$6.5 Million for a Peter Lik Photograph

[Drew Wiley]

Well I have to eat some of my previous words. I just returned from the islands, and actually stumbled into some art even worse and more kitchy than either Kinkade or Lik, which I didn't even think was hypothetically possible. Of course this stuff was for sale in the most expensive galleries on the island, smack between a Guchi and some other haute name-brand store. Just looked into the window, and only went into that damn shopping center to momentarily find a restroom. But then as we were exploring the south of the island I happened to recognize a specific Lik shot. He must have timed it carefully, cause unlike the tropical paradise image he made of it, it happens to normally be one of the most crowded beaches on the entire island. He inverted the scene, to make it look like you're facing north instead of south, fauxtoshopped over some houses and the adjacent road, which in the sales prints are covered over with psychedelic sunset clouds. So on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of artistic ability, I'd place Kinkade at around MINUS 5, Lik around MINUS 10, and some of these other folks somewhere down a black hole. I've seen better photography and paintings at junior high divisions of county fairs. Whatever this trash is selling for on the basis
of bluffing sheer suckers doesn't mean much. Since Kinkade seems to be Lik's marketing model, go figure... look what happened to him!

[Mark Sawyer]

From The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/artanddes...eyed-tasteless

The opening sentence: "Peter Lik’s hollow, cliched and tasteless black and white shot of an Arizona canyon isn’t art – and proves that photography never will be..." The piece doesn't really say much, just an extended string of insults...

[Deval]

Photography isn't art... Amazing that they let trolls work for real newspapers

[Jeff Dexheimer]

Boring on so many levels. The writer's view is nothing more than a way for him to garner attention. What I do find interesting are some of the comments, especially the well written comments. They give some insight on how the public views photography.

[richardman]

Is this the same bloke that says "photography is not arts because it's sucks compare to painting" just a month ago? He's really raking in clicks now...

[Kodachrome25]

To all the haters... I leave you this quote that someone used to cheer me up when I was having images flagged on a social network...

"Have you ever seen a hater doing better than you are?"

Those who put down his work probably are mostly jealous of his success and are projecting their own fears of inadequacy from not being as successful as he is.

Again?

Could it be that *you* are the one who is jealous...?...that he is making an enormous commodity sized living at what he sells? LOL!

On the plus side, I like that this sale has brought attention to photography selling for big bucks, good for all of us who are truly serious about it.

On the downside...I wish it were a more deserving photographer. I am a 10 minute walk from my home to his store in my town. Any time I go in there I just get overloaded with giant "Jolly Rancher" candy-digital-prints, some not very good in showing poor edge correction, other defects and oh-so obvious signs of photoshop that he does NOT do as his minions in the Walmart sized facility in Neveda do at his whim. It's good to have his store in my town though since his images of my particular neck of the woods are well below average and I have had people that have been in his shop come looking at my work, resulting in sales.

It is good for the industry....I will give it that.

[tgtaylor]

The opening paragraph says it all:

Photography is not an art. It is a technology. We have no excuse to ignore this obvious fact in the age of digital cameras, when the most beguiling high-definition images and effects are available to millions. My iPad can take panoramic views that are gorgeous to look at. Does that make me an artist? No, it just makes my tablet one hell of a device.

There's a billion or more "Little Sally's" out there with a "hell of a device."But

Who are you?
Who, who, who who?

Thomas

[Kirk Gittings]

Stieglitz and O'keefe did this to brilliant and longlasting effect.

I have never heard this. Do you have a reference for it?

[StoneNYC]

Again?

Could it be that *you* are the one who is jealous...?...that he is making an enormous commodity sized living at what he sells? LOL!

On the plus side, I like that this sale has brought attention to photography selling for big bucks, good for all of us who are truly serious about it.

On the downside...I wish it were a more deserving photographer. I am a 10 minute walk from my home to his store in my town. Any time I go in there I just get overloaded with giant "Jolly Rancher" candy-digital-prints, some not very good in showing poor edge correction, other defects and oh-so obvious signs of photoshop that he does NOT do as his minions in the Walmart sized facility in Neveda do at his whim. It's good to have his store in my town though since his images of my particular neck of the woods are well below average and I have had people that have been in his shop come looking at my work, resulting in sales.

It is good for the industry....I will give it that.

Huh? No I'm not jealous at all, it's been a long time (3 weeks before I met you) since I've seen a Lik gallery, but I remember liking the prints at the time.

Will have to revisit a gallery at some point.

[Michael Stoyak]

I have never heard this. Do you have a reference for it?

Benita Eisler, on pages 370-371 of her book on O'Keeffe and Stieglitz, discusses what I think cowanw is referring to. On April 16, 1928 the NYT ran a story titled, Artist Who Paints for Love Gets $25,000 for six panels. The article goes on to say the panels, done in 1923, were sold to an anonymous collector. A few days later, Stieglitz wrote to the Art News that the paintings were to be headed to France. Eisler says, "(t)he anonymous collector was never identified, and for good reason--he didn't exist. There had been no buyer and no sale." The "sale" was engineered by Stieglitz and Mitchell Kennerly, who ran the Anderson Galleries.

Eisler further writes: "Stieglitz''s announcement was a fabrication designed to publicize O'Keeffe and raise her prices."

Hope this answers your question, Kirk.