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

[Helen Bach]

In the sense that QT used the word in the original post, I look on it as being a measure of how easily and immediately readable the image is. In simple terms, 'commercial' images grab you and hence tend to be the active party - ie the viewer tends to respond as a passive spectator rather than as a curious explorer. There's a knowing slickness about them.

Best,
Helen

[Mark Sampson]

This is a big subject. Bill Jay wrote an essay or two, a few years back, about the historical lack of separation between 'art' and 'commercial' photography- his position is that the two are indeed one. His point was that 90% of the dead photographers whose work is now in the museums were working professionals. The rest were independently wealthy and often made the most noise about 'art for art's sake' and 'purity' and so forth. Alfred Steiglitz comes to mind...
I remember when taking a course at the Visual Studies Workshop, around 1987 or so, how the trust-funder MFA students were dismissive of a mere 'professional' (that would have been me) in their ranks. Of course they were having their brains filled with all sorts of post-modern critical theory- they were being trained to suspect and deconstruct all photographers who hadn't come from the academy (except Robert Frank, who was held up as a saint). So the idea that you could do valid work without an MFA and a college professorship never entered their minds... and those people, 20 years on, are probably the art-world types who dismiss QT's work as 'too commercial'.

[Walter Calahan]

For me Michelangelo Buonarroti is too commercial 'cause he did his art to get paid by the church in Roman and the Medici.

For me Rembrandt van Rijn is too commercial 'cause he did his art to get paid by the rich Flemish merchants and traders.

This purity notion is all so silly to me.

I've seen many "starving" artist works in small coop studies that have taken chances, not concerted about failing commercially, highly experimental, and that has moved the artist to create more, only to walk away shaking my head that it was all crap. Other times, one artist out of many actually produces something that universally touches one's mind and heart will force me to question why they have no commercial success. You look them in the eye, and you can see them non-verbally say "Please, please buy my art."

Our present day view of art that says you can't be "filthy rich" from producing it is an aberration from the past.

[darr]

I went to Portfolio Center in Atlanta to study commercial photography. The head of the department taught me: when fine art and commercial art become one, my image is successful.

[Struan Gray]

Concentrating on the money aspect is, IMHO, a red herring. It's a bit like when people ask about what it means to be a professional photographer, and everyone piles on to say it just means you get paid. Which is true, but incomplete. Just as there is a whole series of formal and informal codes of behaviour associated with the idea of someone who is 'professional', there are sets of more or less reliable aesthetic indicators of work that is 'commercial'.

I would tell you what they are, but I would only be repeating what Helen said. Executive summary: an easily digested slickness.

[Dennis]

Robert A. Zeichner has come closest to my thoughts in this thread.

Commercial is guided by market research or knowing or finding what will sell. Selling is success.

Non commercial is guided by personal need in aesthetic understanding or expression. Emotional impact and inspiration and aesthetic growth for the artist is success.

The two concerns can be blended to varying degrees which makes a statement like "too commercial" make sense. Otherwise it would be either commercial or not.

[Gene McCluney]

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.

If Mary Ellen Mark is just getting $500 per day, then she is a failure. More like $5000.

[bdkphoto]

If Mary Ellen Mark is just getting $500 per day, then she is a failure. More like $5000.

5K would be for an advertising gig, but editorial (documentary) work is marginal fees at best. Mary Ellen might do some advertising or corporate work, but the editorial isn't paying 5K dayrates.

[Paul Kierstead]

Mr. Graves brought up Annie Leibovitz, and I think she would be an excellent example of a photographer who really divides the photographic community. Just a mention can often get a lot of people seriously wound up in a rant about her, ranging from "all she does is show up, point the camera and press the button" (and some dispute the pointing the camera) to vast unending complaints that she is too commercial. Me, I like a lot of her work and the work I don't like often still intrigues me.

It is also often used by a considerably number of people simple as a dismissive insult to successful (earnings wise) photographers, often accompanied by comments that they are just marketed well, etc.

OTOH, I try to be very open-minded, but Kincaide almost makes be diabetic. It is truly awful awful stuff, in a well-executed and using your skills for evil kind of way.

[drew.saunders]

Easy: Anyone who makes more money than you is "too commercial." Since I haven't ever sold a photo, all of you who have actually made money must therefore be "sellouts."

Now I have to go put on a black turtleneck and brood on the sublime beauty of how negative space contextualizes the handling of light.

That last bit courtesy of http://www.pixmaven.com/phrase_generator.html