I think you will find that your "idea" is one that already has a considerable amount of previous mileage. For instance the recently deceased Richard Avedon was an advertising/fashion photographer whose work has been exhibited as art by the Metropolitan in New York. In fact one of the earliest photographers to create serious art is Minor White who was also a founder of fashion photography in Vogue magazine. For a number of years the photographer Guy Bourdin was commissioned by a French high fashion shoe company to create photographic "art" that were the company's ads in Paris Vogue for many seasons. Andy Warhol based much of a painting career on making commercial product images (advertising photography) into objects of fine art.

Art and commerce, (and more recently photography) have been intertwined at least since the time of Classic Greece. What we know of Greek painting from that ancient period is largely due to images put on amphora for decoration used to store and transport oil and wine.

In the early days of photography the question of "legitimacy" dogged the medium and debate raged for more than a century. That photography is a significant part of the collections of major museums of art today is a fact but has not resolved the question entirely in the minds of many. So is legitimacy anything more than a balance of socio-political power held by vested interests whose fortunes are up and down like stocks in the market.

I think you have maybe dived head first into Pandora's box and found it is really a can of worms.

The one thing that is maybe a bit more secure is the idea that amateur photography was the visual folk art of the 20th century and digital photography is taking its place with a vengeance in the 21st.

I think you would be more in tune with the times if you wrote about how the Internet was the new art gallery or how it empowers everyone with the ability to self publish or market their work.

Indeed the internet has had a major impact on the way art has been made available to the masses. In my opinion however the magazine still has much more to offer than the all powerful internet. For one thing, control and quality. Sure everyone has a website now days with pictures of their cats and holiday in Figi, but does the regular person really at the end of the day sit behind their computer and search for high quality art; Perhaps a fraction. And granted there are excellent sites which host high quality art. but I believe the main stream population still prefer magazines. How many people puchase magazines? every month a new stylized copy, filled with fresh new ideas and images. easy to purchase, pick it up off the shelf and sit back on your porch bench. In reality I believe your everyday soccer mum, business man, and teenager view more art though the glossy pages than searching the web, its so accessible, thats why advertisers love it. people dont have to go searching for it, its right in font of them on a double spread wheather they like it or not. And it is a peice of art which has taken a lot of work and many minds to produce.

Your points are very insightfull. Let me play deivils advocate.

But what of the argument that advertising art is never ground breaking only ever static. Its aim is to be instantaneosly appealing to the masses, much great art was revolutionary, and only became appreciated long after its creation. Does not this mean it is less valuable to society?

Your assumption that "advertising art is never ground breaking only ever static" is a very dubious claim, particularly today. Who had more influence with images of similar subjects, Degas or Lautrec?

Today advertising, to be effective, has to break through in continuous wal-to-wall media environment, Its purpose is to persuade, to get attention. If anything in the last century, advertising art has been far more influential on society and culture than fine art, which I am afraid has gone to some pretty ridiculous extremes just to get attention.

I would suggest as part of your research that you read thoroughly the writings of Marshall McLuhan.

Indeed it does seem generally accepted that advertising phtography is art. But are magazines the new art galleries? everywhere i turn i see people flipping through magazines looking at the pictures. Is this how the average Joe comes into contact with art? It seems far from ideal, but is it the reality?

Reality? Depends on how you define it. I like the word artifice. Advertising art is ubiquitous in any modern environment, not just in magazines. The world has become a gallery without walls. What is not art, and what is not some kind of advertising, that may be more the question.