[Swing Easy]

We're talking about totally different conceptions of art. Corporate commercial artists aren't trying to do funky, hip, artistic art. Likewise hip, funky people aren't looking to do slick commercial stuff.

I wouldn't underestimate or OVERESTIMATE the people on either end. In the end, I think it has more to do with the tastes, interests and goals of the artist.

For me, stuff like the "Invincibles" or something is totally slick and bloodless, and doesn't interest me in the least. Someone who likes that sort of thing, however, may think that urban "artsy" stuff is sloppy or just plain weird.

Apples and oranges and different stokes

 

[Swing Easy]

All I'm saying is that the designer you're going to find in a Pixar cubicle will have amazing breadth of capability, far beyond what you're going to see in public

I totally agree. I had a teacher, and also a friend who worked for Disney. They both hated the work, and hated the environment, but they were very talented and did very beautiful work on their own that was so much more interesting (though none of it had any sort of "street" look, as they are both children's book illustrators). Don't forget that it could go the other way, though. I'm a trained artist...I have a BFA from Tufts and a diploma from Boston's SMFA. I might do something very rough and funky that could look like something on Threadless. Were you to see something that I did in that style, you may not realize that I can also paint, do fine-line illustration, and other stuff. I'd guess that a good number of the people on Threadless (maybe not ALL, or even MOST) are doing EXACTLY what they mean to, and might surprise us with their capabilities on other areas/styles.