By: Joe Nyaggah

Joe Nyaggah — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:48:34 +0000

I certainly didn’t mean to insinuate by my statement that commercial artists, who might be disinterested in the arguably nobler quest of the fine artist are by any means superior. In thought or otherwise.
On the other hand, it would be equally pretentious to presume that commercial artists aren’t trendsetter and rely, as you suggest, on whatever trends the beaux-artist sets.

By: Edward Alan Bartholomew

Edward Alan Bartholomew — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:23:11 +0000

Yours is a fine philosophy to live by as an artist by trade, but there are a few snags that prevent it from being the universal opinion. First, fine artists do indeed make money, sometimes, if that’s their goal. There always has been a market for art based purely on aesthetics. Where commercial art sells t-shirts and other commodities, fine art sells itself. Next, fine art can be produced by wage workers, aristocrats, etc. Fine art doesn’t require the artist to starve. Finally, it’s inaccurate and a little distasteful to say that commercial artists are smarter than fine artists. They may certainly be more business savvy or work toward a set of ideals based on material gain, but their goals, which are predetermined by the society in which they work, do not necessarily suggest that fine artists are stupid for rejecting or avoiding them. On a related note, I would argue that people are typically involved in fine art because they want to set the tone of what the world finds aesthetically pleasing. Commercial art, on the other hand, by nature has to follow the guidelines of what is already pleasing in order to make the sale, because the integrity of a product may ride on whether or not consumers find it agreeably represented – consumers won’t reconsider the value of an art just because it’s tagged on a product that they will buy regardless of its aesthetic.

Comments on: Commercial vs Fine. Art, that is.

By: Joe Nyaggah

By: Edward Alan Bartholomew