But I do like the "fine whine" expression, Brian! I might use it on an odd occasion if you don't mind.
But I do like the "fine whine" expression, Brian! I might use it on an odd occasion if you don't mind.
There's nothing particularly novel about this kind of sales scheme. A number of years ago I had access to most of the wholesale price lists for "limited edition" photolithographs by "world famous" painters who were also the "next Picasso" and whose names have all been forgotten by now. Slick galleries around Fisherman's Wharf
and Ghiardelli Square etc were selling these for thousands of dollars apiece, telling people that their "investment" would double or triple in value or the years. The truth is,
not one of these glorified posters was even worth the frame it was put in. The typical
wholesale cost was around ten or fifteen dollars, and the long-term value was zero.
Even photolithography by someone like Salvador Dali was essentially worthless. One
has to be very careful about alleged value when something is mass-produced and is
essentially just a mechanical copy of an original in a completely different medium.
People who were planning on retiring on a collection of Kincade's production-line
prints are now discovering that these are virtually worthless as an investment. Only
a bigger sucker is willing to pay a higher price for the same thing, and there are enough real painting by Kincade himself out there to satisfy any clientele of his genre willing to spend the big money. Now I wonder if a lacquered pine cone from the
orginal Best Studio where AA was personally involved is worth tens of thousands more
than the lacquered pine cone sold down the road at an El Portal gift shop.
Not Kinkade, thank goodness--the prints are far better than that. But the dealers all run the same line. My wife, who has sales experience, sees through it.Originally Posted by cdholden
Ah, you've got one of those too? At least her Kincaide is hanging in the bedroom.
I fought like hell to keep it out of the common areas seen by others.
Rick "immune to such tactics unless it involves a car" Denney
I'll reference something I read in a comic book: Don't invest in art. Buy art because you like it.
Investments are for things that are real financial instruments. Yes, there's that couple that 60 Minutes featured, who bought loads of modern art from unknown artists and amassed a fortune in art because the artists later became famous. But the couple bought the art because they loved it, not because it would accrue value.
The real question is, does a photograph deliver $X value of enjoyment? That's only answerable by the purchaser.
It is not sour grapes. If you look at his net (and not his gross), I'll be he makes no more than many of us in our day jobs. I'd be very surprised if the cost of sales for his high-style operation isn't well into the 90's percent.Even if he exaggerated that $200 million claim tenfold and he made "only" $20 million... No, I take it back, I strongly suspect that if he made only $1 million in reality, he would still be hugely successful compared to some 90% of the participants of this thread (to put it as charitably as Walter did).
No wonder, then, there's so much sour grapes.
I also suspect, not too strongly this time, that if the esteemed critics spent less time cultivating said grapes and more time working on their marketing mojo, maybe they could close the gap somewhat. Or perhaps not...
Even if he did make a real fortune, it's still not sour grapes. There are too many examples that counter the equivalence between artistic merit and commercial success to be able to sustain the argument that one should respect his art because it sells well.
And even if it is better than what I have produced, it is still not sour grapes. Is it sour grapes if I wince when a pop singer like Justin Bieber makes zillions singing out of tune, just because I myself can't carry a tune in a bucket? Is it sour grapes if I complain about the attitude or scamminess of a football player just because he's fit and I'm not? Do I have to be a better artist in order to criticize it? Many artists think so, but I contend that is not a position they can sustain even in their own lives.
He has a good scam, and that attracts a modicum of respect for his business acumen, though I think the approach still dances around fundamental dishonesty. That is orthogonal to the value of his work as art. If the saturation fell within the boundaries of good taste, the photos would at least be competent. As they are, the effect so distracts from everything else that nothing else can be seen. And it seems cynical, because it's not like some whacked-out modern artist who thinks that 100% black photographic print (like the one I saw at the National Gallery last December) really is profound, or a college-student photographer who is making a statement about the fantasy of postcards by grossly oversaturating some prints. Rather, it seems contemptuous of art and art buyers. "Boy if those idiots like that impossible red, wait until they see this one!"
Rick "no expert on art but who can tell the difference between schtick and sincerity" Denney
Yeah, don't invest in art. Invest in something absolutely safe, like real estate, the
stock market, or lose weight without exercise pills.
Equating the quality of art to the number sold is the equivalent of saying a McDonald's hamburger is the best, although some people may like over processed crap for food.
You can make money buying art, but it is difficult to do with current artists, that is why new art is typically cheap. The probable reality of a Lik print is that when the hype dies so will the value. Years from now, when no one wants one and there are thousands and thousands floating around they will be pretty cheap. The hype behind them is the only way they could sell for the prices they do. If you are looking for an investment, it would be much better to buy from five artists who sell prints for $1000, or ten who sell prints for $500. If you like color landscapes, you could buy multiple Christopher Burkett prints for that money. If the artist has a reasonable following, the value will go up. If you are really astute you may even make many times your initial investment.
No, it would be sour grapes if you were an American Idol contestant or perhaps Milli Vanilli.You'd have to be at least a Ricky Martin OR you'd have to target a completely different demographic in order to pull a bona fide bitchfest about the Justin kid. I'm not saying that he's any better singer than Peter Lik is a photographer, all I'm saying is that perception is a big part of it all.
And seeing them both in a single sentence calls for another comparison: Peter Lik is obviously marketing to the type of people whose visual systems can only be sufficiently tickled by a Velvia pushed to the extreme. Those people are anything but art buyers. Ansel himself would be no more likely to lure any of Peter's audience than, say, Placido Domingo could apeal to those Bieber's tween girls. So, it is kinda hard to talk about a scam either. He's simply identified a very specific market segment and is supplying what they want, tastless as they may be.
Yes, but he also lies to them. That market segment, tasteless as they may be, would probably be much less inclined to buy if they knew that the images are fake, especially as they seem to buy them as an investment. One doesn't have to be a genius to realize that a Photoshop fabrication will gain much less in value than a real photograph.So, it is kinda hard to talk about a scam either. He's simply identified a very specific market segment and is supplying what they want, tastless as they may be.
I'm sure that the lies and utter bullshit are responsible for an important part of his sales. If that's not a scam, I don't know what is.
Let's leave the issue of fabrication in Photoshop vs. conventional methods of fabrication (darkroom, in camera, chemical and such) aside for the sake of this discussion, because we know we won't agree on that.
Let's not even get close to the issue of whether any image that aspires to be ART can be anything other then fake as compared to the world of facts.
Let's also leave the issue of lies and bullshit as the sine qua non of any good sales pitch aside as well because that's not what I've been commenting on here.
Finally, let's also ignore the issue of utter bullshit being regular, almost inherent part of many an artist statement, especially when it comes to art for sale (sic!), in which case it also becomes a subset of the above. Debatable, I know, but that's my opinion, and not only mine. And also not the point here.
But IMO anybody who treats photography or any other ART as an investment and bases their decision on the artist's technique and believes the sales pitch along the way deserves to be fleeced. Especially when it comes to that price level. That means that not only do they not have the slightest clue about neither art nor investment, but they don't even know enough to hire professional help, if they really feel they should put their money into circulation.
But even that aside, I struggle to understand who in their right mind would consider anything remotely resembling those colors anything but fake! Those look like a bad acid trip, for crying out loud! And he's not the only one - there are people who stack polaroid over intensifier, underexpose a bit to squeeze all Velvia has to offer, with a little help from Cibachrome in the end for good measure and then peddle the result as "handcrafted", "factual" and "unmanipulated".
And people believe them. The same kind of people that buy his "art", naturally, because that's all the same market segment, just different price levels.
THOSE people aren't buying real art no matter what, it's simply way bellow their perception threshold. They are out there wanting to be lied to and PL and people like him are simply fulfilling that desire. The amount of money involved vs. the amount of money real art pulls in is simply the sad commentary on the state of public mind in general.
No sense getting all upset about it, that's all I'm saying.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks