Do you think art can be called art even if its 'commercial' art?

answers1: This begs the question: Why is it that you can be so
concerned about the symantic use of the word, "art," and it's
definition, and totally ignore that the term, "commercial art" already
has it's own definition. <br>
<br>
What you are demonstrating is a kind of elitist attitude toward,
so-called "commercial" art, as if it had less esthetic value that what
the industry refers to as "fine art," which, itself, is elitist. <br>
<br>
And you can't really deny your stance, demonstrated by the very use of
phrases like, "as much art, and "more art-sy. <br>
<br>
But to take that point even farther, I have to point out that many of
those classic "artistic" images, such as portraits, sculptures, even
land and city scapes were "commissioned" pieces, made to order by
patrons who paid the artists to create art on demand. This sounds no
different than the illustrations I create for packaging, newspaper ads
or store signs. <br>
<br>
To accept your argument, I would have to work as a kind of "split
personality," with the work done for a client being one kind of
"commercial" art and the work I do for myself, and THEN sell to a
client as more "art-sy." Is the quality of one kind any better than
the quality of the other?