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:

http://home.comcast.net/~mary.j.graves/Kinkade.jpg

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:

http://home.comcast.net/~mary.j.graves/Leibovitz-Martin.jpg

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.

[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.

[Ron McElroy]

I feel somewhat like Kirk, however sometimes things made to sell can have a lasting importance ie Lautrec posters immediately come to mind.
I think when art ceases to have something to say beyond the surface of the visual, then it begins to approach a the world of too commerical. For instance Wegmans weims are delightful for me (I like biggrey dogs a lot) and I know they are in various museums, but I think they have become too commerical.

[Brian Ellis]

Timing has something to do with it. Work that started out as "commercial" can become fine art if enough time passes and enough cultural changes take place. Weegee's work is one example, Lewis Hines' is another (though "commercial" isn't quite the right word for him).

[Robert A. Zeichner]

IMO it's when the artist is more concerned about whether the subject will move potential buyers than whether it moves the artist. Essentially what Kirk has said, but also when artists rely on certain proven "formulas" that have been successful in the past (as in sells very well). They might say to themselves "Hey, that I shot took last year of an old bicycle leaning against a building sold really well and look, here's another one so I'll shoot that too." As another poster pointed out, Kincaid is the champion of this in the world of painting. In music, Kenny G. is the first example that comes to mind. I guess you could say money is their muse. On the opposite side of the spectrum is the artist who is not afraid to take chances, one who experiments and is not concerned with failing commercially, only what moves them.

[Steve M Hostetter]

Yes.yes, remember way back when,, the only way you ever seen a rock group was to go to a concert or buy an album with their photos on the cover..?
Remember how anti-commercial Pink Floyd used to be way back in the day,, they wouldn't even play concerts... And anyone that ever made a commercial for any product was concidered an outcast in the music business... Then along comes MTV
and everyone sees dollar signs,,, Now all the old timers will just tell you that they got into music to be filthy rich,,they make no bones about it... Oh how fickle can an artist be? what happened to "it's all about the music"

remember the rock group Klatu? they based they're whole existance on whether or not they were in fact a re-united Beatles. I guess it worked for a while
I still can't remember when it was the rumor was ever exposed as a fraud

[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

[Michael Alpert]

It's the "too" part of the initial question that is hard to define. After all, Eugene Atget was a commercial photographer; Walker Evans did very fine work for Fortune magazine. In fact, the only photographers that can avoid some sort of commercial enterprise (either through the sale of prints to collectors or museums, or direct commercial labor) are those who have another livelihood or have inherited wealth.

What is being questioned is not the fact that photographers need to eat but the aesthetic qualities of their finished photographic prints or images. Along with previous contributors to this thread, I feel that the "too" comes in at the point that commitment and personal responsibility ends. It's when the "soul" (or "spirit" or any other analogous word) of the photographer seems disconnected from the work. (Of course, there is much terrible/soulful and worthless/sincere work in the world! But that's a separate question.) Finding the measure for "too commercial" is both a matter of personal aesthetic judgement and more broadly based cultural determination. There are standards here: the measure for this sort of thing is not arbitrary; but neither is the measure an absolute.

A few weeks ago, I purchased a copy of the recent edition of "Solitude of Ravens" by Masahisa Fukase. For me, Fukase's book embodies what people who want photography to be genuinely artistic (and not "too commercial") are seeking.

[jnantz]

what kirk wrote ..

[Alan Davenport]

From time to time, a photographer's work is dismissed (in art circles) as being too "commercial".

What I am wondering is what does that exactly mean ?

It means that the person doing the accusing is jealous of the other photographer's success.

[Rodney Polden]

Perhaps the best indicator might be to look at some personal work that the photographer achieves that is never intended to be sold, and see how similar or different it is to what was shot for the money. Many many fine photographers make money from their photographs, and some of them also make significant images that they have never thought about being for money.

I've worked around some very successful professionals who took the attitude 'why would I bother picking up a camera if I'm not going to get paid for it?'

Fritz Gruber who founded Photokina told me if I really cared about my photography, just work at any other job and concentrate on my personal work in my own time. 'Course I never had the sense to follow that kind of advice..... oh well

[Walter Calahan]

Ansel Adams use to shoot for Boys' Life and Scouting Magazine for a dayrate. He's too commercial for my blood. HA!

Walker Evans not only shot for Fortune Magazine, we worked as the Photo Editor of Fortune Magazine, and retiring on a Time/Life pension. Too commercial for me.

At least Mary Ellen Marks has her husband to rely on to pull in the big bucks as a documentary film maker. HA!

[Steve M Hostetter]

Ansel Adams use to shoot for Boys' Life and Scouting Magazine for a dayrate. He's too commercial for my blood. HA!

Walker Evans not only shot for Fortune Magazine, we worked as the Photo Editor of Fortune Magazine, and retiring on a Time/Life pension. Too commercial for me.

At least Mary Ellen Marks has her husband to rely on to pull in the big bucks as a documentary film maker. HA!

don't forget the murals for the US parks deptment

[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...

[Dave Wooten]

What Walter Calahan said.

[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.:D

[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.

[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.
:rolleyes: ;)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[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.
:rolleyes: ;)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

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...

[benrains]

I don't think the term "commercial" as applied to photographs should be taken literally (i.e. the work is sold or intended to be sold.) The description of it being kitsch is accurate.

I tend to think of it in these terms: The line from artistic to commercial work is crossed when the individual creating it becomes more concerned about pleasing others with the work than with pleasing himself.

[Doug Dolde]

What higher purpose can there be but making money? Assuming you know what to do with it.

[Steve M Hostetter]

Lets say your income is 100 million a year would making that money still be considered the highest purpose..?

Some ppl aren't rich in material but rich in spirit and I know a lot of material rich that wish they had the later

also some ppl get more enjoyment from giving money away which could be considered their higher purpose

which brings us back to "knowing what to do with it"

[Stephen Willard]

This is a long-winded response that I apologize for, but I have a lot to say about this topic so here goes…

To many it appears that it is either commercial or art but not both. There can never be an intersection between the two. In reality, what really happens is that us commercial artists simply place a price tag on our art and then find a market that is most closely aligned with our own artistic sensibilities. It is a simple as that, and the level of pandering is very little, if it exists at all.

For example, I have found as a landscape photographer that my art sells well if I target people who have a strong emotional connection to the land. Trying to sell my work to an urban person who has no experience or emotional connection with the land is a futile endeavor. When I do sell to my market, then I will make small changes to my work to optimize my sales. Those changes can in themselves become avenues of artistic expression. For example, as man I tend to view the land more as a mountaineer would view it. My personal appeal is with portraits of jagged peaks with extreme print values of light and bold colors that create a mood of adventure and risk taking. However, I have found that most of my customers are women, and women tend to favor landscapes that are serene, domestic in form, have softer print values, and embrace a mood that is not an act of conquest but rather more communal in nature. I have recently been exploring these types of images which were first motivated by sales, but have since become an exciting new artistic expression for me in themselves, and allows me to see the land in ways I have never thought of before. How refreshing.

As a commercial artist, the level of pandering I engage in is almost none existent. For example, I would never produce modern art or conceptual art just because it would sell. I had a gallery once tell me how to make my art more sellable in their particular market. They wanted images of “lone trees” in a field, “rusty abandon automobiles” in field, and more images of the land with a footprint of mankind present. My response to them was simply I was not emotionally capable of making such images, and I withdrew my work from their gallery and went elsewhere despite their pleads. There are limits of what I can do to make my work more saleable. At all times, the experience of producing art must be emotional rewarding, otherwise, I cannot make it, no matter how much I try or how saleable it is to produce.

Personally I do not like Thomas Kinkade’s work. For me, his work is like rich chocolate that is too sweet. However, I do believe that his work is of the highest order. It is my belief that his work is an artistic expression of love, otherwise, he would be incapable of making such unique and distinctive images. There are many people who grow tired of the brutal world and long for a little romance and magic in their lives. I, for one, am one of those people. The emotional mood of his work is strong and captures all of those attributes and more. I do not believe that KinKade sat down with a bunch of bean counter marketing people and began forging new images that would sell well. I do believe that his images are what KinKade does as an artist and always did long before he was famous and rich. I do NOT believe that KinKade ever pandered to the lowest common denominator. He simply found a market that was a good fit for his work just like I have done with mine, and then it sold very well. It is as simple as that, and nothing more.

William Shakespeare is the artist I admire the most. He was very much a commercial artist producing plays of silly themes of romance and love, and then charging as much as the market would bear. Yet, his theatrical productions of language and story are historical and have no equal. His body of work was profound and had broad appeal entertaining the uneducated smelly steerage that stood on the uncovered dirt floor of the Globe Theater all the way up to Queen Elizabeth who was no dumb chick. There was something for everyone. He was not exclusionary nor elitist. He did not pander just to the educated and rich. In my book, William Shakespeare was an artist of the highest order that served all of mankind no matter what their station in life was.

It is my belief it is dangerous for an artist to exempt his work form the forces of commercialism such as the artist who hides in the hallways of our Universities. To do so leads to narcissism and arrogance that is self-serving and fails to serve the whole of mankind. Self love of one’s own work corrupts the very soul of an artist and leads to foolish marginal art. To be the judge and jury of your own work is very dangerous ground to be standing on. Please note, that this belief is a generalization, and like all generalization, it has many exceptions.

To engage in commercialism is simply the act of transferring power from yourself to others. Parting judgement with words is cheap and always polite so as not to offend, but parting with one’s hard earned cash in judgement of your work is an act of brutal honesty. Commercialism is not an action of seeking approval from others, but rather an action of letting external forces act on your art to give you perspective and meaning beyond your own values. Only then can your art grow in scope and breath to serve all of mankind. If you hold your art too close to your heart, then you cannot see it. When you stick a price tag on it, and take it to the market place like Shakespeare did, then you can you see your art as others may see your work. It takes courage to be commercial, and it can be very humbling for sure.

Personally, I hate being commercial. I hate having to be a businessman. I hate doing marketing research, and this may surprise you, but I do not like money in general nor having to charge for my work. The process of being commercial is a huge distraction from my art, and yet I remain a steadfast commercial artist for good reason. There is no doubt in my mind that it has made me a better artist who is getting better. It has motivated me to develop whole new methodologies and technologies in the darkroom that has given me the artistic freedom that others cannot enjoy. It has motivated me to invent new methods in the field resulting in yields that only a few years ago I dreamed about. It has opened up whole new avenues of artistic expression that I have never thought about. It has brought clarity and focus of thought to my purpose as an artist. At 57 I should be reduced to barbecuing in my back yard, but there I am with my llamas in the high alpine of Colorado for months on end in isolation totally excited about all the possibilities that lye before my eyes.

So is there intersection between commercialism and art? You bet there is. I owe all of my very limited success to commercialism, and I hope that many people take note of my long-winded response and begin to dabble in selling your art as I have done.

[paulr]

I think Struan and Helen nailed it pretty well with the easily digestible slickness remarks.

But I want to chime in on what I think is a pervasive red herring in these art vs. commercial discussions: the idea that something is "commercial" because it makes money.

That's not what makes a photograph commercial. If you make a piece of personal work and sell it to a collector for a billion dollars, you are not, by implication, a commercial photographer.

Commercial photography is photography done on assignment for a client, usually for the purpose of selling something. In other words, it's about commerce. There are exceptions, but that's the main thrust. The purpose of your work is to sell something: a product, a brand, real estate, a person's image. This is why other types of professional photographers (journalists, crime scene photographers, financially succesful artists, etc.) are not, strictly, commercial photographers.

And this is where that easily digestible slickness comes in. It's a style that sells. If I look at art (or journalism, for that matter) that exudes this commercial slickness, I'm probably not going to like the way it engages me. I'll probably feel like the photographer's just trying to sell me something.

[C. D. Keth]

That's a lot of post for something I always thought was very simple. I always figured that statement meant that the photographer is making choices based on selling more prints rather for reasons of artistic integrity, aesthetics, craft, etc.

[mandoman7]

There was a more clear distinction of this characteristic 50 years ago and beyond. The decision to work towards producing for the good of your culture or for your own personal gain was way more clearly defined.

Watching depression era films recently I was wondering why the settings and groups of people all looked so much more photogenic back then, and then it occurred to me that it was the absence of logos!

We live, in other words, in a time when commercial endorsments have become completely intertwined with personal messages about appearance. Seemingly unrelated, perhaps, but I think there's a connection. Commercial involvements are no longer seen as an automatic relinquishment of your artistic license.

Nowadays the question seems to be not whether the work has a multi-layered purpose, but whether its inventive and effective.

JY

[Drew Wiley]

OK, kitch, schlok, whatever you want to call it. My idea of a photographic equivalent
to Kincade is Peter Lik. I happened to be in Vegas earlier this month on a business trip.
Certainly not my favorite town unless you can get out into the desert. There amidst
all the jingle-jangle noise of the slots and the haze of the cigarette smoke were the
usual casino mall stores, including a Peter Lik gallery. Large format inkjets fancifully
framed. But the images themselves - stereotypical National Park parking-lot shots that
have been done countless times before, but so utterly slammed with Photoshop saturation that they looked like they were taken on another planet, and not subtly done whatsoever. But in a town where everything else is faux and deliberately tacky, why not? It obviously wasn't about either good taste, let alone any sense of respect
toward nature. I consider it sheer prositution of the landscape.

[Jim Ewins]

The highest praise for one's work is to have someone like it enough to buy it with their own money, not the taxpayer's. What's wrong with "commercial"? Is that like working for a living? Only the lower classes do that.

[mandoman7]

One thing I'm not hearing acknowledged is that, for most people, if they shoot only to follow their personal inclinations that work doesn't sell. Maybe some people have a built in sense of market tastes, but I think for many artists there's a kind of inner discussion where its known what the popular tastes are but they are conflicted about milking it for various reasons.
You might be looking at a creek with flowing water and see that there's one of those flowing water long exposure shots that everyone likes, but then you say to yourself, jeez its been done a thousand times, but then the other guy says, so what? A discussion of that kind...
I guess the hard thing is to be original and still have people like your work.

JY

[Mark Sampson]

I like paulr's comment. Goes straight to the heart of the matter.

[cjbroadbent]

When he repeats himself for a bigger fee. Or when he would rather obey than lose his client.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

When the addictive nature of making a buck is passed off as intimacy--that's probably what everyone hates about Kincade.

Pandering seems too mild a term... but only until one find's one's self doing some variation of the very same thing, in order to fund other work that's more personal or meaningful.