?s commercial? Leaving aside Michelangelo?s lack of desire to create some of his greatest works, would you say that no TV commercial or movie is art? Most of them are crap, but some of them enter our collective subconscious and become part of our culture. Aren?t they art? Moreover, what about all these people on PN who just take pictures of their babies and dogs and post them? Are they are art since they don?t sell? What about the artist who creates art on his own, but than makes it big? When he makes his next piece intending to sell it is he no longer an artist? Craftsman, artist, art, crap. It?s useless to decide. If you like taking pictures, do it. It doesn?t have to have a label. They are meaningless. It?s just an arbitary designation because we have decided that ?art? is worthwhile and ?commercial? is bad. In fact, this seems to be kind of Leslie?s point also. Commercial art involves compromises, true? But, doesn?t all art involve some? Unless you?re sitting in your room alone, I think it does. When I take pictures, I want people to see them and like them. We follow the ?rule of thirds? because we know that makes a pleasing composition. All that means is, we do things that we know other people like. All our ?rules? of composition could be looked at as ?compromises.? Of course, that?s silly ? just as silly as trying to draw a boundary between art and commercial or between an artist and an artisan.

Sorry. I made the point of composing that in Word so I could spell check and it turned all my quotation marks and apostophes into questions marks. At least it left the questions marks alone!

 

"But not in a vacuum, which is where pure art exists." EXACTLY! Or rather, doesn't exist since everyone wants to please or impress or show something to somebody and therefore there is no such thing as pure art.

"You can't kid yourself into the delusion that only "I" the artist matters."

 

No delusion, some just aren't on the same page with you.

If it look good it fly good (anonym pilot)........In 100 years time every thing is art.

(Susan Sontag).

 

www.micbach.dk........."Photography workshops in Spain"

"But, doesn't all art involve some? Unless you're sitting in your room alone, I think it does. When I take pictures, I want people to see them and like them. We follow the "rule of thirds" because we know that makes a pleasing composition. All that means is, we do things that we know other people like. All our "rules" of composition could be looked at as "compromises." Of course, that's silly, just as silly as trying to draw a boundary between art and commercial or between an artist and an artisan.

 

""But not in a vacuum, which is where pure art exists." EXACTLY! Or rather, doesn't exist since everyone wants to please or impress or show something to somebody and therefore there is no such thing as pure art.""

 

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

 

Looks like you're in need of learning how to break away from this clear case of "chained thinking."

 

A clue. "There's no such thing as a valid critique."

 

Second, learn photographic art history. Why? Cause you'll see that this angst has all been dealt with and others have hung on the artistic cross so we won't have to.

 

Break away from this "trained thinking" and become your own photographic person. Don't expect folks to understand that what you show them. Don't expect their faces to light up in recognition as you break away from these trained forms of clichic thinking and admired stock calender imaging.<div></div>

"Looks like you're in need of learning how to break away from this clear case of 'chained thinking.' A clue. 'There's no such thing as a valid critique.'"

 

I don't think that I am a slave to chained thinking or to other people's viewpoints. I was merely pointing out that we all have other considerations than just our "art" when we take a photo. Whether it's other people's viwpoints, wanting one's significant other to like the shot, thinking about formal 'rules" or even thinking about not following those rules and trying to be original ... there are always influences and compromises. Therefore, it is ridiculous to derive artificial boundaries between art and craft and between commercial and artisitic photography. Every picture has to be judged on it's own individual merits and on the context it was taken and shown in. As for whether there is such a thing as valid critique, I think every critique is valid as it is a personal individual reaction.

 

Second, learn photographic art history. Why? Cause you'll see that this angst has all been dealt with and others have hung on the artistic cross so we won't have to.

 

First, I try to be careful about telling people to learn ... I never know whom I'm speaking to on PN and what they do or don't know. As for this angst, of course we're beating a dead horse ... it's just fun sometimes. You know, everyone from the first caveman to Zaratheustra to Jesus Christ to Dr. Phil has wrestled with what death means. Does that mean you never want to think about it or discuss it? Discussions about what art means can never be "dealt with" because it's an individual raction and, therefore, unique to each individual. Another reasons why boundaries are arbitary and useless.

 

"Break away from this 'trained thinking' and become your own photographic person. Don't expect folks to understand that what you show them. Don't expect their faces to light up in recognition as you break away from these trained forms of clichic thinking and admired stock calender imaging."

 

We each develop at our own rate and speed. I've only been doing this for about 2 years ... Will I become better or more adventurous? I certainly hope so. But, you have to know the "rules" in order to break them and they are important. Every time I read a book on composition, I become a better photographer. That said, I agree that pushing boundaries is important some times. I tried to do that a little with my Red State portfolio and I would like to do more. In fact, peoples faces are not lighting up with joy, but I don't care. I like them and that's enough for me.

First of all, let me address your last post in reply to Thomas, and the part of your previous post, where you mention that photographers take into consideration what their public will like or not... From there, you jump to the conclusion, that "infuences and compromises" show there is no boundary between a craftsman and an artist.

 

I'm sorry to say this, but this is all very shallow thinking. Let me explain why I see it this way. First, you are associating "influences and compromises", but they are not at all the same thing: I may have been influenced, for example, by I. Penn, but this doesn't mean I'll give up on MY own way to see things and to photograph a given subject. Then you make exactly my point when you say we all make compromises in order to please the public. When I shoot commercial work - that is, paid by a client and on a commission basis, I do make compromises each time I have to. But when I shoot for my own pleasure, I don't make it my highest priority to please the public. The public will like it or not, but this is what I want to show, and that's it. We have passed Plato, here. Plato said that art was meant to please the masses and was therefore corrupted in a way, but I don't see it that way. Please consider as well, that if art had always been made to please the masses, tons of famous artists would never have created the novel art works they did, and you'd never have heard about them.

"Thomas and Saurabh both suggest that art is in the eye of the beholder."

 

Side note: I believe the definition of art is in the dictionnary in the first place. And perhaps beauty (or the appreciation of beauty) is indeed in the eye of the beholder, but then "beauty" isn't synonymous to "art".

 

"...Leslie suggests that if something is made to sell it's art and if it's not, than it isn't."

 

Makes no sense to me, sorry. I've taken in my life just a few pictures that I consider "art", and I never tried to sell most of them.

 

"All of these points answer the first question. It?s just useless."

 

All these points answer nothing. First because they are imho invalid, second because there's no connection between these points and the questions I asked. If what you mean is that, since people have different views on the issue, we should drop the question, I'm affraid you are contradicting yourself. As you see, there are also many different views expressed in this thread, but then you keep posting in it. :-)

 

"Look, human beings always want to categorize things into black and white, good and evil, conservative and liberal....the world just isn?t like that. It?s messy and complicated. "

 

Very true, and I agree that this is quite a bad human tendency, generally speaking. But let's just see where this leads... All we can lose is a little bit of time...

 

"If it's meant to sell, it's commercial?"

 

No. Not in its purest sense. There is such thing as art that gets sold, imo. That's when the artist expresses "freely enough" what he wants to, and then happens to receive money for what he did. Here comes the notion of "order". If your creativity is very limited by the boundaries that come with an order from a client, you are not, imo, acting as an artist, but acting as a craftsman - even though you will most probably use the same means to achieve a great "form". The difference is that you aren't then free to chose your content.

 

"Would you say that no TV commercial or movie is art?"

 

No. But I would say that movies are sometimes art, and sometimes not, not depending on their quality (because art has nothing to do with artistic "quality"), but depending on whether the movie-maker expressed freely the content he chose to, or not.

 

"Most of them are crap, but some of them enter our collective subconscious and become part of our culture. Aren?t they art?"

 

Here, I'd just like to point that you seem to infer that bad art isn't art. I disagree. Bad art is art - it's just bad, according to Mr. X or Mrs. Y, or both, or perhaps their neighbours to, etc.

 

"Moreover, what about all these people on PN who just take pictures of their babies and dogs and post them? Are they are art since they don?t sell?"

 

This is a simple sophism. I never said or implied that because something is not for sale, then it becomes art. But yes, the pictures of babies and dogs CAN be art, again, not depending on the quality, but depending on the maker's intent and the content he loaded his picture with.

 

"What about the artist who creates art on his own, but than makes it big? When he makes his next piece intending to sell it is he no longer an artist?"

 

No. This is a caricature. See above. A person may create a work of art and sell it later. If he created it "freely enough", chose his content and had an artistic intent - yet to be defined -, then it's still art - whether it's for sale or not. Now if the so-called "artist" creates something that he doesn't believe in, just because he wants to make money, then his creative freedom is controled by his will to earn money, and that's not, to me, an artistic intent.

 

"It?s useless to decide. If you like taking pictures, do it. It doesn?t have to have a label. They are meaningless."

 

I'm not sure. You may be right. But for what it's worth - i.e. probably not much -, my personal experience is, that distinguishing what is art from what isn't has actually helped me, both to produce a couple of artistic works, and mostly to do my commercial work a little better, and with more professional humility.

 

"It?s just an arbitary designation because we have decided that ?art? is worthwhile and ?commercial? is bad."

 

We ? Who is this "we" ? Some people have indeed decided this, but I certainly didn't. To me, good commercial work is good. And good art is good. And bad art is bad.

"I don't think that I am a slave to chained thinking or to other people's viewpoints."

 

You don't realize it but everytime you read another book on composition, your chains become that much stronger.

 

A funny thing happens when you no longer have a master pulling your chain, you have to go it alone. Now what? No books or chained thinking to give you guidance, only the wisdom of past history to give you guidence to the "possible" roads of "your" future.

 

Wishing you well as you figure this all out.<div></div>

This is getting confusing .... I agree with everything you both are saying. Most of Marc's second post refuted things that I didn't really agree with. I was refuting a post by someone else. Look all I'm saying is this: Some commercial art is good and some is bad and some of that is determined by whether the artist expressed himself truly or not. Just because the true feeling that he is expressing is that he is being paid to like Absolut doesn't mean some of the ads aren't art. On the other hand, some art is good and some art is bad. I agree that a picture can be horrible and still be art. As far as I'm concerned if you take a photo with any intention beyond say, documenting a scratch on your car, than it's art. However, all the boundaries between whether something is commercial or not are artificial. It's all art. Some good, some bad and each person makes up his or her own mind about what is good or bad, commercial or artistic.

Thomas, are you yanking that chain I'm a slave to? :-)

 

Everyone has their own way of learning. Mine is to read and view everything I can and then try to sythesize my influences into something new. There are very few truly original thinkers in the world. Maybe one day I can become one. For now, I'll take my little pics and be happy.