I feel like this is a very myopic perspective. It can be both art and a commercial at the same time and appreciable for either or both. As time progresses, it becomes more art than commercial because the commercial utility has expired.
Commercials are interesting as they are a way to support artists financially. Many artists make a living in commercials while also getting a chance to exercise a creative profession.
Conceptually it isn't that much different than church commissions during the Renaissance.
Or 19th century poster art. Many people collect reproductions (or originals if they can afford it) of advertising posters by people like Firmin Bouisset. Yes, they are ads, but they are also beautiful long after the products they were advertising are no longer available.
I visited the Mucha museum in Prague and was surprised by how many of his works were advertising posters. On one hand, I don't care for advertising: on the other hand, it brought us these wonderful works that we admire a century on, divorced from their original context, so I can't really deny their artistic potential.
As an artist, with a ton of artist friends, I wrestle with this idea very frequently. I understand the necessity for those who take that path, and I don't judge them for it (huge Jose Gonzalez fan, btw). Yet the ick remains.
It’s a pattern I’ve noticed with Americans, this bundling up art with the capitalism. Commercial/Ad work can be a lot of fun and a good living for any artist, but it’s just not fucking art. It’s such a cringey pattern - that somehow makes commercial work into chivalrous patronage.
That being said - cool ad! Fun to make and probably good money! Would love to work on something like that! But. Not. Art.
I don’t think I believe in the term “commercial art” - it’s “commercial artwork”.
My spouse is doing artwork for a beer company right now and she would throw the chair at me like in that Orange Country TV Show meme if I tried to insinuate that this is her “art”. It’s not art it’s artwork, it’s labor, it’s a job, it’s for a boss.
This is where the ick is from - nice artwork can be commissioned, can be labor intensive and require talent. But it’s not truly the distillation of the artists process that art is.
Commercial art? No, can't be art. Illustrations? Only if unpublished during the artist's lifetime. Commissions? Certainly not. Political art? No, just no. Religious art? Are you kidding me?!
Any arbiter of the arts will find that these handy guidelines readily facilitate the elimination and/or downsizing of unnecessary galleries and other non-art collections.
Boo - All I did was confirm the ick while acknowledging that we can, in fact, enjoy a cool thing for what it is - an ad.
See, that’s the thing about this POV that the term “art” is placed on some sort of pedestal and then all the other forms are then compared against it. “How dare you say [other thing requiring effort] is not art!”
Art !== artwork
An element of art is that it functions for its own relationship between artist-work and maybe somewhat the viewer or participant. It’s neither better or worse, it’s just something separate from all of those ideologies. It just is, they just make it. They place it in museums so we don’t have to bump into each others’ egos.
I will reiterate my belief: it’s foolish to wrap up art with corporate, religious or institutional patronage.
I think you've explained your belief. But a definition of art that dismisses Michelangelo, Da Vinci, et al. seems unlikely to resonate with many artists, art historians, or art galleries/museums.
On the music side, we'd have to dismiss The Beatles, Bach, Mozart, and probably most of the greatest composers and musicians of all time.
Commercials are interesting as they are a way to support artists financially. Many artists make a living in commercials while also getting a chance to exercise a creative profession.
Conceptually it isn't that much different than church commissions during the Renaissance.