Monday, June 29, 2009

What Does it Mean to Make Commercial Work Too? | Open Thread

Short and sweet today...got a lot to get done.

During a talk in the gallery recently, a student asked whether there were, in my opinion, any distinction problems with an artist making both fine art and commercial work. "How would you categorize, for example," he asked, "a project that a magazine commissioned by an artist for publication?" I wasn't actually ready for that question (it's not something I've had to think much about to date), but my gut instinct was that it would depend on the quality of the work as to whether I considered it commercial, fine art, or somewhere in between. In hindsight, I think that answer was gibberish.


If the artist considered the commission fine art, then that's what it is, regardless of how the magazine then uses it. How good it is as fine art is another matter, but the artist's intent here makes the difference.

I thought a bit about this again later, reading Eleanor Heartney's interview with Shirin Neshat (published on Art in America's website), who has been working on her first full-length feature film:

ELEANOR HEARTNEY: How did this project come about?

SHIRIN NESHAT: At the time I was in Documenta in 2002, having made several video installations, I was beginning to feel very consumed by being in one big international show after another, making one work after another. I felt I needed time off to plan a project that would take a long time to realize. Then I got a call from the Sundance Institute, asking if I would consider developing a feature film project for their writers’ lab. At first, I thought I couldn’t, so I said no. Then, after Documenta, I thought why not?

EH: What did you discover about the difference between the art and film worlds?

SN: In the art world you are very free, but you end up making something that few people see. In the film world anybody can view your film for the small price of a ticket, but you are not as free. There is also a big difference between film producers and art dealers. Producers are extremely involved. Everything has to go through them, while an art dealer basically leaves you alone and remains uninvolved in the production.

And perhaps that's another important distinction between commercial projects (which will undoubtedly receive input from those paying the bills) and fine art, but what about the commissioned artwork scenario for a channel that also hires fine artists for clearly commercial projects...can the viewer make any distinctions? At what point would a viewer no longer care that the work was created by committee and consider it "fine art" anyway?

And...we're back to my gut instinct...quality will tell.

Consider this an open thread on whether there are any tricky complications, as a fine artist to producing commercial work, that you would share.

Labels: ,

40 Comments:

Anonymous cjagers said...

Whew ... a very tough question. I don't know the answer, but I think its funny how the category of "fine art" is increasingly expanded and isolated.

After Laurence Rinder made the Whitney "any form of cultural production"," there was a mass movement to be super-open about what can be considered art. However, the line seems to be drawn at anything commercial. If it makes money in a business-like way, its not art. Is that the line?

Of course, art history is full of collaborative projects, where a studio is run as a business. Today, why can't the producer be one of the collaborators. So what if they bring real-world limitations?

I think the interview you posted is the best example I have seen of an artist describing the difference. Although, I think the art world would benefit from allowing more of its cousins to be part of the family.

6/29/2009 10:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i agree with the above. i think that distinguishing genres of art is such an old way of looking at it. i mean "fine art" is essentially commercial art. it's all about money. fine artists have always catered to their markets whether they think they have or not. it's nearly impossible to step outside of the box and do something "original" because it wouldn't make money. most art that i see is blatantly derivative of something else...but i guess as long as you are just ref. it in an art historical context it's ok? i think trends in art get taken advantage of and everything seems cliche. and there is nothing wrong with this in my opinion. why are we trying to keep "fine art" so holy. exploit your market...it's the american way. i see a future of "fine art" calling itself what it is...another competitive paper chasing orgy, lightly dusted with tact?

6/29/2009 11:23:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

I make both fine and commercial art. I put as much effort into my commercial art as I do into my fine art, but I put something extra into my fine art (because fine art ALLOWS for it) that would be IRRELEVANT in a commercial project - something I call "intentional transcendence" - and it shows (it's communicated ... I hope).

6/29/2009 11:46:00 AM  
Blogger Joanne Mattera said...

So what we're talking about is a commission. Is a commission art or commerce? The Sistine Chapel was a commission.

(Speaking of commerce, the news just in: Madoff gets 150 years.)

6/29/2009 11:50:00 AM  
Anonymous DJ said...

I've been in publishing and advertising for a long time and have seen a lot of artistic concepts mangled and destroyed by executives that want to include bigger logos, more products, etc. Many of them are definitely not interested in collaborating. I would argue that the difference between fine art and commercial art depends on whether the is work true to the artist's vision, or whether it has been altered for commercial purposes.

You should also consider how it is being presented to the audience. Neshat's right, fine art reaches a different, much more limited audience than commercial art so the expectations of the work are different too. Commercial art is meant to be consumable - enjoyed for a brief time - while fine art is usually meant to be more permanent. Commercial art is measured by the number of people who saw it while fine art is measured by the provenence, or quality of collectors who owned it.

There's a lawsuit over Louis Vuitton selling leftover Murakami handbag designs as prints at MOCA's show a few years ago so we might have a legal distinction between fine and commercial art later this summer.

6/29/2009 12:23:00 PM  
Blogger Annie B said...

I've been a commercial artist for a couple of decades, creating illustrations for books, magazines, newspapers and corporate clients. More recently I've begun to make fine art woodblock prints. What really resonated for me in Shirin Neshat's interview was the freedom issue.

Most commercial clients want a great deal of control over the final result. This makes sense, as the art is going to represent and speak for them them in some way in the marketplace. The amount of control they exert varies widely, but can include both content and style. Only sometimes, depending a lot on the client or the client's art buyer, is the final collaborative product of high enough quality in both style and content to be called fine art. Clients who give an artist enough freedom to make this kind of work are rare and the jobs they offer are highly coveted.

This is part of the fun of commercial art, though -- the challenge of collaborating with the client, meeting their commercial needs, AND making a high quality piece that stand on its own. It's much harder to do than it sounds, but I know a handful of contemporary illustrators that I think do it successfully and consistently. Mark Burkhardt, Anita Kunz, and Joseph Daniel Fiedler come immediately to mind off the top of my head -- there are many more. Many of their pieces can (and do) hang in galleries and look right at home there.

6/29/2009 12:35:00 PM  
Blogger C. L. DeMedeiros said...

What the difference really makes,
when what really matter is survive as an artist? been able to make a buck or two...
Good luck for everyone who dare to embrace such a roller-coaster ride.

Short and bitter sweet in my case.

Carlos

6/29/2009 12:37:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

When did you "sell out?"

"Selling out" is often the quick pejorative applied to other artists who are publicly and commercially successful. I don't think people mean they are making "commercial art," so where/what is the distinction?

The real questions seem to occur near the fuzzy boundary. I think that if an artist is asked for an illustration, including the logo or product, with aesthetic constraints, size, color etc, and that the "artwork" will be used in a mediated form under the control of the client, then we are dealing with commercial art.

On the other side, we might have something like a portrait commission which involves a considerable amount of interaction between the sitter (client) and the artist. I suspect the artist maintains a certain creative independence in the process and that when the artwork is considered "finished" by the artist, that's it.

We can nit pick over the above details as much as we want, but I think the distinction should be reasonably clear. However, I suspect the "sell out" question is what we are really talking about.

"Selling out" seems like it must be a matter of intent and curiously a lot of problems concerning distinction in fine art are problems concerning the artists intentions. POP Art, reproduced images from the world of advertising and we do not consider the artworks commercial art because we and the artist ascribe a different intent to the artistic process.

This distinction is one the artist makes, the artist knows in his/her heart what their intention is and it will be visible in the art work.

It is also worth noting that an artist and/or their artwork can become commercialized separately by the marketplace. This probably occurs most frequently with prints and multiples where the artist gives his/her best effort creating the artwork but then it enters the commercial marketplace to fare for itself.

6/29/2009 01:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Gam said...

coming as well from the fine arts and design fields I see a distinciton in the two efforts.

For me I see it as:

Fine art is a koan, it opens one to insights. It sings in percepts to the soul.

Commercial art communicates ideas. It speaks in concepts to the mind -conscious and preconscious.

Both have their value to society. Both have their masters.
Both are fulfilling to do regardless of the separate efforts required.
Both have distinct intents.


Tricky complications?
To understand the intended audience.

6/29/2009 02:06:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

"If the artist considered the commission fine art, then that's what it is, regardless of how the magazine then uses it. How good it is as fine art is another matter, but the artist's intent here makes the difference."

I think it depends on how the art survives its handling as a commercial piece. The artist's fine-art-intent doesn't continue to exist apart from the art's final commercial form. If the art was changed by those who commissioned it (as often happens, and often drastically) then the intent of the work changed as well. Because, along the way to its final commercial form, it became a "collaborative" work expressing at least two (sometimes very different) intentions.

This is why commercial artists (and screenwriters) sometimes say, "I disown that work. It's not mine."

6/29/2009 02:38:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Who owns the copyright?

6/29/2009 03:58:00 PM  
Blogger zipthwung said...

Not sell out, sell in.

Commercial art is just you compromising with a comittee who may or may not share your tastes, aspirations or ideals.

In the Baffler's (a magazine from ann arbor collected best "Commodify Your Dissent") they describe a few scenarios across several industries relating to globalization - a globalization that the art world has mirrored, as it often does, they say, with art fairs.

Art fairs are representative of the most commercial of art - stuff that looks like art and has a commodity appeal. Very little conceptual art in art fairs, and when it appears it is generally a status display (Deitch selling cupcakes) of more interest to sociologists than some kind of rigorous intellectual project for readers of October.

So commercial art is more of a commodity where non commercial art is more of a process.


I like this view because it allows for a kind of elitism we long for in art, and yet allows for the product of the process to be commodified, copyrighted, and sold.

How good is your process? can you do it reliably? Is it repeatable? Can you explain it?

You are now licensed to make commercial art.

6/29/2009 05:13:00 PM  
Blogger donna said...

I've been on both sides of this and I found that I had to stop making commercial work if I wanted to develop an artistic voice. The commercial work is goal-oriented. You know what it's meant to look like at the end. It was hard for me to get rid of that way of thinking, although some people can do both.

Shirin Neshat was approached to create her own vision, but with the constraints of the commercial world, and I'll be interested to see how she navigates that. But I don't think the distinction between fine and commercial art is one of quality. I can think of many illustrators whose work is extraordinary, but the idea originates outside themselves and is meant to be a solution. There can't be any ambiguity. The Sistine Chapel was a commission, and it was meant to communicate. Happily, the Pope had good taste and the artist insisted on his own personal vision.

6/29/2009 05:25:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

George asked, "Who owns the copyright?"

: )

If you create the work as an employee, the employer does. If you create the work as a freelancer, the client almost always insists you sign over all rights as a precondition. If you're a famous, much-in-demand illustrator, you can negotiate to share rights.

6/29/2009 05:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric C said...

In 2009 cinema can be nearly much as free as visual arts. Its only visual constraint (albeit an important one) is Form: it's always a single monoband horizontal rectangular video.
This convention annoys the hell out of me, but its a good compromise to have everybody around the globe see your work
on their own television (life of cinema on screen is usually short, but home screen are getting larger
every 2 years).

You don't need to follow a narrative to make a film. Not a lot of people watch a Stan Brakhage, but the man explored pretty much all that can be done with cinema. There is a lot of great monoband video art that I
would watch at home when it will be available (I'm sure an important corpus will be within 50
years, and a lot of people will see it for the first time).

Because I'm in my late 30's, if I decide to show up it will have to be through commercial means.
I don't have 10 years to prove someone that they should lend me their space for a month. Commercial for me means infiltrating entertainment with art, and I'm fine with the confusion. For me these categories are tricks of the mind. We have
passed the age when Entertainment meant fluffy cotton candy. Cinema can be Fine Art, Fine Art can be Entertaining, etc... It's all just human expression.

Cedric C

6/29/2009 06:13:00 PM  
Blogger Rob said...

Fine art is internally inspired and commercial art is externally inspired. Much of what is considered fine art is actually commercial in that the artist has looked to the market and created works that would sell to the market; likewise, there is commercial art that actually fine art, like Frank Lloyd Wrights buildings, where the artist says I know better than you do what you want, just keep writing the checks, you'll love it when it is done.

6/29/2009 08:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Random Culture said...

Fine art is part of the same culture industry ultimately. The venues are different, but there are always expectations from audiences and consumers of culture however it is manifest. There is no art without eyes that see it as art. MoMA collects advertising and industrial design as well as fine art. Is there an art beyond commerce? People have to eat one way or another, gallery owners, artists, film producers, designers- money is always a part of the equation.

6/29/2009 10:42:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

If you start with the question of money, you're going to say that all art - one way or another - involves making money. Therefore all art is essentially the same. Money is your measure.

But if you start with the question of transcendence, you're going to say that some art - in terms of intention, vision and execution (real feeling) - goes beyond what's required to make money (the base expectations for commercial or cultural product). Therefore all art is not essentially the same. Transcendence is your measure.

6/30/2009 08:57:00 AM  
Blogger CAP said...

I do both kinds.

Working in large studios on collective (though hardly collaborative) projects using many of the same skills we use as painters, the difference is really in the end not the intention.

In discussions, it's often put as the difference between working as a typist and being a poet. In commercial art you use certain skills to a very narrow end - to advertise stuff. In fine art those same skills do something much more complex, perhaps personal, perhaps collaborative, perhaps intentional, perhaps accidental, but when you look at it, it's not some direct and predictable communication, it's saying something in a different way, often about something we struggle to put a name to.

6/30/2009 11:20:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

But CAP, don't you produce a typist's work because you start with a typist's intention, and produce a poet's work because you start with a poet's intention? How many typists end up - miraculum! - with a sonnet by five o'clock?

6/30/2009 03:25:00 PM  
Blogger CAP said...

@TH -

When you work in essentially a production line (say, in TV/Film set design) - there's usually no way of knowing what the end-product will look like anyway. Mostly peoples' intentions are to clock up the hours and get the invoice in pronto.

I've no idea what other typists' intentions might be, or poets' for that matter. Clearly you can start with the best intentions only to find yourself in hell. So intentions are not necessarily a reliable measure of the end product.

This applies to art. Who knows what really went into the Sistine Chapel or anonymous works like Irish Illuminated Manuscripts, as far as intentions/personality goes? I'd rather judge on what I can see. It doesn't take a miracle to learn a language, but it does take practice.

6/30/2009 08:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I assume that we all agree that the collection should feature about 50% of its work from women, about 10% from African Americans, about 12% from Latino Americans, about 10% from Gays, and a certain percentage by differently-abled artists, right?

But the question that vexes me is whether someone who is, say, Gay and African American should be counted in both of those categories - that doesn't seem right.

6/30/2009 09:06:00 PM  
Blogger CAP said...

Ah. I think you're on the wrong thread here, Anon 06.00PM.

6/30/2009 09:34:00 PM  
Blogger CAP said...

Try next thread up Anon 06.00PM

7/01/2009 12:14:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

CAP, if a work strikes me as fine art, I feel sure the intention behind it was to make fine art. I feel this even with an unknown piece by an unknown maker found in a trash pile. I know immediately whether it's fine art, commercial art, or a decorative piece - I see and feel the intention behind it. It's like looking at Norman Rockwell's work, and trying to believe he should be ranked with Hopper (as is oft proposed). It just doesn't work. Because the intent just isn't there (verifiable).

I agree with you about judging by what you see, and learning the "language" of seeing. I'm just not sure why you have trouble coming to a conclusion about intent.

7/01/2009 08:43:00 AM  
Blogger CAP said...

@TH:

I just don't think intention is necessary to liking or recogising art. Often I've no idea what the maker's intentions were exactly - that's often part of the thrill! Many artists confirm they are often unsure of they're own intentions as well - are happy to let the beholder interpret what has been 'said' in a work. Basically they know when it is 'right' or 'works' because it scans or makes sense visually.

As in language - I know what a sayer says, when the utterance/work complies with the rules of the language even if I'm not always sure why they say it.

As I say, intentions are unreliable - but I'll deal in works or deeds according to practice or useage.

7/01/2009 12:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric C said...

CAP, I think Tom also soeak of an "intention" to make "Fine Art".
Though sometimes you stumble on "Fine Art" from people unaware
that they are making it, most people who do it have hopes or pretentions that their production is "Fine Art" (though there is something unnecessarely elitist about seeking that definition and category that few will admit).

I think it's more fun to sell art at Costco and prentend you're commercial and trying to do something else secretly. Entering the Moma? Ah..."petite bière"...
(little beer, french expression).
Entering the Costco? Tha real challenge, baby!


Cedric C

7/01/2009 01:49:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

CAP, I think I see what you mean by "intention." The meaning an artist may or may not have intended a particular work to have.

I mean the intention to create fine art as opposed to other kinds of art.

Cedric C, is that an "elitist" pursuit that "few will admit"? Yes. The Few. The Proud.

Semper Fi.

7/01/2009 02:29:00 PM  
Blogger CAP said...

@TH:
My objection holds for general as well as particular intention.

My experience has been that we seldom agree about what art is, anymore than we agree upon interpretations of specific works. Even a general or vague intention to ‘make art’ begs the question of ‘art’ (and intention).

7/01/2009 10:49:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

CAP,

I say, "I will make commercial art today," and commercial art gets made. I say, "I will make fine art today," and fine art gets made.

If there's a problem, it's a problem that certain thinkers have. Not me. (Or would that be over-thinkers?) Cheers. :)

7/02/2009 09:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Maria Brophy said...

YES, It is possible to use fine art for commercial art.

It's also possible for commmercial artists to create what they want, without outside influences, and still commercialize it.

Drew Brophy has been commercializing his paintings for decades, and he paints what he wants, 100% of the time.

Sure, he'll be mindful of what a licensee wants. But he never paints what he's not into. And never, ever, will he paint in any style other than his own distinctive style.

What one artist chooses to do with their talent compared to another shouldn't be judged.

The commercial artists that create according to what their clients tell them are just making a living, like everyone else.

But, I would like artists to know that you CAN choose to paint what you want, in your own style, and still commercialize it for financial gain. (Caveat: It has to be loved by large numbers of people for it to sell.)

Drew Brophy(my husband) says that what he does for a living is what he does for a living. He's using the best talent he has to support his family. (He was never any good at following rules anyway!)

Is it fine art? Well, he doesn't claim it to be so. But his collectors do.

So I guess the answer to the big question is, it's in the eye of the beholder!

7/02/2009 04:19:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

Drew Brophy with a link to drewbrophy.com

Maria Brophy, I admire the way you support your husband's work. It's great surfer art, and I enjoyed looking at it. It's not commercial art in that it doesn't sell something other than itself, but it's not fine art either. It's pop culture, and that's okay.

7/02/2009 05:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric C said...

If Brophy explore materials, techniques, etc, that are new and not explored in Fine Art, than it does a better job in being Fine Art than real Fine Art.

The website is VERY commercial, but there would be a way to represent this work in an interesting way, especially a series of boards aligned in a museum. There is a bizarre mix of rock music, comic book and tiki culture references in those. There is also an ambivalence also between narrative and decoration.


If it sell well it does the same that what the best recognized Fine Art do these days. Maybe it does more, maybe it is culturally relevant.


Cheers,

Cedric C

7/03/2009 12:21:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

How about I grab a couple of dozen airbrushed T-shirts from a booth at the next State Fair. And line those up in an art museum, and present them as fine art, and say they do a better job of being fine art than anything done by fine artists. Even though the T-shirt artist had no intention of creating fine art, is not engaged with fine art, and takes no risks as a fine artist - is not staking his whole heart, mind, soul, future, finances and reputation on a commitment to fine art.

We would then have an exhibition of "fine art" that lacks heart, soul and risk.

7/03/2009 09:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Maria Brophy said...

For Tom Hering,

Thanks for the comment to my comment!

I often debate what to call this artwork of Drew's.

Pop Art? Commercial art? Lifestyle art?

I struggle to find an accurate label that most people will agree with.

But you've got me thinking with the "pop culture" reference. That feels like it fits best.

Airbrushed tees as fine art? Can't see it. But, maybe the airbrush artist does put heart and soul into it. Maybe there's risk, too. But instead of canvas, he's using tees and making his lunch $$!

7/03/2009 12:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Maria Brophy said...

For Tom Hering,

Thanks for the comment to my comment!

I often debate what to call this artwork of Drew's.

Pop Art? Commercial art? Lifestyle art?

I struggle to find an accurate label that most people will agree with.

But you've got me thinking with the "pop culture" reference. That feels like it fits best.

Airbrushed tees as fine art? Can't see it. But, maybe the airbrush artist does put heart and soul into it. Maybe there's risk, too. But instead of canvas, he's using tees and making his lunch $$!

7/03/2009 12:17:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

Heck, Maria, I grew up on Ed "Big Daddy" Roth, etc. The first art prize I ever won - at the age of ten - was a Surfink! LP by Roth's surf band, Mr. Gasser and the Weirdos. It's all mother's milk to me.

Pop culture is way bigger than fine art in America, and more than one fine artist has found inspiration in pop culture.

You find people who risk their whole heart and soul in every field. My argument in this discussion is really about the fact that there ARE different fields - with different expectations, requirements, etc. - to commit your heart and soul to. It's the distinctions between fields that create variety - that make the world a much more interesting place than it would be if everything just blended together.

Someone who gives their all to their field - whatever field they work in - can hold their head up high.

7/03/2009 01:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric C said...

Tom:
++How about I grab a couple of ++dozen airbrushed T-shirts. And ++line those up in an art museum, ++and present them as fine art


I would have to see the T-Shirt first, but my point is that while Fine Art is obsessed by theory and meaning, sometimes non-Fine Art people are exploring new aesthetic possibilities because they are obsessed with technique.

Since one of the premiss of Fine Art was that an object should be "advanced" aesthetically (Fine Art always presupose that it is better), than on many levels it has been bypassed today. I think that's why Baudriard said "art is everywhere but where it thinks it is" soon before he died.

As myself I've been involved wiht "Fine Art" all my life I take great humility in what I can learn outside of it, and there is many people to whom I would say they are close to being Fine Art, even Paris Hilton. It's just a little subtlety, sometimes only a question of intention, and I will think "arghh...but they're so close!". Well...I used to think like that. Right now I'm realizing that I've been giving too much fuss to Fine Art. The new buzz are projects which are hard to define what it is.

Cheers,

Cedric C

7/04/2009 01:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Gam said...

obviously the largest difficulty is negotiating all the stereotypes of the two realms!

You may find the dilemma of comparing fine arts to commercial arts easier to see if you rephrase the enquiry into fine arts as compared to the reproductive arts. For as the mushroom found in the woods may be similar to that found in the national grocery store, and although both may be sold, there remains significant differences in what is deemed as valuable in each.

The difference in the two realms may be found in that the fine arts are focused on the spontaneous uniqueness of a given moment, while the reproductive arts are focused on repeatability. The same experience for everyone, the same object distributed over the same time availability, the most advanced yet acceptable design. The commonality of the experience, its stable assurance of expectation.

Repeatability is judged on efficiency. It privileges the expected norm, the acceptable and the common versus the unique and individual.
Whereas the fine arts privileges one to enquire if the expression of the intent is righteous or true regardless of the effort, in the reproductive arts, one turns from that enquiry, privileging instead an expression of intent that is efficient in all its aspects, concept, production, distribution, availability and market acceptance.

Understanding what the realm of fine arts and the realm of the reproductive arts each privilege will reduce anxiety over being a practioner in either realm. While one may find many parallels between sex in a committed relationship and in prostitution, both realms do not privilege the sharing of love via the sexual encounter. So too with the arts, one privileges an unique exchange while the other favours a repeatable expectation.

All that to say, if you wish to hit a home run, don't try while playing hockey.

7/06/2009 06:21:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

Commercial Art is made with a market in mind.

Fine Art is made from an inner necessity - without regard for the demands and expectations of a market.

After achieving success, some Fine artists become commercial artists - in the broadest sense. Because they then make art with the demands and expectations of their Fine Art market in mind.

Some artists do both. Creating some art solely from inner necessity, and other art with a market in mind. And one value of the best critics is they can sense the difference between the two.

Whether an artist is judged - in the end - to be "fine" or "commercial" depends on where they put most of their time and effort. Norman Rockwell produced some Fine Art, but most of his time and effort was dedicated to satisfying the demands and expectations of his market. Picasso produced some art just to satisfy his market, but most of his time and effort was dedicated to satisfying an inner necessity.

At this point, artists like Hirst, Koons and Warhol can be judged to be commercial - notwithstanding their real achievements early on, and all the talk about the classic studio/workshop model.

7/06/2009 11:40:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home