Recently, I had a college art student contact me and pose an interesting age-old question about commercial art. The question posed was: what are your views on artistic freedom vs. commercial art? Below is my response.
Basically, a commercial artist is always available to freely pursue his own conceptual ambitions artistically on his own time as any fine artist can, but once he’s under commission to create art for a commercial project, his conceptual goals target the intended consequence of the client’s ambition(s). Does this stifle creativity? Not necessarily. It merely shifts the intent of the art. The artist still must employ his conceptual, compositional, and rendering abilities skillfully and creatively to produce the work intended. Can creativity be stifled under the employ of another? It can. Sometimes a client can assume part of the artist’s creative role by conceptualizing and directing various details of a project. In cases like this, which for me are thankfully rare, the client chooses to rely on his own creativity and conceptual problem-solving skills, well-honed or not.
When I think of the debate between the validity of fine art vs. commercial art, I think of Michelangelo. He was commissioned by the most powerful commercial organization in the world at the time, the Roman Catholic Church, to paint the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel. The client’s required subject matter was limited to the Old and New Testament of the Bible and the history of the Apostolic Church, however Michelangelo still had the creative freedom to interpret, conceptualize, and render according to his imagination. It’s a commissioned work and yet considered one of the world’s greatest fine art achievements.
Instead of commercial vs. fine art, I think what we’re really debating is the integrity of the message or intention behind the art. We value an individual’s artistic expression much higher than we do a company’s artistic expression in the art world because a company has an underlying motive to make money. Terms like "sold-out" are sometimes assigned to artists who have a profitable motive. As a working artist, I wade in the abundance of freedom in the hundreds of open-ended choices I’m instinctively answering each step of the way on a project. Freedom is everywhere for me.
I always smile when I hear this debate. A fine artist who sells their paintings is a commercial artist. As far as artistic freedom well unless you just want to warehouse your paintings the fine artist needs to know the market they are selling to and is dictated to some degree by that.
I find with commercial art and my subcategory of cartooning (the Antichrist of art) after 38 years people hire me for my style & concepts so for the most part I have alot of freedom.
Either way you need to bring in enough money to support yourself
After fifteen years of trying to be a dedicated fine artist–shows, galleries, museums, portfolios, reps, poverty–I happened to see a copy of one of the illustration annuals. To that point I was one of the art effete snobs keeping my “art” pure while I tried to identify what “they” would buy–and therefore would not have even cracked open a book about mere illustration.
But there I was stunned at the rote talent I was seeing by these absolute wizards of visual communication–the best artists in the world. They were doing way more than just expressing themselves. They were communicating precise information instantly. I came to my senses. Nothing I had seen in the obnoxious fine art world came any where near to what I was seeing in that book. All the media –all the approaches–from photo-real to abstraction was represented. The entire gamut of modern art and all it’s possibilities were displayed before me. Instantly I realized what I wanted to do with my life–I wanted to be one of these folks–and I never wanted to be in the presence of a “fine artist” again.
I realized that all of the masters we study in the history of art were the “illustrators” of their day. Rubens, Carrivaggio, Rembrandt, Titian, Raphael, El Greco : they all had to turn their talents into bucks. Only in the modern era do we see artist/con-men tricking money out of governments, and rich private sources with the inane validations of their own importance so they can continue to play with perfectly good art materials instead of working for a living. All this without any talent to speak of –certainly not the skill, dedication, and wondrous wits of the modern illustrator.
My own fine art has been divorced from income production. I still work, but the motivation is different than before–I’m not constantly asking myself what the rich people want to buy. That game ruins artists. One by one they all drop out in disillusion and disgust. My old art friends have all taken up other occupations. The illustrators are the only ones left when the process plays out–and their talents soar with the correct patronage, and their head screwed on right about fine art.
Your article was refreshing–I’m happy to note that these observations are out there in the world of illustration. The profession of illustration should never tolerate playing second fiddle to such an inferior pursuit. That illustration annual that changed my life was about thirty years ago. I am an illustrator by choice–far and above being a mere fine artist.
One mustn’t confuse style with art. Using art ‘techniques’ to communicate visually (or otherwise) is very different from creating a new language through art. Picasso and Braque created a new language. An Adolphe Cassandre DUBONNET poster using cubism as a style is a stylistic exercise. Commercial art is directed at communicating something that has already been said and understood, as in ‘this Mondrian style graphic is selling you toothpaste’. Whereas really truly high fine art is devoid of such restraints and is more akin to fundamental language research.
When it comes to Fine Art vs. Commercial Art, it is a very interesting topic just to read about everyone’s opinion. Let’s just talk about going right back to basics. Fine art is a way of expression, communication and a contribution to humanity. We all have to remember what the definition of “fine art” is. The main purpose has always been to “create” something that communicates “beauty” and the “beauty of life” and hence, the “enjoyment” of that beauty. Some of us do discover that “fine art” helps to heal us emotionally and we all have to look at that in the most simplistic form; who really cares about what makes money or not. If an artist chooses to create a “fine art” piece and that the audience are just in awe with that piece, then they will buy to hang on their wall and appreciate the piece. Fine art relates to being “classically-trained” and the study of the art history. Combined with “unique” thoughts and creations is what makes “fine art” real. The who purpose is to create, express, communicate to our society. The only purpose of a “commercial” art is to be directly linked to an actual “design” process to help “advertise” the main product of what the company is trying to sell; this is the notion that results in restrictions and boundaries. We also have to remember that sometimes everyone needs to survive in this world in terms of having to earn an income. Without income a person cannot survive, as the world sees that making money in exchange of a service of product in this world of “bartering” that has been used for centuries as a “driving” force of living. If we stripped all that out, fine art can be anything we create from our hearts. You can still consider “fine art” as a way to earn a living. If you are extremely talented and can create something that is “beauty” in your own definition, and the audience is attracted to that beauty, they will spend the money and pay for the piece. If this becomes popular, it does not mean it is turned into commercial art, just because it is the “popular” piece and the artist makes a lot of money out of it. It just means there’s a demand for it and the artist has the talent and the capability to create something very beautiful in the end and to share this beauty is to allow creating several “original” prints that we can share this beauty with the world. In essence, I just think that we are so wound up in this society about what is really “fine art” vs. “commercial art”. We should keep this to be completely apart from each other and its purpose. The “fine lines” should be left alone because, people will start to lose the real definition of “fine art”.