Pondering Posters, Commercial Work and Giclee's

I see that I have said that certain works look commercial - like posters, several times now. I keep thinking about that. If there had been printing technology in Rembrandt or Da Vinci's time and someone had made posters of their paintings - would I view that as commercial? I don't think so ..... but I am not sure. Actually now that I think about it - I am not enjoying Da Vinci so much as of late because of all the commercial aspects of the recent Da Vinci Code craze. I see his work plastered everywhere and it makes me tired of it - for me it takes the uniqueness and value of it and just trashes it. What is it that I see in a work of art that makes me see "poster" instead of "art" - ??? and why? I certainly don't think posters and art are mutually exclusive and yet there is something in my head that make a separation or differentiation. Is it because I was developing at the Peter Maxx, Robert Motherwell and rock star poster craze and I am forever affect by that? For the record I detest the whole giclee thing! I understand the desire of an artist to make a living and sell their work - but making giclee prints just seems to be cheapening the whole art world in my opinion. If the giclee printing process is used as a tool in creating work - in my mind that is probably OK, but to just crank out cheap copy after cheap copy - I don't care how good they look - just diminishes the value. And maybe the worst possible offense is to crank out a bunch of cheap giclees - make a few "hand painted" alterations and then call it original or one of a kind. To me that is absolute fraud and should be prosecuted immediately. And yes I am referring to the so called "St Victor" and anyone else that tries to sham people that way! Shame on them.