by Ian Pedigo

In various academic and applied disciplines, there is a tendency to use multi-disciplinary approaches to solve problems. This indicates a growing belief in combining disciplinary methods to achieve a complete understanding of a subject as it relates to a larger cultural whole. In the fine arts many artists apply this approach to their work as well. A discipline commonly referenced by artists is commercial art. But when the methods of commercial art are applied to a work of art, it is often difficult to recognize whether these methods are understood from a multi-disciplinary position or whether the art maker simply has absorbed them. As a result, a piece that serves as a promotional tool for the artist may be mistaken for an artwork that seeks to be aware. The fundamental difference here is between the practice of commercial methods on the one hand and the pursuit of knowledge on the other.

The commercial arts field accelerates the exchange of goods by increasing their appeal to the general public. The relationship between the consumer and the product is based on the conjecture of an anonymous person's need and the product's appeal. This paradigm also is present in fine arts practices. When an artist's work symbolizes of a desirable image or place in life, its potential as a product increases as its appeal meets the interests of the viewer. Although this product isn't necessarily consumed through purchasing, it is consumed by the viewer's endorsement of the artist's image. This is similar to how one can convey his or her identity to others, based on the display of individual selection and taste, through the purchasing of a product (the right pair of shoes, for example). The artist's product, however, is a vehicle that supports not only the viewer's identity but also the status of the artist.

As the commercial potential for a work of art increases, the work that at one time only utilized subjects of popular culture actually becomes a product of popular culture itself. Many examples support this tendency, including much of the artwork of Andy Warhol, whose trademark images, such as Campbell's Soup (1965) or Marilyn (1964), commonly appear in advertising today. The irony in the case of Warhol is, of course, that his work was developed using sensibilities about commercial art practices.

Some important questions to bring up at this point are: Does a commercial sensibility help to expedite a work's status in culture? And does the work then become recognized as a commercial image? Or, does it remain recognizable as a work of art? Whichever the case may be, the commercial art field takes notice when any work of art is celebrated by our culture. The countless images by Munch, Monet, Renoir, Klimt or Mondrian that appear on souvenirs prove that when a work of art becomes a cultural icon, it appears "ready-made" to those with a commercial sensibility and becomes game for use in the selling of products. The justification of these practices from the perspective of the fine arts discipline is often that the work is a product of "cross-pollination" or a demonstration of the "blurring of boundaries." But what seems more truthful is the artist's contempt for the authority of disciplines that require good reasoning for their practices.

It is true that in fields of competition, one way of standing out is to find an area of ground that is not occupied by many others. However, once others catch on, the opportunity is divided, and the secrets of the practice eventually become common knowledge. When this happens, the same justifications employed by established disciplines become required either by a more aware public or by the artist in need of finding new, individual ground.