The art historian in me hears some irony in what transpired. So, we have a commercial photographer comparing her work to Renaissance/Baroque painting produced under commission. In that case, what you say is the fundamental requirement of "fine art" vs. "commercial art" doesn't really hold true. "Art must be conceived first from the idea that the work is a personal exploration of a feeling or concept that the individual needs to express." Virtually all art, but a few painted self-portraits, before about 1850 was produced under commission. Of course, there was some room for self-expression, but the work of art, first and foremost, had to satisfy a patron. Subject matter was determined by the patron and even how much of some specific colors was to be applied could be specified in a written contract. The work was subject to scrutiny and approval at various stages during its production, the patron could supply written or visual sources for the subject matter, and artists could be and did get dismissed and the work finished by others if the patron wasn't happy. A great artist was able to find that happy ground between pleasing the patron and pleasing himself, all within a traditional subject, be it the Crucifixion or a scene from ancient history, mythology or the portrait of some grandee. The society that produced Romanticism, which is where the idea of the work of art being a free personal expression of something from within the tortured soul of an artistic genius comes from, disappeared in the early 20th century. We live in a totally different world today. Perhaps the division between commercial and fine art needs to be scrutinized in a different way. A great deal of so-called fine art today is highly conceptual, anyway, and hence its incomprehensibility for the average viewer. The art has changed radically (especially what gets displayed in galleries and receives the stamp of "fine art"). I do think it is time for a much broader discussion, that includes not only artists, critics and gallery owners (who are mostly in it for the money, anyway), but also the general public, on what constitutes art is in order. This discussion has been going on for the better part of the past 150 years without any input from the public, except of the most negative kind. If you make something that is intelligible only to a "chosen few", perhaps art is becoming irrelevant to society at large. Sometimes I think it is not only the general public that needs to be educated about art, but the artist needs some insight into the general viewer. Then again, perhaps the reception of the work by the general viewer is no longer important to the artist (those "dumb" viewers). I, personally, think there is most definitely a place for art that is beyond what the majority of the general public can fathom, but I fail to understand why many artists today treat the viewer (who is not one of the inner circle of cognoscenti) with such contempt. There is too much neurotic navel-gazing on the part of artists that gets passed off as "art" for me to be entirely happy with the current state of the arts.

I knew very well from my art history days that the patron and the artist was paramount, but I was coming in from the origins of the artist mind, and that is where I stand firm on quotation, regardless of patrons or commissions (which comes in long after the artist has made his or her mark). Musician, painters and creators all have their beginning of their medium at an early age whereby the voice is inside of them, not outside. This is where true genius come from. On the account of a forum to bring the artist and public closer together would be great, but then, would the general public care? Usually, there are many artist discussions or talks given after the opening of a show, and it's the brave or interested few that will show up. The rest, well, they probably have more important things to do than try to understand the heart and soul of the artist. Intellectual or so called conceptual art has always been confusing and mystifying, much like reading the Bible or reciting Buddha. It's philosophical and requires thought and insight. Some artist may be snobs, but then, that is a personal take, not a generalization. I know of many artists that are completely wonderful to be around. Now, does anyone want to take a personal stab at what is 'fine art' without having to resort to Wikipedia? and then compare it to 'commercial art'?

Perhaps we need to look at the fundamental question that I think is at the heart of any discussion of art today: who is art for? Is art created by the artist, for the artist, to satisfy his own need for self expression? Or is art created to be experienced by an other, an audience? It may sound like this is one and the same thing, but they are fundamentally different purposes. Art created by the artist for the artist can be obscure, off-putting and otherwise indeciferable, yet, as a "work of art", it has perfect integrity. But if the purpose of a work of art is to communicate something to others, well, then others must be taken into consideration and the readability/deciferibility of the work must also be examined (and I am not talking figural art, here, but all art). Is art only about self-expression, or is it about communicating to or evoking something in another? Facing some of the highly personal conceptual art that has been produced in the past 45 years, I often ask myself this fundamental question.