|
A quote from the Los Angeles Times: re: sports illustration: "Commercial . . . art . . . differs from fine arts in one major respect. Whereas a fine arts painter paints and then sells his product, if he can, the commercial artist contracts for his work ahead of time." Does this make Michelangelo a commercial artist? I would suggest that the difference is this: |
|
A fine artist perfects his style or technique according to his intrinsic artistic integrity. The commercial artist perfects his approach according to what he knows there is a commercial demand for. And this goes a long way toward solving the question I posed for myself eight days ago: I am trying to see how fine and commercial art can be harmonized in one's experience. Most artists come into stagnation one way or another - either by going straight commercial or by teaching or otherwise dead-ending development. What I want to strive for is to use the element Design as a connecting principle. . . . Journal entry, May 28, 1976 |