I almost felt bad.. You then commercial
There are certain "forms" of art that attract the soft, veiled criticism of being "so/too/very commercial, hor?"
I've checked with my friends whom I earmarked as fellow determined "commercial-artists", 365 might be a bit pushing it a bit. (Though to be fair, no one likes to get in my face too much so I get to push the statistics a bit.) We must first realise, 1. What is commercial art, and 2. Is it an automatic criticism?
As an low-key objectivist we like to say: When presented with contradiction, check your premise.
At face value
So what is "commercial art"? I don't want to insult anyone with google answers. By simple definition it's basically artworks that serve as a secular, functional commodity, to put it broadly. Think posters, advertisements, package designs, etc. It is no secret the Fine Artists are keen to draw a distinction between them and commercial artists such as illustrators and designers. (For reason understood and agreed on the most part, but this is really a topic for another day.)
Contradiction breeds irony. It must be noted that the scorn of "commercial artists" very often come from the same "factions" of fine, non commercial, artists. Under the umbrella of non-commercialism it is also usually the most commercially successful that deliver the irreversible criticism, or at least compared against.
[I stand by this assertion so long as we're talking about the same implied definition of the word and not(I pray) aesthetic, venue, content-intent, and audienceship discrimination.]
I was almost tricked to include "collectability", but we all know thats a moot point.
It thus appear that we're not talking about commercialism in it's purest form, and I fear somehow we have accidentally created an unsustainable "ism" movement that will be too painful to describe blatantly.
A measure of collectability
The sense of commercialism in fine art is no longer commercial, and the most commercial decision an artist can go into is being in The Non-Commercial Club. Once again, let's continue to assume we're talking about the sensible understanding of commercialism.
Why do we form pointless circles within circles?
I've heard convincing arguments on many sides, the "bad news" is that many alleged non-commercial art forms are genuinely becoming much, much more saleable. After all, the measure of commercialism is dictated by consumer patterns and demands. (Not to be institutionalised. Oh, thats also.. nvm, another day.)
I almost felt bad for replying: "Actually you're much more commercial then I will ever be."
I'm actually envious of you.