Fine or Commercial?
Jan 25th, 2007 by John Setzler
Originally uploaded by John Setzler.
This post was inspired by a recent question a good friend asked… What is the difference between fine art and commercial art? Unfortunately, she had been told that her work was too commercial to be displayed in one of her local art galleries. She, like me, is relatively new to photography. I have only been doing it seriously for five years, and she has been doing it seriously a little less than that.
The question is not easy to answer. Fine art is a lot like pornography. It’s difficult to define, but we know it when we see it. That, however, won’t provide a reasonable answer to the question. I’m not sure of the best way to define these terms, but maybe some comparisons would be a good place to start.
Commercial art, in my opinion, is art made for mass marketing purposes. The finished product is designed to be appealing to a large group of people. When we visit gift shops while on vacation, we see postcard racks filled with photographic cards highlighting the scenes of interest in the area. When we visit a local arts and crafts store, we see lots of posters containing scenic landscapes, colorful sunsets, and waves crashing on the rocks, just to name a few. The customers who buy commercial art intend to use it for very specific purposes. The postcards from the gift shop may be collected as memorabilia of a vacation. The art from the arts and crafts store may be used for interior decoration. When interior decoration is the goal of the buyer, they tend to look for images with color schemes or content themes that match existing colors and themes in their homes. The colors and themes of the images are more important than the actual subject content of the art. Art shops usually carry a huge selection of poster and lithograph prints for the purpose of home decoration, and they are all very reasonably priced. These works are affordable to most buyers and they accomplish the goal of interior decoration. An easy way to test this theory is to ask someone about a piece of art hanging in their homes. When you notice one, ask them why they chose that specific piece for their home. The answers won’t vary significantly.
“I bought it because it matches the colors in the room.”
“Someone gave it to me.”
“The artist is a friend of mine.”
You won’t often hear a story about how a specific piece of art reminds the owner of past experiences or their childhood. They won’t tell you how they are moved or inspired by the content of the art. They won’t tell you about subtle (or overt) themes in the image that go beyond what is shown. They won’t see story-telling qualities in an image. They won’t ‘know’ the artist and have an understanding of why a certain work was created.
Fine art may be significantly different that commercial art. It is, however, possible that a piece of commercial art would be considered fine art as well. Fine art is usually based on much more than you actually see when looking at the image. The image itself may not stand on its own as commercial art would. There will be meaning and depth associated with it that goes beyond the image and into the life of the artist. The image may represent some idea or thought through its subject rather than as its subject. The viewer’s connection with the image will often be rooted in an underlying theme or idea.
I have had the opportunity to view quite a few exhibits of fine art images. These images rarely represent anything close to commercial art. While viewing the images, I frequently find that, when viewing them without any specific context, I don’t understand their significance. Some of the images appear to be nothing more than simple snapshots. Others impress me greatly. Some appear to be very random. The ingenuity of the work doesn’t surface until some additional context is provided, whether in the form of notes associated with the image, or from biographical information provided by or about the artist. When an artist chooses to speak to his viewers through visual arts, it’s quite helpful to know the language being spoken or the theme being addressed.
When viewing fine art images, your connection with a particular image will help form your opinion on its worthiness of the label. As I have described fine art, you will quickly come to the conclusion that the audience who will accept the work will be rather limited. Sometimes it requires the viewer to actively pursue knowledge beyond the image. Those who choose to go to that length may be rewarded with a great understanding of what fine art means, but if a connection is not made, a viewer will simply write it off as crap.
In a nutshell, commercial art is widely accepted as good, while fine art is good but not so widely accepted due to its underlying theme or external associations.
I don’t know if this has been really helpful in understanding the difference in these two terms, but I do know one thing for sure. As an artist, the most important goal should be to enjoy what you are doing. If you aren’t, then the type of art you are creating doesn’t matter. If you are, then whatever type of art emerges from your efforts is YOUR TYPE. Stick with it and have a good time doing it. Don’t worry about labels.

“Fine art is a lot like pornography.”
Ha! Truer words have never been spoken.
I began shooting fine art last year. When I mention “fine art” most people give me that look and automatically assume I’m shooting nudes.
I’ve come to realize that if you’re describing a photo you took to someone and they look at you like you’re crazy - it’s fine art. After all, no one looks at you like you’re crazy if you say you shot a flower or a sunset or a landscape. But if you say you just took a cool photo of a rusted out oil can, you get that look. That’s fine art. ;)
Hi John,
Interesting that we should both be so concerned with defining “Fine Art” yesterday. It’s been a topic that has been nagging me lately as I’m wanting to pursue some work that has personal meaning, but that can also be slotted clearly into the “fine art” category with no reservations.
As you know, this is no easy task. And to me its curious that I should be placing the image last, instead of first, which is exactly what I feel I’m doing. I mean, I’m more concerned with why I want to capture a particular image, and in what I plan to do with it afterwards, than I am about actually capturing it. Is that crazy or what?
Now, when I step back and look what I’m doing it seems I’m an arrogant fool thats got it all backwards. I should be capturing images for the sake of doing so, and peddling them to potential onlookers after the fact. But then I look behind me and see that, no, I’m not arrogant so much as confident. Not to mention just plain tired of focusing on subjects that never get seen, or are seen only by a select few. (Not that a gallery show in an arthouse is necessarily a great achievement, but I hope you see what I mean.)
In any case, ’nuff rambling. I really like the new site, it looks great. And do drop by my blog some time and see what I’m up to… I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
-Michael
Thank you for writing this.
I think I am slowly beginning to understand the difference, and I can pretty much safely say that it is probably not something I will get into. Not at this stage anyway. :) and I am ok with that. It is not something I enjoy photographing at this point in time. I may in the future look into it more by going to different art shows and not sticking to the “norm” just so I can get a better idea even more so.
All I know is I love what I do, and I love what I am learning. That is all anyone can hope for in this world.
Thank you once again, I really do appreciate your input :)