Fine Art Photography Vs. Commercial Photography

what would one consider to be the difference? My fine art photograph teacher

told me it is a good thing im changing majors to graphic communications

management and studying the more commercial aspect of photography. im wanting

to do advertisments and the like. I was at first taken back by what he said,

but should I be??

Are you independently wealthy? If so, fine art is the way to go, otherwise you need to earn a living, that is the difference.

I don't think you should be taken back by it. If you're looking to achieve something specific, like commercial photography/advertising, then

a major that will deal with that is just going to be more beneficial to you. I wouldn't assume it was meant to be a jab at your work.

 

The end application is what separates fine art from commercial more than anything. A big difference would be that with something

commercial, there are often going to be contextual considerations; copy, any logos/branding, maintaining a corporate image, etc. Fine art

may or may not cover a broad context (Goldin's "Ballad of Sexual Dependency" comes to mind) but even still, the photos themselves are the

end objective.

OH! I should clarify that the above was just a generalization. I don't want to give the

impression that there is no pathway between fine art and commercial photography, nor are

they mutually exclusive of each other.

 

Just in case.

You do commercial to pay the light bill; rent, gasoline. You do fine art once you have another job and want to be discovered!:)

Here's a rhubarb if I ever saw one. Are you talking about art or creativity? Where do you draw the line? Does a commissioned piece count as commercial art? Big trouble there if you think so. I see little difference between the two. There is a lot of terrible commercial work out there but pick up an issue of CA and you can see what really good commercial work can be. On the other hand we have all seen fine art that should be at the bottom of a bird cage. I had to switch to newspaper when they came out with rc paper. Don't be taken aback. Just be good at what you choose to do.

"what would one consider to be the difference?"

 

IMO, the basic difference is simple: in art you decide what the photo will be about, in commercial it's your job to realize somebody else's vision.

 

In that sense, art is about introspection, while commercial is about communication.

All of the above are probably true, but I'd go with Geoff Sobering as the

most useful working definition.<br>

<br>

I don't think of myself as an "artist", though in the abstract I realise that my

definition of one would have to include me for part of the time. In practice ...

I lump in together...</p>

<ul>

<li>that work which is done to someone else's spec as "commercial" (though it often doesn't pay the bills: I do do a lot of it for charities and such like);</li>

<li>that which I do to disseminate information as "documentary" (whether it pays the bills or not - which it does roughly half of the time - and whether it was initiated by me or by somebody else), and...</li>

<li>that which I do purely because I love doing it as "fine art" (though it

makes a bigger contribution to the bills than "commercial").</li>

</ul>

<p>The bills have to be paid, for the photography to continue; but my desire to

do the work has to be there for my motivation to photograph to continue. That's

probably true of everyone: but the mix of "commercial" and "fine art" within the

mix which balances the books and the equation will vary from person to person.

Whenever I see "vs" in a thread title my first thought is "Are those boys fighting again?"

 

If your fine art photography teacher is saying this, consider it good advice, hopefully given with your specific situation in mind.

 

If you have even the slightest notion you might ever want to teach, get an MFA. Otherwise, study what you enjoy most and prepares you best.

Hiya,

 

I WAS a commercial studio photographer.

 

The difference is quite simple: A commercial photographer HAS to produce the 'goods' ie superb photos EVERY time....a 'fine art' photographer does not.

 

This is also the real difference between pro and amateur photographers...

 

cheers Steve.M.

I'm not sure what your instructor means by "graphic communications management" but that sounds more like a major for someone going into the printing business, doing page layout or working with graphics elements that range from typography to swatches of color to photos. Doesn't sound like one to me where you would concentrate on photography as such. If advertising photography is your goal, then a program focused on advertising/commercial work -- where you are shooting on assignement to specs provided by an art director and the end product is an advertisement in a magazine -- would be more appropriate than one focused on fine art, where you dream up whatever picture appeals to you and try to sell high-priced prints in a gallery after the fact.