How is a photographer's work too "commercial" ?

[Drew Wiley]

An effective advertising photograph has to grab attention really fast, send a message that somehow sticks, but does not have to hold visual attention on the long haul. A
fine-art photograph ideally grows on you; you can live with it year after years and still discover new nuances or relevant details. These are two fundamentally different
orientations; yet I believe there have been photographers who have mastered both
directions. The term "commercial" photography is just too general. A really good portrait or architectual photographer, for example, might produce works for a client which at the same time excel artistically. There are many,many examples of this in the
history of the medium. And at what point do you become commercial? The argument
could be made that just by selling a print or licensing an image you cross the line.
"Fine art" can, for its part, be just as pretentious as commercial photography. These
stereotypes are just too general to facilitate a meaningful dialogue.

[QT Luong]

I see two school of thoughts here (a) that's the intent, or context of the work (b) the work itself. Personally, I don't know why one should judge a work of art other than by looking at the work itself. Other biographical or historical factors are not irrelevant, but they should still be second to the work.

[Paul Kierstead]

I see two school of thoughts here (a) that's the intent, or context of the work ...

To be fair, I think some (at least) are speaking of the intent as it is reflected in the work; i.e. the blatant pandering is detectable by the work, not by anything other thing the photographer (or painter) did.

[cobalt]

I think what we are politely trying to avoid admitting in this discussion is that, snobbish though it may seem, and actually be, good taste is not universal. Advertising, for the most part, is the receptacle of all that works for its intended purpose, regardless of tastefulness. Fine art, on the other hand, is something that should be held to a higher standard.

Not to beat up on Kincade, but not ony do l think his work panders to the least common denominator, if you will; I also think it is bad.

I am now donning my asbestos jump suit from the 1960s. I fully expect to be flamed for this position. I don't mind being the Malcolm X of the art world: I am just saying out loud what many of us are likely thinking...

[Drew Wiley]

I had never heard of Kincade when I stumbled into a gallery in Hawaii and couldn't
help laughing out loud. I didn't notice the manager was attempting to close a sale
with a client when I whispered a little too obviously to my wife, "This is the worst
stuff I've ever seen. Somebody must be colorblind". Now that I look back it seems
rude of me, but I positively couldn't help myself. But art is all about personal taste,
and I'm sure that there's someone in Iowa who won the state lottery and picked up
a Kincade to complement the rest of the art collection. It's probably thumbtacked
right next to the black velvet Elvis rug.

[Gordon Moat]

Many commercial or photojournalistic images of the past are now sold as art prints. On one extreme, we have Jeff Wall, whose carefully crafted images are the production equal of many high end advertising shoots. On the other hand, we carefully framed and composed landscape images, hanging in some gallery or museum. Is it art when it lands in a museum? Is it commercial when it is used in an ad campaign? What happens when an image accomplishes both of those things?

My feeling is that such statements are made by the clueless in a poor effort to elevate themselves above anything which they deem to be inferior. These are the types of people who fart higher than their own assholes, and what comes out of there mouths is nearly as awful. Pay no attention to them ... nothing to see here ... now move along to the next image.


Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[aphexafx]

Many commercial or photojournalistic images of the past are now sold as art prints. On one extreme, we have Jeff Wall, whose carefully crafted images are the production equal of many high end advertising shoots. On the other hand, we carefully framed and composed landscape images, hanging in some gallery or museum. Is it art when it lands in a museum? Is it commercial when it is used in an ad campaign? What happens when an image accomplishes both of those things?

My feeling is that such statements are made by the clueless in a poor effort to elevate themselves above anything which they deem to be inferior. These are the types of people who fart higher than their own assholes, and what comes out of there mouths is nearly as awful. Pay no attention to them ... nothing to see here ... now move along to the next image.


Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

THANK YOU

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Thank you, Gordon.

"How is a photographer's work too "commercial" ?"

As soon as it is offered for sale it is no longer 'art', as soon as it is bought it is 'decorative wall covering'. Sorry to deflate a few balloons.

[gbogatko]

QT Luong asks: What are the characteristics of one's work that make it "commercial"?

When it's kitsch, which is defined here: http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/kitsch.html

A quote from the same: "Kitsch, using for raw material the debased and academicized simulacra of genuine culture, welcomes and cultivates this insensibility. It is the source of its profits. Kitsch is mechanical and operates by formulas. Kitsch is vicarious experience and faked sensations. Kitsch changes according to style, but remains always the same. Kitsch is the epitome of all that is spurious in the life of our times. Kitsch pretends to demand nothing of its customers except their money -- not even their time."

Work becomes "commercial" when it is a "simulacra of geniune culture".

George

[Steve M Hostetter]

Thank you, Gordon.

"How is a photographer's work too "commercial" ?"

As soon as it is offered for sale it is no longer 'art', as soon as it is bought it is 'decorative wall covering'. Sorry to deflate a few balloons.

I believe you hit the nail on the head...