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

[QT Luong]

From time to time, a photographer's work is dismissed (in art circles) as being too "commercial". For instance, that's something I have read about Bruce Davidson's work after East 100th Street (including Subway, Central Park, and Portraits), or Mary Ellen Mark's work after Ward 81 and Falkland Road (which therefore includes most of her titles).

What I am wondering is what does that exactly mean ? What are the characteristics of one's work that make it "commercial" ? Is it just the fact that it has a wide appeal ?

[Jim Graves]

Very subjective obviously ... and loaded with class/taste/cultural landmines ... but to me art/photography becomes "too commercial" when the artist goes over-the-top adopting (or abusing) a style to pander to viewers ... with pander being defined as catering to the lowest tastes of others.

In art, the classic, for me at least, is Thomas Kinkade ... extremely popular but so visually jingoistic as to remove his work from legitimate art:



In photography, again just for me, the only thing I routinely dislike and feel often steps over the line of image adjustment is the supersaturated unnatural colors frequently seen in nature photography. We all adjust our images, from darkroom dodging/burning/filtering to adding some color pop in Photoshop ... and where the line is ... who knows.

There was earlier buzz on this site about Annie Leibovitz ... and without a doubt, she is unashamedly a commercial photographer who stages, postures, and pushes her subjects to get impact ... one good example:



But that is the nature of her work and I find her photos fun and interesting without pandering to the lowest common denominator of taste.

[cobalt]

Very subjective obviously ... and loaded with class/taste/cultural landmines ... but to me art/photography becomes "too commercial" when the artist goes over-the-top adopting (or abusing) a style to pander to viewers ... with pander being defined as catering to the lowest tastes of others.

In art, the classic, for me at least, is Thomas Kinkade ... extremely popular but so visually jingoistic as to remove his work from legitimate art:



In photography, again just for me, the only thing I routinely dislike and feel often steps over the line of image adjustment is the supersaturated unnatural colors frequently seen in nature photography. We all adjust our images, from darkroom dodging/burning/filtering to adding some color pop in Photoshop ... and where the line is ... who knows.

There was earlier buzz on this site about Annie Leibovitz ... and without a doubt, she is unashamedly a commercial photographer who stages, postures, and pushes her subjects to get impact ... one good example:



But that is the nature of her work and I find her photos fun and interesting without pandering to the lowest common denominator of taste.

This is the best explanation I can recall having read or heard. I absolutely detest Kinkade's work, for exactly the reasons you provide here. It's sort of like... Al Jarreau, who, in my opinion, panders to the "smooth jazz" crowd in his studio albums nowadays (post All Fly Home). The live albums, however, evidence his fluency and mastery of the art of vocal jazz. The point after All Fly Home is where I consider him having "gone commercial".

Please pardon the very likely obscure (to most of the audience here) musical reference. It's just that I've loved All Fly Home since high school, and am still waiting for another studio recording in that vein!

But then again, like an anus, everbody has an opinion...

[cobalt]

What is considered commercial and what is considered... whatever else, is very subjective. For example, the following photograph was criticized due to the fact that the subject is wearing shorts (underwear). The criticism came from a local photojournalist who, in my opinion, knows very little about art. Much of his criticism was related to images being, in his view, lacking of any commercial (e.g. advertising) potential. Although the image was produced for purely artistic purposes (i.e. fine art), I think that the limitation placed on the image's potential for use in advertising reflects the limitations of the creativity of the source.

Of course, I won't be so vain as to say that I never take criticism personally; I think that is impossible when it comes to an artist responding, verbally or internally, to criticisms of his work. I have a problem with the nature of the criticism, not the critique itself. For instance, saying you'd rather see her nude is one thing. Saying the image is less effective because she is wearing an article of clothing is quite another. You have a right to dislike the image. No one has a right to determine what the subject matter, or the handling of the same, by the artist should be.

I got into a (another!) heated argument at an art opening about a year and a half ago because someone remarked to me that Annie L. should have shown blah blah blah, as opposed to what she decided to include in the exhibit at the Detroit Institute of Arts. What really bothered me is the fact that, in my less than humble view (I've been drawing for a loooooong time), the source of the criticism was possessed of very little, if any, artistic acumen. Ill founded criticism is bad enough; when it comes from the artistically unendowed, well, that is a horse of a different color! :-)

I don't like Kinkade's work, but I will defend his right to produce it to the last drop of your blood.

[Paul Kierstead]

FWIW, cobalt, I think the photograph in this case is improved by the shorts, and I am a fair fan of The Nude. The shorts make it interesting.

[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.

[Kirk Gittings]

"Too commercial" IME is a derogatory reference to work that was solely created for the purpose of selling rather than for some "higher" purpose.

[Nathan Potter]

Good question, without an easy answer. Certainly the answer is easier in painting as Jim Graves cites above; Thomas Kincade whose efforts I would describe as a shade above motel art. But IMHO the line between "commercial" and fine art is highly blurred. Were I to try to define that line I think I'd resort to those images that are associated with and may be used for selling something implying a connection to advertising. On the other hand there is a plethora of brilliant and imaginative images to be found in the advertising field both historically and in the present. However at the extreme ends of the spectrum I have to say that I know crass commercialism and real fine art when I see it - I think.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Henry Ambrose]

What Kirk wrote.

[Walter Calahan]

Isn't current successful fine art photography created for a 'Higher Purpose", meaning selling for big bucks to museums and rich collectors. Where as Mary Ellen Mark's is getting paid a whopping $500 per day by magazines. She's such a sell out. Where as Jeff Wall never accepts a dayrate, but surely doesn't give his work away without a big check.

It is all posturing.