What did Leonardo De Vinci know that I don't?

When I started this Blog I had the idea that it would be a great place for me to share my thinking about photography with whomever happened upon this blog. At the time I had started to do some commercial work and also thought it could be a great place for me to post my latest adventures in the for-profit world.

However, lately I've been thinking about my website and this blog and whether I have crossed a line between my desire to create artwork and my gut need to have someone pay me for my work. My website http://www.barrywolf.com/ is solely dedicated to my artistic endeavors and the blog to date has solely been devoted to commercial work.

As my mind traipsed along the highway of reality and fantasy I started to think about Leonardo De Vinci. The "Mona Lisa" and the "Last Supper" are without question two of the greatest works of art in the world. Yet most of De Vinci's efforts were focused on the "M" word... money! In fact he was hired by several foreign governments to create and design weapons for their armies so he could earn money.

Michelangelo, was not much different than De Vinci. He spent years laying on his back painting the ceiling of the Sistine chapel. True, he believed that it was to honor God but he was also being paid a commission for his efforts by the Pope. We could argue his intent but at the essence of it is the fact that it was work for pay, all be it for a greater power.

So here we have two of the worlds greatest artists who's, and you should excuse the expression, bottom line was the bottom line.

So I ask myself, am I an artist or a commercial photographer. Are the lines clearly defined or are they blurred? Just look at some of photography's greats and the line gets murkier. I've read that Ansel Adams was always worried about money. He took on many "for pay" assignments. I have to believe some were not to his liking but he did it to earn a living and maybe he too wanted to test his limits as a photographer. Beyond the money, he was very dedicated to helping create great public lands through his photographs. Although I've been told by a gallery owner that he was a postcard shooter, I believe as do many others, that he was a great photographic artist.

How about Annie Leibowitz?  She is a commercial photographer of great note yet her artwork sells for many thousands of dollars in fine art galleries.

So where does that leave me? Do I continue to sell my abilities to the highest bidder in an effort to make myself feel worthy or do I chuck the whole commercial thing for obscurity in the cold cruel art world? Or like De Vinci do I straddle the two worlds to provide what I apparently think I need to feel that I'm really a worthy photographer?

I guess I should just cry for help on this one but I've actually come to a conclusion as I sit and write about this subject. It doesn't really matter does it? Nothing in this world seems to be that pure. The world is not an either or place is it? So why not try both worlds on for size. If the art world has trouble dealing with me as an artist because I accept commercial assignments then it's their problem. If the commercial world can't grasp the advantage of an artful thinker then I guess my income will be less. No matter, I'm in for the ride. I want the experience and excitement of putting myself out there and testing my limits. I want the adrenaline rush that's comes with a new assignment or a new direction to create an art portfolio, on a subject that interests me.

I guess I'm spoiled, I want it all!

For years I worked as a TV director and producer creating programs that fit other peoples needs. Today I am lucky to be able to navigate both the art and commercial worlds on my own terms.

I guess life is good!!!!!