Sunday, November 6, 2011

art art art

     This week for our photo class went to the High Museum of Art in Atlanta. The new exhibit Picasso to Warhol 14 Modern Masters is now open. I have actually seen Warhol in a few exhibits now, and actually enjoy his work. However, it made me think back to how he actually made art using modern commercial practices and assembly lines, etc. in order to defy the "high art" status expected of making "art" work. For his time, this was absurd, but people loved it and bought into it, yet now he is hanging up in a museum. A museum is where I would expect to view "high" art. At what point in time did his work gain that promotion from commercial art to fine art? Warhol is even best known as a painter. But he made prints. Granted there are other works of his that include paintings, and many drawings, but he is most widely known and remembered for 'paint'.

     This brings me back to my previous blog about how we define certain strains of art. Not only confined to the typically known sections of art media, painting, drawing, sculpture, photography, printmaking, etc. but also design fields.  Do interior design and fashion design compare each other and argue whether one is "higher" than the other? Will we ever see fashion design in an "art museum"?

     I turned to Webster for some help defining these wonderful vocabulary words:
"fine art" :   
1. a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful objects —usually used in plural
b : objects of fine art
2
: an activity requiring a fine skill

These definitions seem very easy to understand, but they also exclude many different processes. I think this is where the Contemporary art movement mixed things up. I am not saying that is a bad thing. But it brought about use of and focus on concept.

"conceptual art"
: an art form in which the artist's intent is to convey a concept rather than to create an art object


So in this day in time, one must have an intent and idea, and the two must marry in order to produce "art" that is "successful". This still gets tricky for me because there seems to be so much room for subjectivity. 


"pop art"
: art in which commonplace objects (as road signs, hamburgers, comic strips, or soup cans) are used as subject matter and are often physically incorporated in the work


Now I would like to go back and ask my question of the design fields. Is design and art? Can design ever reside in a fine art museum? What are the distinguishing factors?


"commercial art"
:art applied to commercial purposes
dictionaryreferene.com reiterated
graphic art created specifically for commercial uses, especiallyfor advertising, illustrations in magazines or books, or the like.
Wikipedia says:

Commercial art is historically a subsector of creative services, referring to art created for commercial purposes, primarily advertising. The term has become increasingly anachronistic in favor of more contemporary terms such as graphic design and advertising art.
Commercial art traditionally includes designing books, advertisements, signs, posters, and other displays to promote sale or acceptance of products, services, or ideas.

Skills of commercial art

Most commercial artists have the ability to organize information, and a knowledge of fine arts, visualization and media. Communication is often vital in this field. Usually, the art department is relatively small, consisting of art directors, perhaps an assistant director, and a small staff of design and product workers. Commercial artists work a variety of situations doing many things in the artistic world such as advertisement, illustration and animation.

Genres

Commercial art can include many genres of art and categories of art technique, including:


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/commercial-art-2#ixzz1cy9jxhbo



So in the end of all the graduate thinking and questioning, does fine art serve merely for aesthetic purposes? 
Can commercial art in fact be fine art? 


I am going to continue to look into these myself, but I thought I would ask others to weigh in on these questions. 











    

4 comments:

  1. commercial art can become fine art when i think it has crossed certain boundaries like highly creative, never been done or seen before kinda thing. then comes back around on the 'original' idea. one will always go in circles when it comes to art. that's the beauty of it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like Warhol (who doesn't) but there were like 40 ft paintings on the wall, that was amazing to me (At the High) Sam

    ReplyDelete
  3. Certain movements in art happend because it was the "right time and place". Part of what made Warhol famous was the decade he lived in and his lifestyle. He also dabbled in film and a few other things. Like anything else, certain art wether it be commercial or other can easily turn into "high" art when someone says it is. Propaganda wasn't created to be seen as art, but people nowadays perceive it as such. Or graffiti, which some perceive as vandalism, is viewed by others as art. I suppose you could say "Art is in the eye of the beholder."

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree that art is whatever the artist decides is art. But who decides who the artist is? Does going to art school automatically make us artists? Does being truly creative, but under appreciated mean we're not artists, because no one in the system has accepted us?
    I was never fully comfortable with the fact the Warhol's lifestyle was the thing that he was most famous for. He was definitely creative and good at what he did, but I'm still not sure if gratuitous sensationalism is the key to getting your art seen.
    ...and that obviously doesn't answer any of your questions :)

    ReplyDelete