Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Could the difference between "art photography" and "commercial >photography" be >who's buying? >When your client is GM or GE you are doing commercial photography. >When your client is Joes Gallery you are doing Art photography. >Joe the art director? Or Joe the Gallery owner or collector. > >Here's the trick question: >When Michelangelo (Buonarroti) worked for the Pope (Rex Harrison) was he >therefore doing commercial photography? >Don't look to me for the answer he obviously was doing Art with a capital >A. As >in David with a capital D. >I guess we are always working for the landlord. Always ones biggest souse >of inspiration/perspiration... > >mark rabiner >:) mark, a fascinating question! in fact, up to the late middle ages, most artists - be they painters, composers, or what have you - were making "commercial" art, according to your definition. now, as for michelangelo, i would say that he was only doing commercial photography if he used a pinhole camera to produce the composition. (and for a revealing discussion about artists as far back as the 15th century who used pinhole cameras and related devices in their work, see eric renner's "pinhole photography," chapter 2: "pinhole's history in art.") guy