dogs playing poker

Most people know the image of Dogs Playing Poker. These paintings were painted by an illustrator (a quaker) from NY who was commissioned to paint them as advertisements for cigars. Many critics call them schlock- art. I take the stance that they were "work for hire" and created for advertisement purposes so they must be viewed in that context. The fact that they were commissioned as illustrations mean they were not created by an artist for the sake of making a statement or to change anything but rather to collect a check. I do my share of commercial/ illustration work and I do believe there is a difference between fine art and illustration... My only question is this--is that piece of Americana-kitsch any worse than the crap we are spoon fed by galleries today. Is it any worse than a shark rotting in formaldehyde? I went to the met and saw that shark and it was so depressing I had to run back to see my Rembrandt's to feel a sense of hope for humanity. I am not defending dogs playing poker, I am using it as a watermark for our collective sense of taste (or lack thereof.)