1. “I'll deign to disagree on the sole motivation of the commercial photographer.”
2. “Putting aside commercial photography where the reason to produce is clear; when talking about the artistic side of photography the reason to produce has to come from within doesn't it? And not from some external definition.”
Okay, I’ll try to spell it out again.
Take your statement in 1: I do trust you understand the meaning of deign? Hardly a pleasant way to begin to address a reply to anyone; no wonder hackles rise.
On to point 2, then: you are clearly implying that commercial photography is exclusively about money and, by your sentence, further imply that it must therefore be devoid of artistic merit or motivation. This is patently not the case, at least not with any successful pro snappers I have known. Frankly, photography must be one of the most difficult routes to money one could imagine. There has to be something pretty damned basic and visceral to make a person try to earn their living with it. And that drive, that need? Obviously, that has to be the need to express an artistic nature, to make it one’s life. Artistic desire must be the basis for the wish to be a professional photographer – what else does it generally offer if not the hope of that?
I don’t really see the difficulty in understanding this.
Closed loops? Simply that in some ‘conversations’ things get repeated over and over again, either in exactly the same form or with a choice of different words with an identical overall meaning. In essence, I sometimes find myself obliged to answer the same thing again but in a different way; that must be as tiresome for the reader as for the writer, hence the recent retreat from the scene.
However, I’m perfectly willing to accept it’s two sides of a similar coin…