>>3049102you put a slash between art and commercial as if the two approaches were exactly the same.
they aren't.
art is academic; you have to have a degree in photography, at least a master's. then, you support yourself by either teaching, do commercial work on the side, or through patronage/grants/endowment/stipend. eventually you will sell prints worth enough (or if you're on the lower tier of the art market, you'll sell enough prints period) to support yourself. typically, though, you work within the confines of universities and get them to publish your monographs, etc. The commercial publishers like Taschen, Phaidon, etc all come later, well after you've achieved critical success.
Commercial photography can resemble art photography occasionally, specifically when it's decor-centered scenics, stuff like Peter Lik, etc. You know, something your parents would want hanging up in the living room. Most of the time, though, it's just a straight up capitalistic hustle. You start small, build up a portfolio and work your way up to big clients in the big city, if you're any good. A lot of the bigger commercial photographers also went to school for photography, though they typically went to one of those expensive commercial art schools like parsons, RISD, ACCD, or the now-defunct Brooks. Once you have the necessary skills, it's a matter of networking and salesmanship. The most important product you're selling is yourself. Everything else is secondary.
