When the creation of art is based on personal interpretation for the sake of communicating mood or symbolism as opposed to servicing commerce, the result may be considered fine art rather than commercial or utilitarian visual communication. Is the “fine art” in art somehow better?

What level of commissioning makes fine art stop being fine art? If the buyer influences the result, has the fine art status been corroded?

In performing arts, actors and musicians work with scripts to define situation and personality. The creative work is in the script writing, in the adaptation of the script for performance, and in the actor’s interpretation of another artist’s intent. This is fine art, the status is not often questioned, here.

Some say fine art is ONLY fine art when it disregards all influencers. How absurd is that?

If an artist is informed, educated by history, using tradition for inspiration, is the creativity compromised, commercial art rather than fine art? Kitch rather than some deeper wisdom?

Tradition defines visual language; we know meaning because someone(s) before us standardized it. Genius goes beyond legacy, connecting legacy to future.

Copying an admired artist is one thing, becoming immersed in the visual language to find message, communicating with that language to discover its limits … this surpasses repetition and is provocative. Being different from what is, the artist stands out. This is branding and it is art.

Whether considering fine art, commerical art, or new technology, connection must be established with what already exists in order for innovation to have effect. Otherwise, lack of relevance results in obscurity.

A thought-provoking discussion: designforum.aiga.org