Essay 

What defines commercial art from fine/non-commercial art ?

For tens of thousands of years, society has placed high value on art, whether monetarily or spiritually, as it expresses and captures raw moments and emotions that would have otherwise been lost in time. Art pre-exists all forms of modern language, and in many ways can be seen as one of the first forms of communication and expression, a way for the earliest form of human to tell stories and bring beauty into the world. Consequently, the value of art is impossible to judge and free of money; no piece of art is more “artistic” from the other, no matter who created it or the price it’s sold for. In fact the first documented transaction involving a piece of art was in ancient Greece around 2500 years ago (Mainka-Pawłowska, 2020). Therefore the actual selling and commercialization of art is a fairly modern idea, yet fast forward to today and commercial art is all around us, ranging from clothing, to posters, to murals, the list is endless. At first I thought defining the difference between commercial art and fine / non-commercial art would be as simple as researching the exact definition of each. ‘Best accredited colleges’ claims: “Commercial art, often called advertising art, is used to sell goods and services … the work is used to sell, promote, explain, narrate, and inform.” As stated previously; if true, meaningful art is priceless, does that make art that's created through the incentive of making money, void of meaning completely? As a graphic designer, this subject particularly interests me and is relevant to all of my work. Consistently I struggle to find inspiration within my own art, as it feels as though the limitations encountered when creating my work restrict the art from expressing my own personal beliefs. When considering that art is first and foremost an expression of the artist, it feels difficult to categorise my graphic design as a “piece of art”, but rather a suppressed version of my own creativity, watered-down through the expectations and restrictions of the “client”. On top of this, as a graphic designer I feel a stigmatism against my work when compared against fine art work, as if it lacks the same credibility. Undeniably the line between commercial art and art is very blurry especially in the modern day, where our capitalistic lifestyles and our survival is centred around a need for money, afterall all - artists need to make a living. Therefore in this essay, I would like to research and find a true definition of what separates art from commercial art, through researching political and artistic movements, artists whose work has been commercialised, and my work which was made for commercial purposes in the first place. 

What defines commercial art from non-commercial art ?

When researching what defines commercial art from non-commercial art there were multiple interpretations and no clear answer. Therefore I felt the best way to find a definition was to come to one myself. I decided to look at the punk movement as it has been both commercial and non-commercial in its past, and I would therefore compare the two sides of the movement, to define the difference that can be applied to all commercial art.

The origins of the punk movement aren’t exactly known, yet it is clear it came from a shared feeling or frustration and dissatisfaction from the marginalised and misunderstood towards the upper class and elite. The movement quickly caught a lot of attention, as many aligned themselves with the anti- establishment, anti-capitalist ethos of the movement, that embraced the previous rejects of society and essentially introduced a new way of thinking/expression. Whilst the movement was heavily characterised and recognised by the music it produced, with bands like the sex pistols bringing the punk movement mainstream, it was as much of a fashion and political movement as it was a musical one. It was a cultural expression of angst, emotion, and volume. People were sick of the problems of the day being painted over. (Hodgsen, 2023)This is thanks to Vivienne Westwood, who as the punk movement emerged, opened her shop SEX in London, which captured the very spirit of the punk movement in the clothes it sold, essentially birthing the iconic punk fashion we see today - Westwood and McLaren could be called the originators of the ‘punk uniform’, (Santos + Avery, 2016). To no surprise many detested the shop, especially the upper classes of Chelsea - It was not a simple shop but a meeting point for the thousands of young Londoners who couldn’t stand capitalism (Tuzio, 2020) The signature ripped jeans and controversial graphics, perfectly represented the rebellious and disruptive attitude that defined the movement, and this symbiotic relationship between punk and fashion was one that was crucial in capturing the expression and freedom that was central to the movement. More than anything, punk was a rebellion, an antidote to the status quo, that found its identity in being the unpopular minority, which is crucial in understanding how punk lost its original essence. 

By the 21st century, the punk movement had become a commodity, and through this many argue it lost the unpopular element that defined itself in the first place. Undeniably, it is the big corporations that are to blame for its downfall as the punk clothing and aesthetic was ironically being commercialised by the capitalist corporations that the movement once rebelled against so indignantly. Even today huge fast fashion brands such as boohoo man and shein, can be seen making huge profits off selling band t-shirts, like nirvana etc. The entire trend of ripped jeans came from the punk movement, however it has seemingly lost all it’s credibility as corporations dilute the origins of the clothing with mass production. “It used to be that punks would be abused and ostracised daily just for being punk and now you can buy The Clash t- shirts in shopping centres all over the Western Hemis-phere?” (Quick, 2019). As Quick alludes to here, these businesses aren’t interested in the meaning and ideas that uphold the movement, they are only interested in making money off it, and consequently degrading the movement as a whole. Through mass producing “Punk” clothes in China, the DIY element of the movement is lost, and instead reaps the benefits of the movement’s surface level imagery, instead of inviting customers to indulge in what the aesthetic means and represents. 

Yet through this commercialisation of the movement, it has actually reminded the world what Punk even meant in the first place - it’s not about the fashion or the music or even the aesthetic as a whole. Instead, punk can be seen as a word for authenticity, as the movement inspired a renaissance of new ideas that gave reassurance to the misunderstood. It is an artistic movement that centres a genuine expression of rebellion, something that corporations will never be able to undermine. As I researched the movement it became clear you don’t have to look punk to be punk, you just have to be genuine. It is through the punk movement  that I come to understand the difference between non commercial and commercial art, and I have consolidated the characteristics  of each within the punk movement into a venn diagram.

How do artists feel about their work being commercialised ?

When researching Keith Haring, it became clear that since his death, the posthumous collaborations between his work and brands are one of the major contributing factors as  to why his work is just as popular today as it was 30 years ago. It appears as if every major clothing brand from converse to primark have collaborated with Haring at this point. (Cochrane, 2022). Yet as a consumer, one must ask whether this commercialisation of his work to a mass scale is what Haring himself would have wanted, or does it stand directly against what Haring once stood for during his short yet impactful career. The origins of Keith Haring’s career was far from commercialised / driven by profit, but in many ways the opposite. “In 1980, Haring found a highly effective medium that allowed him to communicate with the wide audience he desired, when he noticed the unused advertising panels covered with matte black paper in a subway station.” (Keith Haring Foundation, 1997-2023). 

Rather than starting his art career by trying to sell drawings, clothes or open a gallery, Haring did the very opposite and made his art available to the public for free from the very start. His iconic and unique series of line drawings became familiar to New York commuters, who often would stop to engage the artist when they encountered him at work. What made his work stand out was his simplistic yet animated style, that tackled hard hitting topics that were often unspoken about not just by street artists of the time but society as a whole. The subway became, as Haring said, a “laboratory” for working out his ideas and experimenting with his simple lines (Keith Haring Foundation, 1997-2023). As a result of his intimate reactions in the subway, not only was Keith able to build a recognition of his art, but also a recognition of who he was and what he stood for. Arguably this was the crucial element that propelled Haring into the spotlight, as his friendly yet rebellious attitude reinforced his ethos and political message that underlies all his work, as people began supporting him for his political work as much as his artwork. By the end of his career, Haring had amounted a huge following and in my opinion, stamped his mark forever in not only the art world, but the political world too, as he campaigned continuously for human rights campaigns, and brought awareness as a gay man living in the AIDs epidemic that tore its way through America in the 80s. For example one is his 1988 works ‘Silence = Death’, “an upside-down rose-coloured triangle with figures inside covering their ears, eyes or mouth. A pink triangle patch was used to identify gay men in World War II concentration camps and was later re-appropriated by activists as a pro-gay symbol in the 1970s and to fight AIDS in the 1980s.” (NBC anonymous, 2014) It is clear that Haring wasn’t afraid to speak his truth, and didn’t sway to what would sell better in a gallery, but rather used his style and publicity as a way to attract attention to what he believed in. His art was an extension of his activism, which is what I believe made him so popular and successful, as it spoke to the masses, not the elite which consequently meant it transcends what was trendy at the time.

However, when we fast forward to today, these political messages that were core to Haring’s work are rarely shown in these collaborations. What’s worse, many of these brands completely contradict the human rights movements  that Haring continuously campaigned for. For example Zara who have collaborated with the Keith Haring estate, are “one of the main contributors to the fast fashion crisis causing irreversible damage to the world due to mass pollution and wastage. The fast fashion brand currently manufactures over 450 million items per year and is proven to release toxic chemicals and waste that actively harm the environment”  (Antoniadou, 2023 ) On top of this Zara are also recorded to have used sweatshop work conditions in the past, paying workers the bare minimum, as stated by Antoniadou for ‘Indiegetup’. The real question is, what would Haring make of all this? Once again, we must remember that Haring and his art was inherently against the poor treatment of all humans, fighting for the rights and equality of all. Yet it seems the people responsible for making these clothes have little human rights at all. When it comes to the issue on the impact of these companies on the environment, I believe it is clear that Haring would not be in support, since he openly criticised capitalism, which is now the driving force behind the mass production of Haring’s art. In a sense, Haring’s legacy is being tarnished, as his art is almost being used as a distraction to what companies such as Zara are continuing to get away with. Perhaps the only reason these companies are getting away with using Haring’s art in the first place is his legacy of his art being made for all; these collaborations are in line with Haring’s thinking – They’re appealing to the masses, just like he wanted – but the bottom line remains that all fast fashion has a negative impact on the environment (Cochrane, 2022). Perhaps the idea of Haring’s art being made for all will never be harmonious with his beliefs against capitalism and human rights issues as the two ideas (whilst both having good intentions) end up inherently contradicting one another.

It is impossible to know how Haring would feel about the commercialization of his art, however one artist who has witnessed his work become commercialised during his career is street artist Banksy. In many ways, Haring and Banksy are alike, both creating their work for the common people, not the elite, and both use their art as a way to bring light and critique the many flaws of society. Recently Banksy murals have appeared across Ukraine amongst the war with Russia, one being a depiction of a judo match between a young boy and older man (who upon inspection is actually Vladmir Putin), painted on the shell of a bombed out building. This pays reference to when Putin, “was stripped of his taekwondo black belt and honorary judo title by the International Judo Federation and European Judo Federation back in March 2022 … to represent Ukraine defeating Putin’s Russia with defiant will” (Howie, 2022) Banksy himself despises the commercialization of his art, however brands and companies can get away with it due to the completely anonymous lifestyle Banksy lives. One of the most recent incidents of this taking place is in November 2022 when Banksy hit out at clothes retailer Guess, claiming the company has used his designs without permission. The graffiti artist posted a photo of the Regent Street store in London, and suggested shoplifters should visit. He wrote on Instagram: "They've helped themselves to my artwork without asking, how can it be wrong for you to do the same to their clothes?"(Banksy, 2022).

                                     .                                

Legally there is nothing Banksy can do to prevent this happening to his art as he has stood by his saying “Copyright is for losers”, since the beginning of his career. However Banksy’s company ‘PEST CONTROL’ have stated, "Saying 'Banksy wrote copyright is for losers in his book' doesn’t give you free rein to misrepresent the artist and commit fraud. We checked." (Argun, 2022). For Banksy at least, he is very much against the commercialisation of his art, perhaps because it goes against the anti-capitalist message that he preaches in his work. In his work Napalm 2004, “by wittingly adding alongside two of the most recognizable icons in American consumer culture, Mickey Mouse and Ronald Mc- Donald, the artist creates a sickening juxtaposition with the image of Kim screaming in pain from the napalm burns and their big smiles … a striking state- ment against the military complex linking warfare with capitalism, (Anonymous via Banksy explained, 2019) It is becoming increasingly evident that commercialising art is often met with controversy from both the artist and the public, especially when the artist lacks control over who, what and how their work is being sold. Perhaps this is because when work is commercialised, it fails to hold the same message that it once did, almost as if the work/artist is ‘selling out’, seen to be driven by money over meaning. 

How do the characteristics of commercial art apply to my work?

To conclude my research and try to fully define commercial art, I decided to look at my own work as a graphic designer to see if I can find evidence of what signifies commercial art in my own work:

In this typography poster, many of the characteristics stated in my venn diagram apply for what defines it as commercial art, for example:

• It was made for the promotion of  a product - this one being a visit to a museum. 

• Little room for interpretation - it had to be straightforward and informative.

• Mass produced - as a poster it would be printed on mass, not handmade by me, despite designing it.

However what I saw as a defining feature of commercial art lacks in this example, that being that it wasn’t made for the incentive of making money, as the museum is free. Yet  it is still a piece of commercial art… right? When starting this essay my idea of commercial art was that it was defined by its incentive to make money. So far this idea has been supported in my research, yet it now seems when looking at my own work that the incentive for money is a bi-product of commercial art, not a defining feature. 

This leads me to conclude that what defines commercial art is actually the lack of what does define it. It is as if commercial art cannot stand alone by itself, but instead is held up by the necessary relationship it has with an idea or product. These supposed ideas may have very deep meaning to them s

uch as an entire political movement; and the use of commercial art can be used to emphasise and attract an audience to the cause. However whilst the movement can survive without the commercial art, the commercial art can’t survive without the movement. In contrast, fine art / non-commercial art has no necessary relation to anything other than itself, it can choose to have a meaning or not. 

It is up to the viewer to decide whether commercial art holds the same value as fine art, yet for me atleast, the bottomline is that commercial art requires a pre-existing meaning / movement to begin with, and it is up to the artist to build upon that foundation for good or for worse.