have a point, in that the meaning of commercial art does not come from lived experience or from the heart and soul of an individual artist, and its purpose may see crass to some, commercial art actually has the ability to speak to the audience moreso then fine art does. This is because fine art is often esoteric and ultimately meaningless. Art critics might be able to find meaning in certain works of art, but they would be the only ones. The common man would have great difficulty understanding the meaning of a mans urinal used as artwork. On the other hand, commercial art is supposed to be understandable and accessible or, at the very least, evoke powerful emotions. For this reason, commercial art is more successful in conveying messages to mass audiences then is fine art.
John Berger states that abstract art has been adopted by corporate capitalism, which is causing these aesthetics to become emblems of economic power. He says that, through this process of reducing the aesthetics of fine art into something that is used to increase economic power for the entity that uses this art, the lived experience inherent in the art work is eliminated from the image of the art. This results, in his view, in a reduced area of experience, even though it claims to be universal (Berger, 2001, p. 296). This process of commercializing fine art, and the subsequent way that this transformation has robbed the art work of meaning is particularly anathema to Berger, as he feels that art comes from a primitive part of the artist, and that it comes from the lived experience of the artist (Berger, 2001, p. 296). For Berger, drawing and art is about discovery within the artist himself (Berger, 2001, p. 10). The power of the art comes from this lived experience, the faith that this experience can produce the art, and this is typically coupled with a skepticism of the society in which the artist finds oneself (Berger, 2001, p. 297). Thus, in transforming art in commercialism, it robs the