To me Lik's work aesthetically is like fast food, which sometimes I find quite useful when I'm in a hurry or traveling-but I don't spend a lot of time savoring it nor would expect to spend much money for it.
To me Lik's work aesthetically is like fast food, which sometimes I find quite useful when I'm in a hurry or traveling-but I don't spend a lot of time savoring it nor would expect to spend much money for it.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Any truly great piece of wall art should have the inherent ability to pull the viewer in, without the need for any slicker-than-geased-lightning sales leverage. I have never ever tried to talk anyone into buying something, nor even allowed my agents to do it. Basic presentation is enough. Now I will admit that if no one has ever seen a slot canyon photograph, they can be pretty generically compelling. And I have no idea how in this case he created that "ghost" in the shaft of light - possibly
by an assistant throwing talcum powder or fine dust in the air just before the shot, or possibly in PS.... but otherwise, it's no more remarkable than hundreds of
other Antelope Can shots I've seen, and in the colorized version, downright goofy. I wouldn't even remark on this kind of tourist gimmickry on a forum like this
if it weren't for people who seem to take this kind of junk food version of photography as some kind of role model, just cause the dude got rich doing this kind of
thing. How does he live with himself? Gosh. If that is what I had to look forward to in photography, I might as well just be selling bogus stock investments or
something. Why even go outdoors if you're not going to absorb the real beauty, which is a million times more compelling in its own right than anything like this.
Live, look, perceive, soak it in .... you've only got one go at it .... there will always be another marketing gimmick out there.
Are there "ideas" in Peter Lik's image, yes. Question is, what these ideas are.
Andy Warhola correct spelling of their family name did not come from a wealth family or socialite. They were an immigrant family that struggled to make ends meet. Andy was lucky to have been accepted to college and due to his gifts and talent for drawing gain fame and fortune as a graphic artist doing advertising in New York. Andy knew well the world of Madison Avenue and how advertising worked. His monetary success in the graphic arts ad world was not enough, Andy wanted fame and legacy in the fine art world. After several tries at producing works that would not be accepted by fine art promotors and galleries, appeared the 32 cans of Campbell soup. Which was were this "social commentary" began.
Andy was chosen as an example relative to Peter Lik due to Andy's use of Photography and silkscreen printing works that he was well known for.
Given this aspect of Andy's work and the pop-art aspect of Andy's work, what is the real difference between Peter Lik? They are both very much designed and conceived for mass appeal and consumption.
Art is much about ideas and expression, at the core, the content of these ideas and insights matter.
Bernice
Originally Posted by pdmoylan
pdmoylan,
just sit down, lean back and enjoy! It is often entertaining to watch those that cannot and are not to try to get on those who can and are. Often times you find true pearls, in terms of entertainment that is. Pearls that became a hallmark of the forum. How did that happen? Go, wonder. Hope this thread will go for another 100 posts more.
I obviously do poke fun at art academia from time to time, and really don't care much for the stuck gear fixation on Warhol or that whole pop art era per se. But
I see no resemblance between that genre and what Lik does. He has exactly ZERO recognition by anyone I am aware of other than his own circle of marketing.
Hence he has appropriately been compared to the painter Kinkade, who likewise was a complete bellyflop in any real "fine arts" circle (as much as I hate that term itself). And I believe it is completely sober to state that the value of his work will fade just as fast as the prints themselves, and will not even be worth the frames they are put in to the next generation. I've seen this kind of marketing model over and over and over in one form or another. And if I stand in front of some great painting in a musuem I don't need some big sign next to it, stating they paid such and such an obscene sum, therefore I should consider it valuable.
If it is the real deal, it will be compelling in its own right. People who think Lik captured some magic light in nature are probably people who never spend much time in nature, so really can't discern the difference, just like people who think there is anything sophisticated at all to what he is doing probably haven't seen many truly great photographic prints at all. Jack in the Box and Burger King aren't so impressive after you've tasted a really good cut of steak. But apparently, some people never have.
In response only to the comment about the comparison of musicians to photographers, and being death, I'd like to point out that Beethoven compose some of his best works during a time when he was completely deaf...
Yes, but he was still vertical and breathing when he wrote them.
... And Beethoven knew the nuance of sound well before he went deaf. But in this case, it's more like a giant kazoo. One of my favorite Far Side cartoons shows
some maestro in his coat and tails, with his wand, being escorted by the devil into some room in hell, behind flames. Inside the room there a junior high band with
a tuba, drum, etc.
He wasn't "completely" deaf. He pressed his eye teeth on the piano so the vibrations went from his teeth to whatever hearing he had left. As another mentioned, he had a lifetime of hearing to base his compositions on by memory of sound.
Just as Lik has years of shooting film behind him to guide him, and years of business experience to know what sells and how to sell it. Lol
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks