commerial photography, commercial art or just art?

i have been wondering this for quite some time.

if someone is hired by someone to create photographs as a part of an advertisment &C, it may be considered commercial photography.

are photographs intended to be used as artwork ( on the wall, on a calendar &C ) expicitly made for that purpose considered to be commercial "art" - if they are done on commission ( like a portrait or something else ) ....

i am not asking if art is made for money, to be sold, and not to be given away, put on the wall by its maker, never seen until the maker dies as folks rummage through boxes in the attic &C ... if it is more art than art marketed by galleries &C ... but intent ...

thanks

john

Defining "art" is a bit like herding cats in that it is all but impossible to do. Yet most people think they know what it is. Usually, there is agreement that intent plays a roll in whether or not something is art.

I am a commercial photographer. Commercial photography can be ART, and ART can be used in commercial applications. In general, much of what is produced in a commercial photography studio, such as mine, is dull boring product illustration on white. But sometimes, we are given the chance to create an image with no boundaries. The whole concept of commercial phtography is the creation of an image for a specific project for money.

jnanian said:

are photographs intended to be used as artwork ( on the wall, on a calendar &C ) expicitly made for that purpose considered to be commercial "art" - if they are done on commission ( like a portrait or something else ) ....

Click to expand...

Easy: just ask Michaelangelo if his commissioned work for the Sistine chapel is art or not.

There's a trend in criticism to separate commissioned from non-commissioned work but I think that's a remainder of Romanticism's expressiveness theory: if a work is not the fullest expression of what an artist feels, it's not worth as much.

Although art is an evaluative concept (i.e. one that is applicable only to things having a certain value), I think it's best to consider it in terms of currency rather than consecration.

An artwork has artistic value, and there are many possible definitions of this value, or sub-components. But it's not because something is highly valuable that makes it art: a penny is worth way less than a 100$ bill, but both are money, both have the property of working within a system of valuation, both have currency.

Same thing for art: if it's explained better in terms of artistic value, then you're set, and you can even have bad art if you wish (a penny-work, to follow the metaphor).

I personnally don't agree with the devaluation of commissioned work. Some people make amazing work under commission, and for quite a long time that was the majority of produced art. It took an autonomous art market to have "expressive" art like in the 19th Century, before that you were more or less chained to a patron, and he decided how much freedom to give you.

The LIFE photojournalists worked under commission: they were assigned a place and a subject, and we know how bad that turned up I think someone being able to make commissioned work "sing" is admirable and is another proof of true professionalism and true artistic talent.

For me it is pretty simple, commercial photography is done with someone else in mind, to please someone other then yourself, whether you are getting paid or not, including a teacher, mentor, trying to emulate someone else whose work you admire.

Art is strcitly and souly to please yourself, with no one else in mind, but yourself. When you start to think to yourself, for yourself, how can I approach any subject that does not look like anybody elses, but says me.

Plenty of overlap however.

This weekend I was in Toronto for a quick trip and at the Stephen Bulger gallery I bought the book "Our true intent is all for your delight," which is a Martin Parr-curated collection of photographs from the John Hinde postcard company. They depict "typical" scenes from the Butlin resorts in Britain (a kind of UK club med...), and were employed for postcards, so they fit squarely into the commercial category.

However, they stand out incredibly from the usual "so bad it's good" because they are marvels of composition, social studies, luck, technical prowess, and sheer viewer flabbergasting. They were a huge influence on Parr, and you can see how his style inherited from the household Hinde's style.

All of that to say that commercial photography is not a sterile and isolated utilitarian world, and its product can lend themselves extremely well to artistic appreciation.

A few weeks ago I bought a Bill Frisell CD (Blues Dream) purely because it used George Tice's "Petit's Mobil Station, Cherry Hill NJ" as the cover photograph! A case of art being used commercially to sell another form of art. Even if the music was so-so it would always look good on the shelf!

As for the original question, well ah, hmm, let's see, yes and no.....

Tony Egan said:

"... A few weeks ago I bought a Bill Frisell CD (Blues Dream) purely because it used George Tice's 'Petit's Mobil Station, Cherry Hill NJ' as the cover photograph...!"

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I'll have to give it a listen. Is Frisell doing Blues now?

Years ago, when I was studying jazz guitar, I tried to figure out his music. Today, I live in Cherry Hill and frequently go by that gas station.