$6.5 Million for a Peter Lik Photograph

[Richard Johnson]

http://www.lik.com/news/newsarticle57/

Gotta respect the salesmanship... Dang!

[Kirk Gittings]

Now I'm going to be the cynical one.......I will believe it when I see such numbers in a public sale. Galleries have been known to fake such sales to boost an artists value-happens all the time. You get a "buyer" to front the money. The "sale" happens and then the money (or a large part of it) is quietly given back to the buyer. But the public perception is that the deal was for real and the artist stock goes way up.

[Richard Johnson]

I favor the drug money laundry scenario.

Still, I imagine a healthy amount of the lint remains in Lik's pockets.

[NickyLai]

... But the public perception is that the deal was for real and the artist stock goes way up.


Why the US Stocks are doing so well while the national economy are just clawing along. It is because the rule changed, company allowed to use their profit to buy back their stock (instead of issue dividend or raise salary for their worker) resulting fewer stock in the market at higher price, favor the big stock holders/option..

It's all about business.

[StoneNYC]

Did they buy this FROM Peter Lik or was it bought from someone who had previously owned the image already?

How big was the print? I've seen copies of the image's listed in his galleries so was this the 1 of 10 or 1 of 1? Curious.

[Christopher Barrett]

Well... he does make some of the most spectacular images around. I mean, they're trite and every one of them's a cliche, but he's really good at it.

[David R Munson]

He's like the Thomas Kinkade of landscape photography. Can't say I'm a fan of his work, but I sure wouldn't mind having his popularity and income!

[richardman]

It's like Velvia x Velvia

[Ken Lee]

Do they mention what kind of print it is ? I wonder about the longevity, if it's an inkjet print made on unstable paper with dyes that fade etc.

[StoneNYC]

Do they mention what kind of print it is ? I wonder about the longevity, if it's an inkjet print made on unstable paper with dyes that fade etc.

He owns his own print lab, I'm sure he uses the right archival options, I'm sure it's an ink jet pigment print of some kind probably on metallic paper, possibly RA-4 metallic with a Lambda. Most of his stuff seems to be printed on metallic paper which matches the over saturation.

He used to shoot with a Velvia of some kind and has a linhof 6x17 that he's used in the past. I know he shoots digital now but not sure if it's all digital or just mostly?

I agree his images are cliche but they are beautiful too. I don't mind them so much.

[paulr]

He's like the Thomas Kinkade of landscape photography.

I don't usually like to say things like this about someone who's alive, but, um, yeah.

Seems a bit like the pendulum swinging savagely away from un-pretty, brainier work. No fear of finding ideas in any of these images.

[DrTang]

[QUOTE=Richard Johnson;1195689]I favor the drug money laundry scenario.

QUOTE]


NOW HOLD ON THERE

this is a brilliant biz op

dang.. it is brilliant

drug cartels by my crappy pix for 2.9 million... I give them back 2.85 million in cash

win-win

[StoneNYC]

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.

[djdister]

I wouldn't mind selling one of my works for a tenth of that...

[Kimberly Anderson]

No fear of finding ideas in any of these images.

I love this quote. It is perfect.

[Bob Salomon]

And maybe he has been raising the perceived value of "photographic art". With "sales" like this it isn't just painters and sculptors that can pull down big bucks. In the long run it may let everyone raise their prices as well. Providing the public likes their images enough to pay those bucks!

Have you visited a Lik gallery? The one that we visited in Vegas was certainly busy! And seeing one of his prints in the background of a lot of Pawn Stars episodes doesn't hurt either!

[dsphotog]

Remember, it's an investment.... Certain to appreciate in value.

[cowanw]

Now I'm going to be the cynical one.......I will believe it when I see such numbers in a public sale. Galleries have been known to fake such sales to boost an artists value-happens all the time. You get a "buyer" to front the money. The "sale" happens and then the money (or a large part of it) is quietly given back to the buyer. But the public perception is that the deal was for real and the artist stock goes way up.

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

[Deval]

He uses an iq180 on a phase one and I think and a D800 recently with no quams about photoshop, multiple exposures, and HDR in his recent work, however he started out by claiming a no photoshop mantra which has. Good for him if this is a real sale...I think his best work has been done on 6x17 and the quality has gone down since(same with rodney lough when he switched to the iq180). I think what makes him successful beyond recent media popularity is the fact that he has placed galleries in specific locations where people have no issues about spending $2-$10,000 on an impulse buy during a vacation. His galleries are beautifully designed and the work is displayed extremely well so they give the impression of success to a buyer.

There is no question on a basic level that the choice of color and subjects speaks to clientelle, because salesmenship alone won't cut it. High saturation large prints bring a lot of punch to a plain white wall which sorely needs decoration.
Fine art photography has certainly been the red headed step child to other forms of fine art, and if these types of folks can give it any legitimacy, good for all of us. It would be nice to have access to the same clientelle and show them what really good fine art photography looks like. Might be nice if he started an "emerging" artists section to his galleries.

[Mark Sawyer]

Fine art photography has certainly been the red headed step child to other forms of fine art, and if these types of folks can give it any legitimacy, good for all of us...

Alas, it seems he's taught the red-headed step-child how to dress up and do a Miley Cyrus routine. Not that there isn't fame and fortune in that...

[Peter Collins]

I'm with Kirk Gittings on this one. Compare this "sale" price to prices of photographs sold at auction--photographs by widely recognized artists. Smells. Smells wrong.

[gregmo]

And maybe he has been raising the perceived value of "photographic art". With "sales" like this it isn't just painters and sculptors that can pull down big bucks. In the long run it may let everyone raise their prices as well. Providing the public likes their images enough to pay those bucks!

Have you visited a Lik gallery? The one that we visited in Vegas was certainly busy! And seeing one of his prints in the background of a lot of Pawn Stars episodes doesn't hurt either!



I agree... the press coverage from this for "perceived" value of a photograph is good for anyone who sells prints.

[David Lobato]

He's like the Thomas Kinkade of landscape photography. Can't say I'm a fan of his work, but I sure wouldn't mind having his popularity and income!

+1. And add that I hope the Native American nation where the photo was taken gets a fair percentage of the proceeds. A small percentage times 6.5 million is a lot of money. And hope his guide got a heckuva tip.

[ic-racer]

Now I'm going to be the cynical one.......I will believe it when I see such numbers in a public sale. Galleries have been known to fake such sales to boost an artists value-happens all the time. You get a "buyer" to front the money. The "sale" happens and then the money (or a large part of it) is quietly given back to the buyer. But the public perception is that the deal was for real and the artist stock goes way up.

I agree, for example this sale listed on Wikepedia from 2010



Peter Lik
One (2010)
$1,000,000
December 2010
Anonymous collector[16][17][18][19]
This purported sale was a private sale and not verifiable. All other sales on this list are public auction records.

[Daniel Stone]

Sounds like the mafia is "buying" art again ;)

[C. D. Keth]

Wow you guys are bitter. I like the picture. It's also extremely similar to a lot of what you'll see in the landscape thread here.

[Leszek Vogt]

Worse, we can look forward to see a huge increase of the lemming-emulators in the canyon. While in the SW (just months ago) I found many more spectacular places without drooling over the iconic. But, getting back to the image, I've seen several (by other artists) that made me look again and again....yes, a detail of the canyon....and this one just doesn't. Just my pov.


Les

[Peter Lewin]

Wow you guys are bitter. I like the picture. It's also extremely similar to a lot of what you'll see in the landscape thread here.
But isn't that precisely the issue? $6.5 million for something "extremely similar" to what is being posted on a largely "amateur" forum? That makes many of us suspicious.

[Darin Boville]

It's funny that Lik's photographs don't seem to command anything near these prices at public auctions.

Also, fyi, this same buyer bought two other prints at the same time, one for $2.4 million and one for $1.1 million. According to Lik's press release.

You'd think with prices like these existing owners would be coming out of the woodwork to sell their prints...

But this is nothing that doesn't happen every day in the regular art world.

--Darin

[Old_Dick]

Presuming it is digital, I wonder what the file is worth? A favorite Linux command "wget". For some reason I can imagine Monte Python ordering copies of different sizes and colors, and you you make that smaller or that larger, move that here and reverse that with this. I worked in the digital hardware/software side of graphics for decades, I'm done.


Principal Unix System Engineer, Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems(retired)

[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/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-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.

[cowanw]

Thanks Michael
In the same book, Stieglitz announced the sale of a Marin painting for 6000 dollars, three times the regular price, to Duncan Phillips. He did not make mention of the two other "free" Paintings which were "gifts". Phillips and Stieglitz wrangled in the pages of Art News, and eventually Phillips got several paintings (more than 3), plus a gift of another Marin, from Stieglitz for $7500.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I agree with Kodachrome 25 on the images in his Aspen gallery. There is one I remember of a group of aspen trees, and it was flat out ugly! Aspen trees come in various shades of green/grey up to very white. For some reason, Lik must have driven past all of the beautiful groves and found the ugliest, green grey group of trees in the valley! Not sure what he was thinking on that one (if indeed he took it). There was another print of a famous mining mill in Crystal and it had a portion of a limb stuck in the middle of the sky, sort of floating there like an alien ship, very odd.

That said, he sells a lot of prints and makes a very very comfortable living, so my hat is off to him. He may not be a talent photographer and his prints cannot be resold for anything close to what the buyer purchased it for, but I don't think Lik gives a shik what we think.

[Deval]

I wonder how they obtained the 6.5 million figure...usually price inflation comes from auctions not from a gallery rep having the nerves to say..."umm yeah this one of a kind piece is worth 6.5 million because it is a black and white conversion of a color piece worth a lot less.." Either that or there was a real sucker walking through a gallery one day. I've never met a sucker who can afford that and not to do some background research. Usually people that buy that kind of art have personal art concierges...ah I see a conspiracy forming.

I wonder what the insurance appraiser would say...

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks Michael
In the same book, Stieglitz announced the sale of a Marin painting for 6000 dollars, three times the regular price, to Duncan Phillips. He did not make mention of the two other "free" Paintings which were "gifts". Phillips and Stieglitz wrangled in the pages of Art News, and eventually Phillips got several paintings (more than 3), plus a gift of another Marin, from Stieglitz for $7500.

A great example of exactly what I am talking about. Thanks guys. This is why prices based on previous "private" sales can't be trusted. These games are commonplace in the gallery business and can backfire when they are exposed.

[Daniel Stone]

A great example of exactly what I am talking about. Thanks guys. This is why prices based on previous "private" sales can't be trusted. These games are commonplace in the gallery business and can backfire when they are exposed.

Hence my thought that MAYBE this is a "deal" done with the mafiosos. They have been known to finance/back money-making businesses/individualsluminaries of society. Those individuals might have come from humble beginnings, but have a marketable product and those financiers dangle a financial carrot in front of such person. But they want a good portion of the winnings, if not most. Perhaps they want to "up" their winnings from their investments, and saw this as a way to potentially lure in new fish to the net.

Again, just a thought, but this whale of a tale is really starting to stink, IMO.

[Jon Shiu]

see The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art
http://www.amazon.com/The-Million-Stuffed-Shark-Contemporary/dp/0230620590

[Drew Wiley]

I know a guy who own six actual Kinkade paintings - fully painted by himself prior to his mass-production gallery franchises. While I personally find any of his work
utterly abominable, to that remaining inner circle of die-hard Kinkade collectors, these are probably still worth quite a bit, nowhere near as they once might have
been, but at least they represent the "most collectible" aspect of his work. For the other 99% percent of people who got suckered into "investing" in his gallery
products, the art probably isn't even worth the frames it's put into at this point. That's not an exaggeration. Even the Wall St Journal wrote a major piece about how many people threw away their retirement on what was basically an investment pyramid with no recognized value beyond the confines of that pyramid itself. Then of course Kinkade's corporate empire collapsed due to fraud, he ended up facing serious charges, and things just kept going downhill from there. So here you've got a Fauxtoshop clone of that same business model. A great marketer, with an serious mounting and distribution shop, but with really no product that amounts to anything other than tacky big sofa decor, and nothing even resembling a true collector base once one goes beyond the perimeter of relatively naive
retail types. People have a right to buy anything they wish and pay anything they wish. But given the choice between a sixty inch two hundred dollar framed
stereotypical postcardy image at Ikea and a fifteen thousand dollar one from Lik, I'd give the Ikea nonsense better odds of holding its value!

[Drew Wiley]

And mafiosos aren't that dumb. They got ahold of Rothko's work, and have a line on things like stolen Calif Indian baskets and Mideast and Chinese antiquities, but
these are things of widely recognized value. No serious collector is going to be interested in someone like Peter Lik. Might as well be black velvet Elvis rugs. It's
really that bad.

[Ken Lee]

Some get talent. Some get recognition. Some get wealth.

Some get all. Some get none. Some get... some :)

[Bob Salomon]

And mafiosos aren't that dumb. They got ahold of Rothko's work, and have a line on things like stolen Calif Indian baskets and Mideast and Chinese antiquities, but
these are things of widely recognized value. No serious collector is going to be interested in someone like Peter Lik. Might as well be black velvet Elvis rugs. It's
really that bad.

Good, bad, worth, etc. are up to the buyer. If the buyer appreciates it enough and can pay what ever is charged for it then in the buyer's mind it is good and it is worthy.

If you don't like it or can't afford it then that is another matter.

Maybe you might review the works that Hitler thought were not worthy back in the day. We should not do the same.

[dsphotog]

Maybe it's a REALLY BIG print, printed on exotic rain forest wood, precious metal, or thick diamond plexi.

[MIke Sherck]

I don't really know who this fellow is nor am I familiar with his work, but I like this picture. I don't know about the $6.5 million thing but it's a very pretty picture.

Perhaps I'm a Philistine in disguise... viewers of my photos have always instinctively felt that! :)

Mike

[Bob Salomon]

I don't really know who this fellow is nor am I familiar with his work, but I like this picture. I don't know about the $6.5 million thing but it's a very pretty picture.

Perhaps I'm a Philistine in disguise... viewers of my photos have always instinctively felt that! :)

Mike

I kind of like it too. But then I also own a Swiss Army Knife XAVT and thought it also looked pretty good!

[matthew blais]

I don't think it's especially great...looks like many of the slot canyon B&W's...
And the "Phantom" shape in the light ray is likely manipulated digitally to resemble a figure..
Trite IMHO

[Richard M. Coda]

BINGO Drew!

[Drew Wiley]

Hitler had more talent as an artist. He should have stuck to it, even if, in his case, he would have made a mediocre living. I recognize a scam when I see it, and
have every right to say so, Bob. No different than a restaurant review. If the food stinks, word gets around.

[Drew Wiley]

Simply the fact that the "press release" was on his own website makes it smell like something is rotten in Denmark. He could have at least chosen a spot that didn't have eight million footprints.

[Lenny Eiger]

This discussion is indicative to the fact that we don't have a consistent idea of what photography is.

It appears that: For some, the fact that this person made an image, that he was able to sell it (or fake sell it) is enough. That is considered success.

For others paulr's quote rings true: "No fear of finding ideas in any of these images."

I am in the latter group. It isn't enough for me to simply record an image. Perhaps it was in the first year of doing photography. Now I expect a bit more of myself...

Lenny

[Deval]

My quam isn't the amount or the fact that he is successful. That makes it all the better for the field. I worry however if this ends up being a fake and discovered by the public, it endangers trust with fine art photography. Like it or not he is a modern Ambassador for fine art photography

[StoneNYC]

My quam isn't the amount or the fact that he is successful. That makes it all the better for the field. I worry however if this ends up being a fake and discovered by the public, it endangers trust with fine art photography. Like it or not he is a modern Ambassador for fine art photography

+1

[Bob Salomon]

My quam isn't the amount or the fact that he is successful. That makes it all the better for the field. I worry however if this ends up being a fake and discovered by the public, it endangers trust with fine art photography. Like it or not he is a modern Ambassador for fine art photography

OK, so why doesn't someone ask 60 Minutes or another investigative news show? After all, Lik is in many markets nationally and internationally.

[Drew Wiley]

Lik is in zero markets except his own galleries in very predictable touristy or outright tacky settings (like Vegas). Have you ever looked at his stuff, Bob? It's horribly printed. It's fauxtoshopped with almost Disneyland LSD colors, which often clash even worse than Kinkade's paintings. Basically just huge postcards of
predictable namby-pamby stereotypes, fauxtoshopped beyond belief. The guy turns nature into a cheap ugly whore. I might not have kept up with all this and that, but I never met a curator who would bother to waste the time to even spit on this kind of stuff. You should have heard what they said about Kindade - it would be unprintable here. ... But one comparison I like to make, apples to apples, is between Lik and Fatali. Neither are very respected on this forum it seems due to their
marketing shenanigans, and both sell glitzy-style to tourists. But Fatali can print a hundred times better; the saturation might be a bit much, but it's due to the
film, paper, and masking, and at least represents something he actually saw (except in the case of composites of sandwiched transparencies, which I've noted
elsewhere). And he knows how to modulate colors, and not just throw ketchup over the entire scene. But a case of marketing BS: A big framed Ciba of a real
scene, reminiscent of that Lik slot canyon one, but someplace where you have to rappel to get in (with an 8x10), and where the is a true natural shaft of light
(versus digital smoke machine) - but beside it a note that it's been appraised at 75K (by whom???), has been displayed in over 30 countries (yeah, sure), and
"make an offer" (closer to the truth). Well, given the fact that Fatali uses projector halogens, which are worse than direct sunlight, that the thing has been sitting
there quite awhile without an offer, I'd predict that it would be right around the point of the dyes outright crashing... and if it had been displayed in thirty countries beforehand, nothing would be left. I do know how Cibachrome behaves! So no, I am not at all impressed by sales techiques which resemble car dealers. So what if someone makes a ton of money. All kinds of crooks are good at that, not to mention the literally thousands of honest businessmen right in
this very neighborhood that make vastly more than someone like Peter Lik. So what if he is superficially successful. He hasn't lived, meaning as a photographer,
cause he doesn't seem to see a damn thing. Why bother?

[StoneNYC]

Lik is in zero markets except his own galleries in very predictable touristy or outright tacky settings (like Vegas). Have you ever looked at his stuff, Bob? It's horribly printed. It's fauxtoshopped with almost Disneyland LSD colors, which often clash even worse than Kinkade's paintings. Basically just huge postcards of
predictable namby-pamby stereotypes, fauxtoshopped beyond belief. The guy turns nature into a cheap ugly whore. I might not have kept up with all this and that, but I never met a curator who would bother to waste the time to even spit on this kind of stuff. You should have heard what they said about Kindade - it would be unprintable here. ... But one comparison I like to make, apples to apples, is between Lik and Fatali. Neither are very respected on this forum it seems due to their
marketing shenanigans, and both sell glitzy-style to tourists. But Fatali can print a hundred times better; the saturation might be a bit much, but it's due to the
film, paper, and masking, and at least represents something he actually saw (except in the case of composites of sandwiched transparencies, which I've noted
elsewhere). And he knows how to modulate colors, and not just throw ketchup over the entire scene. But a case of marketing BS: A big framed Ciba of a real
scene, reminiscent of that Lik slot canyon one, but someplace where you have to rappel to get in (with an 8x10), and where the is a true natural shaft of light
(versus digital smoke machine) - but beside it a note that it's been appraised at 75K (by whom???), has been displayed in over 30 countries (yeah, sure), and
"make an offer" (closer to the truth). Well, given the fact that Fatali uses projector halogens, which are worse than direct sunlight, that the thing has been sitting
there quite awhile without an offer, I'd predict that it would be right around the point of the dyes outright crashing... and if it had been displayed in thirty countries beforehand, nothing would be left. I do know how Cibachrome behaves! So no, I am not at all impressed by sales techiques which resemble car dealers. So what if someone makes a ton of money. All kinds of crooks are good at that, not to mention the literally thousands of honest businessmen right in
this very neighborhood that make vastly more than someone like Peter Lik. So what if he is superficially successful. He hasn't lived, meaning as a photographer,
cause he doesn't seem to see a damn thing. Why bother?

At least he shows his work and people have actually heard of him.

[Bob Salomon]

Lik is in zero markets except his own galleries in very predictable touristy or outright tacky settings (like Vegas). Have you ever looked at his stuff, Bob? It's horribly printed. It's fauxtoshopped with almost Disneyland LSD colors, which often clash even worse than Kinkade's paintings. Basically just huge postcards of
predictable namby-pamby stereotypes, fauxtoshopped beyond belief. The guy turns nature into a cheap ugly whore. I might not have kept up with all this and that, but I never met a curator who would bother to waste the time to even spit on this kind of stuff. You should have heard what they said about Kindade - it would be unprintable here. ... But one comparison I like to make, apples to apples, is between Lik and Fatali. Neither are very respected on this forum it seems due to their
marketing shenanigans, and both sell glitzy-style to tourists. But Fatali can print a hundred times better; the saturation might be a bit much, but it's due to the
film, paper, and masking, and at least represents something he actually saw (except in the case of composites of sandwiched transparencies, which I've noted
elsewhere). And he knows how to modulate colors, and not just throw ketchup over the entire scene. But a case of marketing BS: A big framed Ciba of a real
scene, reminiscent of that Lik slot canyon one, but someplace where you have to rappel to get in (with an 8x10), and where the is a true natural shaft of light
(versus digital smoke machine) - but beside it a note that it's been appraised at 75K (by whom???), has been displayed in over 30 countries (yeah, sure), and
"make an offer" (closer to the truth). Well, given the fact that Fatali uses projector halogens, which are worse than direct sunlight, that the thing has been sitting
there quite awhile without an offer, I'd predict that it would be right around the point of the dyes outright crashing... and if it had been displayed in thirty countries beforehand, nothing would be left. I do know how Cibachrome behaves! So no, I am not at all impressed by sales techiques which resemble car dealers. So what if someone makes a ton of money. All kinds of crooks are good at that, not to mention the literally thousands of honest businessmen right in
this very neighborhood that make vastly more than someone like Peter Lik. So what if he is superficially successful. He hasn't lived, meaning as a photographer,
cause he doesn't seem to see a damn thing. Why bother?

Drew,

Yes, I have been to his Vegas gallery and his SoHo gallery. He does, after all, sometimes use our camera.

And maybe my tastes differ from yours, actually they must, I liked some of the works I saw there and didn't like some that were also there.

Some were very sharp and printed very well and others were too grainy and not as sharp as I would prefer. But it really didn't matter if I did or didn't like them. I couldn't afford them. So I didn't look at them with a mind set of purchasing any.

I also really, really like Clive Butcher's work and have seen it several times at his studio, he also uses some of our stuff. But I also can't afford his work either.

I have no qualms about Lik leveraging whatever he has to market what he does. If he wasn't able to sell his work then he would never be able to keep all those high end galleries open. And would not be able to employ all those gallery people and production people. So somewhere there are people who like his stuff, enough to keep his empire going. And at least he isn't selling "hand painted" Hummel figurines or dinner plates like Kincaid.

I also admire some modern art that has lots of bright colors and stark white backgrounds even if I can not see what it is supposed to represent! OTOH I don't see why a painting of a Cambell soup can can be worth so much money either.

As you might have seen, I recently found a bunch of rare first edition photo books in my basement. One was just auctioned off in similar condition to mine for over $2,000.00. It was estimated to sell at auction for upto $4,500.00.

So who does these estimates? Where do I take mine to see what they are worth? We had a visitor from the Smithsonian here this week. He was from the rare documents department, they are scanning lots of old, rare, books and use some of our copy stands to mount their cameras to. He could not tell me where to go. So if they don't have an answer then it is more what the market will pay. The buyer will determine what its worth to them. I would have to see if that is an offer that I can accept. Market conditions will help us both to determine what that is.

If you don't want to buy a Lik, or anything else, that is your right and your decision. But if someone else is ready, willing and able to then it is between them what it is actually worth.

We had a doctor contact us who needed to buy a lens for a very old Linhof Technika. He was going to photograph the Smithsonian's collection of rare orchids and needed the best possible lens as he was going to print and bind them in an elephant portfolio size and had arranged to sell the first copy, sight unseen, to a foreign businessman for $1,000,000.00 and gave the second one to the Smithsonian. To do this he also bought a commemorative Linhof camera in red leather and actually did produce the book. He showed us some of the prints. Would you have paid $1,000,000.00 for a book of flower pictures? How about for a book that large?

But the point is, someone did. More power to the Doc!

[Drew Wiley]

What Lik does well is framing (I hate the glitzy style of it, but technically what he does in that respect, he does well), and he does hire some resilient sales people who know how to take a punch (verbally), and are seemingly well paid. And he does move into moderately high lease locations. With tourist themes, the whole name of the game is never quality, but location, location, location. In Lahaina, he's right where cruise ships with lots of over-financed tourists wander around. But the display prints aren't for sale. The real deal is custom sized and mounted from a central facility, then shipped. I walked in there a year ago just out of curiosity, and the display were backlit transparencies. Really, really tacky, and again, poorly printed. In Vegas it was inkjets poorly printed, and I literally had to leave the gallery in less than two minutes. I was physically nauseated. The true lighting of the world can be such a beautiful thing that I don't know why anyone would need to go to such gross lengths to utterly distort it. If he does another book, it should be titled. "Nature's Pimp". Overhead does cost. But I suspect an average ticket around 10K the truth than anything in six or seven figures, which would really have to be huge to justify it, and probably include installation expense of asembling multiple panels by a specialized crew. Even Kinkade accomplished quite a leap in terms of technical ability, when he pioneered ways to mass-produce his own paintings at a much higher level of reproduction than ordinary photolithographs. But he stepped over both an ethical and legal line when he tried to sell them as "originals". But what finally stopped him was ripping off his own franchisees. The first time I happened to step into a Kinkade gallery I started laughing so hard I had to run out. I had never ever seen anything so seriously marketed that was so ridiculously badly done. But at least he could draw and handle a paintbrush, even if he was apparently colorblind in terms of mixing the colors. It's no secret by now that he basically made paint by
numbers templates which were filled in by low-paid mercenary painters. Lik, on the other hand, I suspect uses kindergartners on LSD to apply his Fauxtoshop
coloration. It's really, really, really unsophisticated.

[Peter Lewin]

126408
While browsing the View Camera page on Facebook, I saw some postings from another photographer who seems to me to be similar to Mr. Lik, at least in some of his subjects and marketing. I am intentionally being vague, because I don't know the photographer, and don't want to assign either praise or criticism. But someone else used the phrase "sofa art" and I couldn't resist this image.

[John Jarosz]

Someone needs to alert the IRS on his income.

[gregmo]

For what it's worth... several years back, Peter Lik had a similar color image of the canyon exhibited at the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History. This year, exhibits included photos by Rodney Lough & Art Wolfe.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, but he owes the IRS only for their share of his actual income, not for anything fictitious. They could care less about false advertising.

[Drew Wiley]

Bob - I do know a thing or two about marketing. Let's imagine that you personally happened to sell a Technika or Technikardan every fifteen minutes on an average day, but at a high rather than narrow margin of profit. Well, that's me, only I don't sell camera gear. But the analogy does applies, since I'm mostly into
high-quality German stuff. No, I don't own the business itself. If I did, I'd be pretty rich by now, but with no time to actually live after-hours and do things I really like to do, like backpack, shoot, and print. But around here we also have a no-BS policy. That's establishes a loyal customer base and long-term credibility. There is always a way to make a fast buck, and to lose a fast buck fast, which seems to go with that lifestyle. If that's how people like Lik and Kinkade choose to spend their life, that's their prerogative. Sounds like a waste of life to me. I'd rather print something I really believe in than whore my camera to any stereotype, whether its in the academic art world or becoming overpriced visual junk food for the masses. I want to see and discover things, and translate this into effectively communicated prints, not just go around scheming how to cheaply make a glitzy sofa poster. My gosh, at least the dude could have
used fluorescent finger paints or something tactile. And if you think his prints are even vaguely competent, what kind of work do you routinely look at, Bob?
The technical quality is downright amateurish, but without any amateur charm. He confuses color with noise. Or back to our culinary analogies, it's like having
so much sugar on something that your taste buds go numb and can't detect any flavor nuance at all. It's not about saturation versus low-key or anything like that. But like Kinkade, he behaves as if he were deaf to color, and the only way to make it work is to turn up the volume so high that every conceivable degree
of nuance or sophistication is drowned out. The level of artistic skill is zero. Just oversized glitzy postcards.

[Alan Gales]

http://www.grindtv.com/lifestyle/in-style/post/nature-photo-phantom-sells-6-5-million/

I don't get it. I mean, it's a nice shot but 6.5 million?

[Drew Wiley]

There's already a long thread on this in the Business section. I'd just reiterate that the source of this is his own website; so take it with a grain of salt. I personally
think the sales figure is complete bull, and that the shot itself is highly PS doctored, just like everything he does.

[Shootar401]

It's an ok photo to be honest. It's something me, or anyone on here can take and it will just as if not better. Talk about an ego.

[Alan Gales]

There's already a long thread on this in the Business section. I'd just reiterate that the source of this is his own website; so take it with a grain of salt. I personally
think the sales figure is complete bull, and that the shot itself is highly PS doctored, just like everything he does.

Thanks Drew. I didn't realize something was already posted about this. I just saw it today on Yahoo.

[StoneNYC]

It's an ok photo to be honest. It's something me, or anyone on here can take and it will just as if not better. Talk about an ego.

Yep... Pretty big ego ... to think anyone on the forum (including yourself) could take "just as good if not better" a photo than one that sold for 6 million dollars...

[David R Munson]

Yep... Pretty big ego ... to think anyone on the forum (including yourself) could take "just as good if not better" a photo than one that sold for 6 million dollars...

I absolutely think that a number of people on the forum here could make a version of that photo that was every bit as good, if not better than the Lik image. In fact, they already have. But they don't have the media exposure and marketing machine . It didn't sell for that price because it's good, it sold for that price because the man has amazing marketing strategies in place and has for long enough that it has built up to this level.

If it were simply a matter of quality of image, he'd still be working a day job hacking away at things on the weekend while great photographers who died penniless and unknown would have been household names. But that's not how it works and never has been.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Wow… Minor White would get a serious woody if he saw that image!

[StoneNYC]

I absolutely think that a number of people on the forum here could make a version of that photo that was every bit as good, if not better than the Lik image. In fact, they already have. But they don't have the media exposure and marketing machine . It didn't sell for that price because it's good, it sold for that price because the man has amazing marketing strategies in place and has for long enough that it has built up to this level.

If it were simply a matter of quality of image, he'd still be working a day job hacking away at things on the weekend while great photographers who died penniless and unknown would have been household names. But that's not how it works and never has been.

All of this I agree with.

I also remember reading about him back in 2010 when I first saw his work, and that Lik spent 10 years living out of a van while taking photos. Not sure how much is true but, one might say he earned it, and at least acknowledge he has some actual talent. Maybe he altered his "traditional" work, for work that was more enhanced because he saw that this was what sells, and it worked. It doesn't mean he's a hack, it means he knows the business of photography and making images that people want.

[DennisD]

I believe that it's great for photographic sales to get such remarkable and interesting publicity, but there's also a question of credibility involved.

This recent Peter Lik 6.5M sale was a non verifiable private sale - not one thru an auction house of reasonable reputation. When Peter sells an image at a Sotheby's auction for 6.5 million, I'll feel more confident in the veracity of the claimed sale.

Many, (not necessarily all), of the "high profile", self promoting, gallery types, whether they be artists, photographers, sculptors, etc have sales forces, backers (investors), and monstrous overheads, all of which need to be covered. PR is needed to keep the ship afloat. They are running a business, first and foremost. I say that without passing any judgment.

I heard something a few years back, which, although it was 3rd hand, came from a source I personally know to be reliable, knowledgeable and, most of all, highly credible in the art world. I posted that comment in a thread about Rodney Lough and relative to a prior Lik sale. It was as follows:

"On another note, regarding the incredible million dollar sale of the Peter Lik photograph a few years back -- I heard, but have no way of knowing if true, that the sale and purchase of the photograph was a promotional stunt orchestrated by some investors who funded Lik and wanted to further boost recognition of his name."

No harm in appreciating the images, but until such sales are verified and proven to be bonafide, "arms length" transactions, I feel the claims can be regarded with a grain of salt, or silver, if you prefer !

[StoneNYC]

I believe that it's great for photographic sales to get such remarkable and interesting publicity, but there's also a question of credibility involved.

This recent Peter Lik 6.5M sale was a non verifiable private sale - not one thru an auction house of reasonable reputation. When Peter sells an image at a Sotheby's auction for 6.5 million, I'll feel more confident in the veracity of the claimed sale.

Many, (not necessarily all), of the "high profile", self promoting, gallery types, whether they be artists, photographers, sculptors, etc have sales forces, backers (investors), and monstrous overheads, all of which need to be covered. PR is needed to keep the ship afloat. They are running a business, first and foremost. I say that without passing any judgment.

I heard something a few years back, which, although it was 3rd hand, came from a source I personally know to be reliable, knowledgeable and, most of all, highly credible in the art world. I posted that comment in a thread about Rodney Lough and relative to a prior Lik sale. It was as follows:

"On another note, regarding the incredible million dollar sale of the Peter Lik photograph a few years back -- I heard, but have no way of knowing if true, that the sale and purchase of the photograph was a promotional stunt orchestrated by some investors who funded Lik and wanted to further boost recognition of his name."

No harm in appreciating the images, but until such sales are verified and proven to be bonafide, "arms length" transactions, I feel the claims can be regarded with a grain of salt, or silver, if you prefer !

Umm it says right on one of the articles that an attorney handled the sale, an attorney WOULDN'T risk his license over even this. So it's legit and verified by an attorney. I would trust an attorney's contract over a southebeys contract.

I think the problem is that no one ever believes successful people, there's always doubt. It happens.

[StoneNYC]

Or maybe Lik is Pip, and the buyer is Abel.

[Andrew O'Neill]

But seriously, it's a pretty nice image. I've seen so many from the same place that all look the same.

[dsphotog]

Maybe Lik was actually the victim of a scam, the scammer offers to buy the print at an incredible price, only if it can be rush shipped, sends "payment" on a fraudulent credit card acct.
Meanwhile the print is shipped to a bogus address, the card bounces, discovered too late.

[NickyLai]

I bookmarked it a few years ago, glad it still there. A good read:

Scott Reither photographer - MY PETER LIK STORY (http://scottreither.com/blogwp/2012/06/11/peter-lik-gallery-photographer-my-story/)

He tried very hard to be employed by Peter Lik gallery in his hometown of Lahaina, Hawaii.

[Deval]

Well this forum isn't the only one cast suspicion
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/10/expensive-photo-world-best-marketing-stunt/

[richardman]

FWIW, if you search for "Peter Lik" on ArtBrokerage.com, there are TEN pages of his stuff being offered. Search for "Ansel Adams" and you get.... one IMAGE (the Moonrise, of course). Two images of Cindy Sherman, and none of Henri-Cartier Bresson :-)

[TXFZ1]

FWIW, if you search for "Peter Lik" on ArtBrokerage.com, there are TEN pages of his stuff being offered. Search for "Ansel Adams" and you get.... one IMAGE (the Moonrise, of course). Two images of Cindy Sherman, and none of Henri-Cartier Bresson :-)

You can also see the quality of his prints by comparing the same print side by side.

David

[Peter Lewin]

FWIW, if you search for "Peter Lik" on ArtBrokerage.com, there are TEN pages of his stuff being offered. Search for "Ansel Adams" and you get.... one IMAGE (the Moonrise, of course). Two images of Cindy Sherman, and none of Henri-Cartier Bresson :-)
So how do you interpret this? Lots of people bought Lik prints as "investments" and are now trying to sell? His gallery is putting up much of their inventory for sale on this site? What does it mean when there are 18 copies of his "Antelope Canyon" print offered on the first page? (I didn't have the urge to go past page 1.) Could the single copy of AA's "Moonrise" mean that owners of that image who want to sell use other venues than Artbrokerage.com? When I go to the annual AIPAD show, there are usually quite a few Ansel Adams prints for sale (by dealer galleries), as well as (to simply name two photographers who I looked up on Artbrokerage) Stieglitz and William Clift, who have no work available on the site.

[Drew Wiley]

Over the years I've seen one after another of these self-marketed/hyped decor hotshots who claimed to be the next Picasso or investment-quality photographer or whatever. They briefly made a lot of money, and I suppose their long term success would be better assessed by whether their wisely invested the income while it lasted or, more likely, blew it all on an ephemeral celebrity lifestyle. But very few of us on this forum would recognize a single name in the list today. I used to receive wholesale lists of some of the repro work in that era, and lots of it literally cost considerable less than the frames it was put in; but nonetheless, high-heeled babes in short skirts and dudes in slick suits were still panhandling it as "investment" work at high prices in tourist galleries at prominent locations. Once in awhile these places got shut down over legal fraud issues, but that was hit and miss, depending on what neighborhood the FBI happened to be targeting. No different from EBay where someone is on a fishing expedition, trying to sell a relatively mediocre print or artifact or fictitious fossil or gem at a ludicrous
price, just in case there's a 1% chance of some sucker falling for it. But a bluff can only last so long. I remember it wasn't that long ago when one of Kinkade's
most prominent galleries was resorting to selling blown glass goo-gaws and ceramics just to pay the rent. The pyramid was starting to fizzle.

[Mark Sawyer]

I don't see what the big deal is. I recently sold one of my tintypes for $7 million, and it's all perfectly legit. I sold it to a Nigerian prince. He's sending me a check for $10 million, and I'm sending him the tintype and $3 million in cash. Move over, Lik, you're in second place and holding up the pack...

[ndg]

On a lighter note, a few memes:
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/internet-critiques-peter-liks-phantom-via-memes-20141212-125pcn.html

[djdister]

I don't see what the big deal is. I recently sold one of my tintypes for $7 million, and it's all perfectly legit. I sold it to a Nigerian prince. He's sending me a check for $10 million, and I'm sending him the tintype and $3 million in cash. Move over, Lik, you're in second place and holding up the pack...

Good job! As they say, good luck with the sale. :rolleyes:

[gregmo]

Peter Lik & Taylor Swift should team up to do a remake of the "Shake It Off" video.

[Peter Lewin]

Peter Lik & Taylor Swift should team up to do a remake of the "Shake It Off" video.
The difference is that Taylor Swift is fun to look at...

[Jmarmck]

My boss, who is somewhat more harder headed than I, said that if it were him, he would hire a handful of professionals to retake the picture....and mangle it in some software.......for a tiny fraction of that 6.5 m.

I told him I knew a group of people who would might oblige. lol

BTW this can only be good for the tour operators. I will find out very soon. I was looking at their rates last night. The Hummer tour looked like a blast...if you could afford it.

[dsphotog]

The desired effect was attained, people are talking about him.

[JMB]

I'm with Kirk Gittings on this one. Compare this "sale" price to prices of photographs sold at auction--photographs by widely recognized artists. Smells. Smells wrong.

Many of the auction sales, of course, smell just as bad. Well, it would be a marvelously good sign if there is at least something legitimate or hopeful about the alleged sale and the print is actually something more compelling and satisfying than an ink jet print. But I am not counting on it.

[Mark Sawyer]

The desired effect was attained, people are talking about him.

But ooooh, the things they're saying! If it were a legitimate sale, I wonder how the buyer would feel about the reaction in the press and art world...

[Kuzano]

First reaction to title.... NSFW....

Wow... For 6.5 Million it better be a good one!!!

[SUNdog]

I can imagine the picture in it's frame and in gold leaf on the bottom the words "nature morte".

;-)

[Richard Johnson]

Wow… Minor White would get a serious woody if he saw that image!

I think Minor might if he saw Peter's pecs and gluts.

[pdmoylan]

What are we all complaining about if this sale raises the prices we can earn for manipulated but very well crafted images? He articulated and idea (I see few here that resort to that kind of expression) and yes I believe Minor White would be stimulated by this work.

We are too stodgy and living in the past if we cannot accept his success (monetary or otherwise). Reminds me of a bunch of teens trying to find identity by trashing all those who don't fit nicely in their click. Rather juvenile.

During college, "true" music lovers would trash the Bee Gees, the Carpenters and a whole host of pop music, saying as many of you here have said, it's not music, really trash, too manipulated, too garish, etc. What did they gain? Only a sense of self-definition at the expense of others.

Live and let live.

I like some of his work and respect what he is trying to accomplish. A 10 year run at this kind of thing demands respect.

So you don't like Kincaide, then don't look at it or buy it.

Such BS.

I remember offering my support of Hans Strand's work in this forum and here again, members stated there are so many out there like him blah blah, all trying to pull down his prowess as a photographer. His new book on Iceland is clearly a great achievement in articulating new ideas using the highest standards of quality. Sure there are many wonderful images of Iceland; but nothing like these IMHO. So he shoots digital, so what.

Some can only justify their existence on the backs of others who are pushing the envelope. Bravo to those willing to take the commercial risks and who are successful.

PDM

[Mark Sawyer]

At least people are having fun with it...

http://petapixel.com/2014/12/13/just-peter-liks-record-breaking-photo-sale-may-constitute-torture/

To quote: "But Lik's photograph has no resale value. By challenging investment logic, Lik threatens to topple it. It's thought that if people buy art just because they like it, and with no thought of investment potential, the floodgates will open to the masses. Failure to provide oversight may lead to critical lapses, and unsanctioned opinions may gain influence. The torturous impact of this thought is so extreme that photographic leaders cannot tolerate it for more than a few minutes at a time."

[Lenny Eiger]

Earlier I stated that the issue is that we don't have a clear definition of what photography is. Why is Hans Strand or Peter Lik objectionable to so many? The answer is that artists demand that the artwork be "about" something. These photographs are clearly well executed but they are of a commercial sort. It is like eye-candy that people want others to buy. Eye candy does not fine art make. There are plenty on this forum who do this type of work, and love it. That's fine. However, there distinctions between genre are pretty clear.

If you want to consider something as fine art, perhaps compare the image against other fine artists' work. For example, how does Peter Lik stand up against an Edward Weston? A Stieglitz, Strand or Paul Caponigro, for example?

It is the same to compare Dorothea Lange or August Sander against one of those famous-people photographers. The work doesn't hold up.

These distinctions are quite important to some... including myself. Technical excellence is not enough for me. It's the base, but I strive for something more.

We have had fine art in a number forms, we have had journalism rise to the level of fine art in at least Lewis Hine, Gene Smith and Robert Frank. However, there is clearly journalism that doesn't rise to this level. When it comes to landscape we have fine art and we have commercial, nature photography and a handful of other types. This work we are talking about is clearly commercial. By the opinion of most here, it would seem, it has not exceeded the level of commercial to the point where it has become fine art.

If someone wants another name for it, that's fine, but at the moment it seems like commercial landscape fits.

Lenny

[Bernice Loui]

Market pandering..

Reminds me of Andy Warhol's "Factory" where much of his stuff was cranked out for the masses to satisfy demand. In Andy's view, the market wanted his stuff, so he simply cranked it out to meet this commercial demand.

"One wonders what these “artistic intentions” may be, since Warhol’s output for the last decade has been concerned more with the smooth development of product than with any discernible insights. As Harold Rosenberg remarked, “In demonstrating that art today is a commodity of the art market, comparable to the commodities of other specialized markets, Warhol has liquidated the century-old tension between the serious artist and the majority culture.” It scarcely matters what Warhol paints; for his clientele, only the signature is fully visible. The factory runs, its stream of products is not interrupted, the market dictates its logic. What the clients want is a Warhol, a recognizable product bearing his stamp."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1982/feb/18/the-rise-of-andy-warhol/

The value of any art depends on what a given buyer will give it.

Consider for a moment Van Gogh sold one painting in his lifetime, died impoverished, yet his paintings have not become extremely values by collectors. Similar could be said of Edward Weston and others.

Technical excellence along is simply not enough, the work must have something to say about the human condition, humanity and the world we all live in. Art or other work created is very much an extension of the individual who created it and says much about who they might be.


Do not become blinded by perceived market value, it is the actual content that really matters.


Bernice

[zenny]

You spoke my mind, Bernice! Very well said! :D


Market pandering..

Reminds me of Andy Warhol's "Factory" where much of his stuff was cranked out for the masses to satisfy demand. In Andy's view, the market wanted his stuff, so he simply cranked it out to meet this commercial demand.

"One wonders what these “artistic intentions” may be, since Warhol’s output for the last decade has been concerned more with the smooth development of product than with any discernible insights. As Harold Rosenberg remarked, “In demonstrating that art today is a commodity of the art market, comparable to the commodities of other specialized markets, Warhol has liquidated the century-old tension between the serious artist and the majority culture.” It scarcely matters what Warhol paints; for his clientele, only the signature is fully visible. The factory runs, its stream of products is not interrupted, the market dictates its logic. What the clients want is a Warhol, a recognizable product bearing his stamp."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1982/feb/18/the-rise-of-andy-warhol/

The value of any art depends on what a given buyer will give it.

Consider for a moment Van Gogh sold one painting in his lifetime, died impoverished, yet his paintings have not become extremely values by collectors. Similar could be said of Edward Weston and others.

Technical excellence along is simply not enough, the work must have something to say about the human condition, humanity and the world we all live in. Art or other work created is very much an extension of the individual who created it and says much about who they might be.


Do not become blinded by perceived market value, it is the actual content that really matters.


Bernice

[pdmoylan]

Lenny,

With all due respect, the candy analogy and your pointing to different examples only tells me that you do not consider any color images in the category of art. It only belies your own prejudices, and brings no clarity to the question whatsoever. Based upon the number of submissions of B&W over color over the years, and the aggressive stance many are taking against Lik and similarly situated craftsmen/women, (and btw, the eschewing of such prominent color LFist such as Dykinga, Clifton and others (what, LF candy?) I would say that too many are caught up in the past, what has gone before, the early advancers of imaging making. They are trying to relive a relic of perhaps a golden age. Look at where we are now friends, leaps and bounds beyond that era.

If you consider for instance Kirk's work as art (sorry Kirk but you are formidable and worth comparison), well what I see first in his fine images are great craft, par excellence. DO they rise to a level of artistic expression? You judge. But I find some of Lik's work and other colorists perhaps more potent in rendering impact at times. Ideas or handling of color I could not envision. Why, because it is in color and there are so many nuances. If the candy is too sweet, don't eat it. There are certainly many who enjoy it including moi.

PDM

[pdmoylan]

Warhol = Art as social commentary. Is it art? IDK. DId it bring ideas into the forefront. Certainly.

It was a rich boy, socialite's attempt to change cultural norms. Glam, rock stars, asexuality. A social circle of prominent progressive artists, musicians etc.

I would not place Lik in that category exactly. His work may be glam at times, but he is not changing anything in socieity with the possible exception photo prices.


PDM

[StoneNYC]

Warhol = Art as social commentary. Is it art? IDK. DId it bring ideas into the forefront. Certainly.

It was a rich boy, socialite's attempt to change cultural norms. Glam, rock stars, asexuality. A social circle of prominent progressive artists, musicians etc.

I would not place Lik in that category exactly. His work may be glam at times, but he is not changing anything in socieity with the possible exception photo prices.


PDM

Sad, but the Warhol type life couldn't exist in these times, the cost of living is too high and the price people will pay for physical art is too low, sad, I mean, anything is possible, but the only movement that I see is in the alternative scene and even that isn't very "moving" :/

[Drew Wiley]

If Lik was a musician, he'd be tone deaf. Or if he were a chef, he'd have nothing in the spice rack except sugar. No sophistication whatsoever. Just in-you-face Fauxtoshopped giant postcardly stereotypes smeared like honey and jam over everything. I've probably said more than my fair share on this topic, but here is indeed somebody whose marketing strategy is inherently cynical, who has a mercenary attitude with zero respect to the real world, to the viewer, to any sense of nuance or depth of intuition. His sales force reminds me of the snake-oil types you see marketing overprices time-share plans, and I personally find his galleries hideous, like they had the same interior designer as one of Michael Jackson's digs or the movie set of Scarface. I'll candidly admit I feel myself a part of the West Coast school of photography with its emphasis of fine printmaking, as well as our Zen-like pattern of architecture here in northern Cal (versus all the shiny glitz of Vegas and LA), but that's who I am, and I was not exaggerating when I stated that merely entering into a Lik gallery made me physically nauseated. I felt my eyes as well as stomach were being outright insulted.

[Kirk Gittings]

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.

[Drew Wiley]

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.

[Bernice Loui]

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



Warhol = Art as social commentary. Is it art? IDK. DId it bring ideas into the forefront. Certainly.

It was a rich boy, socialite's attempt to change cultural norms. Glam, rock stars, asexuality. A social circle of prominent progressive artists, musicians etc.

I would not place Lik in that category exactly. His work may be glam at times, but he is not changing anything in socieity with the possible exception photo prices.


PDM

[hoffner]

What are we all complaining about if this sale raises the prices we can earn for manipulated but very well crafted images?

We are too stodgy and living in the past if we cannot accept his success (monetary or otherwise). Reminds me of a bunch of teens trying to find identity by trashing all those who don't fit nicely in their click. Rather juvenile.



So you don't like Kincaide, then don't look at it or buy it.

Such BS.


Some can only justify their existence on the backs of others who are pushing the envelope. Bravo to those willing to take the commercial risks and who are successful.

PDM

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.

[Drew Wiley]

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.

[StoneNYC]

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...

[Bob Salomon]

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. :)

[Drew Wiley]

... 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.

[Old-N-Feeble]

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...

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.

[StoneNYC]

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

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm not arguing with you, Stone.:) I only wanted to correct the often-repeated Beethoven was "completely deaf" statement. No offense to you nor anyone else.:) He was "nearly deaf" in his later years and had his way of dealing with it... teeth on the piano.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, Stone... It's all about experience. Billions of greasy burger served, so the dud certainly does know how to make and sell greasy burgers. No argument there.

[Old-N-Feeble]

RE "greasy burgers": They certainly do sell in this country... by the billions. Are we all jealous of McDonald's, Whataburger and Burger King? They make crap... but it sells. If I could sell crap and become a multimillionaire I'd do it... and so would everyone else complaining about Lik.

[Drew Wiley]

Do you have any ideal of how many multimillionaires live around here? Thousands of em. Plus quite a few billionaires. And damn few of em seem to be happy.
They always want more, more, more, and never seem to have time to enjoy a penny of it. There are perhaps a handful of exceptions. But why even bother to take pictures if you have no respect for your subject matter in the first place. There are all kinds of ways to make a buck, including burger franchises. Either way, sounds like a damn boring lifestyle. I've passed up really spectacular sunsets and so forth even when my 8x10 was sitting right there, simply because I wanted to witness every moment of it in without distraction. There will always be another picture. No... I would not want to be Peter Lik and frankly don't give a damn about how much money he makes. I do resent the way that he and certain other prostitute nature rather than study it, and how this serves as a negative role model.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Some people just argue to argue while attempting to force their opinions on others. I'm too tired and jaded to do that so I'll let others bear that burden. But read this very carefully... you can't argue yourself out of a corner you freshly painted yourself. It's yours and yours alone... the paint eventually dries and others will walk all over your corner. Me... I'll wait outside until the paint dries. I won't walk on the newly-painted floor but I'll watch while others do.

[Bernice Loui]

Market value of the typical house in SF bay area, about one million dollars. Does this mean an awful lot of millionaires in Silly Valley, in ways yes, and no as one needs to consider the the bigger picture of Silly Valley economics.

Much of this comes back to what it means to be "successful" in America. The most common and accepted definition of being successful in America is monetary and material wealth. The notion, idea and belief that having enough wealth invested to produce excessive interest and investment income allowing the holder of funds to live a life of leisure, free of discontent. This is the idealized belief and fantasy of being successful. Beyond that legacy matters with all this wealth fame and fortune is assures along with happiness? With great wealth comes a different set of problems.

The lure of what it means to successful and wealthy in America, in life?

If one is looking to water their bank accounts, art, fine art might not be the ideal venue or means, Flipping greasy burgers, marketing supplements, snake oil or other is likely to produce far better momentary results than trying to make it doing fine art. This is not to say one cannot make comfy living at doing art. Better to follow one's calling, passion in life, helping others in their life's journey than to narrowly focused on material wealth and material items.

As for Kinkade paintings, look at the art galleries in Carmel California.


Bernice

[jp]

Nice post Bernice.



When I visited CA a couple years ago, I made to visit Carmel, as that section of the coast had a rich history of quality dead artists and photographers and I was hoping to be enriched. Unfortunately, most of the galleries there were filled with Kinkade style paintings.

[Drew Wiley]

I once sold a lot of prints in Carmel, nearly all of them either to very wealthy locals or people themselves serious photographers, including some very famous individuals. Not a single print went to a tourist. Somewhere I already noted that the town has a reputation for great photography galleries and horrible paintings.
The FBI had a task force concentrated in Carmel for awhile, busting galleries that were selling original works by famous European painters that were actually painted on assembly lines in Mexico, and similar scams. Of couse, these painting looked like it, and if anything, were even more kitchy than Kinkade's work, which itself had to be modified with a mere spot of two of paint put on by Kinkade himself or risk violating fraud laws, since most of this stuff was itself assembly-line produced.

[Bernice Loui]

The Weston Gallery in Carmel has a number of originals from Edward & Brett Weston along with other featured artist. Otherwise, the galleries in Carmel are full of Kinkade style paintings and related-similar offerings, they sell LOTS of them, producing enough revenue to keep those galleries open and their keepers funded.

After the passing of Edward Weston, he had something like $300 in his bank account, yet his prints are worth many times Edward's life time income. More often than not, the speculators, investors, collectors are the ones who gain the most from the work of significant artist, not the artist themselves.

There are those who have plenty of $ like Gordon Getty, writes music, runs a record label, waters the local musical venues, gets this stuff performed and more all due to Getty's ability to fund them. Are they of significant musical and artistic merit to these works? Have a listen and look:
http://www.gordongetty.com/discography


Bernice



Nice post Bernice.

When I visited CA a couple years ago, I made to visit Carmel, as that section of the coast had a rich history of quality dead artists and photographers and I was hoping to be enriched. Unfortunately, most of the galleries there were filled with Kinkade style paintings.

[Drew Wiley]

EW basically lived hand to mouth, and had a portrait gallery in Monterey for routine income. But he did well enough to pick up a bit of marginal farmland in
the Carmel area, which of course has since skyrocketed in value, and probably comprises much of the basis for the success of the next generation. The staggering value his original prints fetch is a relatively recent phenomenon, and least if you are counting generations. I had a close family friend of the Westons in my officea few days ago, who could probably relate some of the facts. But otherwise, it's all pretty well documented. And of course, some of the dealers who are cashing in from time to time on famous images did buy those things in the first place when back they were relative bargains. I haven't been to Carmel's gallery row in a long time, even though we put my dad in an assisted living complex right next to the Pebble Beach fence. I was down there every other weekend when he was still alive, and if he was napping I just go down the street to Asilomar Beach to walk and take a shot or two, and when he was awake I'd take him on long drives into the Carmel Valley or down the coast, or back into the hills, or to some favorite seafood restaurant, so never really had time to nose around the streets of Carmel itself much anyway. My ex-gallery agent lives around here nowadays, and sometimes we go out shooting together. In the meantime he built a lot of the digs for some of the world's richest software gazoolionaires. Preferred working with his hands.

[Jody_S]

RE "greasy burgers": They certainly do sell in this country... by the billions. Are we all jealous of McDonald's, Whataburger and Burger King? They make crap... but it sells. If I could sell crap and become a multimillionaire I'd do it... and so would everyone else complaining about Lik.
Sign me up. I would love to sell million$ of something, anything. If you can make it selling something completely useless as Lik does, all I can say is: respect!

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny,

With all due respect, the candy analogy and your pointing to different examples only tells me that you do not consider any color images in the category of art. It only belies your own prejudices, and brings no clarity to the question whatsoever. Based upon the number of submissions of B&W over color over the years, and the aggressive stance many are taking against Lik and similarly situated craftsmen/women, (and btw, the eschewing of such prominent color LFist such as Dykinga, Clifton and others (what, LF candy?) I would say that too many are caught up in the past, what has gone before, the early advancers of imaging making. They are trying to relive a relic of perhaps a golden age. Look at where we are now friends, leaps and bounds beyond that era.

If you consider for instance Kirk's work as art (sorry Kirk but you are formidable and worth comparison), well what I see first in his fine images are great craft, par excellence. DO they rise to a level of artistic expression? You judge. But I find some of Lik's work and other colorists perhaps more potent in rendering impact at times. Ideas or handling of color I could not envision. Why, because it is in color and there are so many nuances. If the candy is too sweet, don't eat it. There are certainly many who enjoy it including moi.

PDM

You can enjoy what you want. I have my likes and dislikes, as you suggest. However, I would suggest that we are not beyond anything. I showed someone a Stieglitz portrait the other day from that large book, and my comment was that you can't make a better portrait than that. You can make an equal one, but you can't make one better. It had the depth that is required for something to be "great work". We can not exceed it.

However, this is a digression. My point was that there are genres within the field of photography. People should know them, understand them, understand their place in one or more of them.

I have a portrait that I took that I consider to be my best. It was a 90 second exposure and I got a lot of what was in that person at that time in her life. I'm quite proud of it. It's b&w. If it was color, and she had a bright turquoise shirt on, instead of looking at who she is, we'd be looking at what a wonderful shade of blue that was. It would be watered down tremendously, and it isn't what the photo is about. However, this is not about dismissing color in photography. I am fine with color, where it doesn't overpower what the image is about. When an image is about color for color's sake, I am left wanting. I want more out of an image, and that is, in fact, a personal value.

I find that because of this I have to make a distinction. There is color landscape, for example, that is about what is actually there, that can illuminate something about the scene, give me a deeper understanding of something, and there is another type of image where the image is just about the colors in it. You can like it or not. However, there is a real distinction that can be made, and I see no need to lump everyone's work into one category.

It's a disservice to everyone to lump my work in with some sort of splashy type of work. Or to put Stieglitz on the same page with Galen Rowell. Their photographic aims were different. They were both successful in what they were trying to do. The were both jerks. However, the work is very different, and in different genres.

Lenny

[Merg Ross]

EW basically lived hand to mouth, and had a portrait gallery in Monterey for routine income. But he did well enough to pick up a bit of marginal farmland in
the Carmel area, which of course has since skyrocketed in value, and probably comprises much of the basis for the success of the next generation.

Edward Weston had a portrait studio in Carmel. As to land, he did not even own the small parcel on which his home was situated in the Carmel Highlands. That was owned by Charis.

Now back to Peter Lik, sorry for the digression.

[Drew Wiley]

Galen hit his marketing prime at exactly the right point in history, when SUV commercials were buying his shots and people wanted outdoorsy sports poster etc.
Now action cams are taking over that niche, his gallery is shrinking, and his work is getting digitally hyped by his heirs, and it really had no lasting value to begin with other than the exotic places and people it represented, which is why it has been appropriately described as National-Geographicky, one of his key expedition sponsors. But unlike his obnoxious marketing personna, in person Galen made no claims to exceptional photographic talent. He was a highly accomplished climber who lived right next door to one of my backpacking pals and had his work locally printed by friends of mine. And in terms of real vision, I'd put him way way way down list. Some of the shots were pretty doctored with grad filters etc, but at least they were recognizable. Many of Lik's images are
just fake, fake, fake, fake, fake. Even the Photoshopping looks miserably amateurish, like it was done by children with really bad color vision. And Galen did visit some very distant locations. Lik seems to choose sterotypical spots at predictable scenic tourist locations, which he turns into even more exaggerated
stereotypes, or in my terms, simply pimps out with a lot of gaudy makeup slathered all over, something a truly beautiful woman does not require to attract
attention.

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks, Merg. But your personal insight simply reinforces the fact that greatness in talent is not necessarily synonymous with financial gain.

[Lenny Eiger]

RE "greasy burgers": They certainly do sell in this country... by the billions. Are we all jealous of McDonald's, Whataburger and Burger King? They make crap... but it sells. If I could sell crap and become a multimillionaire I'd do it... and so would everyone else complaining about Lik.

Well, maybe there is a difference between us. I wouldn't.

When I was quite young I remember my father telling me that the one thing I had to do was give back to my world. "Make the world a better place for you having lived here." Integrity is a core principal of mine. I won't say I'm perfect at it but I'd rather be among those who care about this than the rest of the "Gordon Gecko's" of the world.

I just don't value money that much. There are plenty of times in my life that I have made choices that left me poorer but able to sleep at night. There isn't enough money in the world to get me to do things like sell poison like Coca-Cola or greasy burgers that ultimately kill people from heart disease and other maladies.

It hurts us all that Lik, someone who present commercial slick stuff as art, is successful. The same is true of Kincaide.

Monetary success is not the same as "success in life." When my time comes I want to look back and see that I lived a full life, that I did something useful, that I cared about a lot of people, that I stood for something. I'd like to have a little more money than I do to make things easier, but I won't be able to take it with me, and it won't be a measure of my life.

Lenny

[Old-N-Feeble]

Lenny, my point was/is: People are going to buy crap no matter who sells it so it might as well be our crap.

Twisting it around a bit: If you see a $2000 lens on eBay with a BIN price of $200 are you going to buy it or sit on a high horse and let someone else get it? The point being that someone is going to buy that lens, and darned QUICK, so it might as well be you. If you really are concerned about doing the right thing then you can always BIN and contact the seller to let them know what the lens is really worth and offer to let them out of the deal. BTW, I've let sellers out of deals when they've erred... several times with no regrets.

[Merg Ross]

Thanks, Merg. But your personal insight simply reinforces the fact that greatness in talent is not necessarily synonymous with financial gain.

Can't disagree with that!

[Drew Wiley]

Even in my day job I sell the best quality I can get, or I couldn't stand selling it at all. But I photograph for personal reasons, and the entire experience would be ruined if I turned it into just some market commodity. Sure, most of us benefit from print sales from time to time, or might need to sideline our skills in the commercial arena. And maybe I'll get back into the game before too long myself. But just cynically going out bagging gaudy stereotypes would undermine all the joy in photography to begin with. I can't even stand being around that kind of mentality, much less if it was myself. I want to actually see the subtlety of nature, enter it, enjoy it, experience IT, soak it in hour after hour, mile after mile, preferably on foot, and with a bit of craft and effort, communicate it to a degree through my prints. Lik doesn't see anything. He just goes out looking for stereotypes he can Photoshop into gaudy sofa decor. He hasn't lived as a photographer. I can say that because he doesn't demonstrate even a molecule of empathy for the light and glory of the real world. Basically, except for a few tubes of fluorescent finger paint, he is colorblind. He doesn't understand color. "Colorful", yeah, but not color per se. That is a matter of relationships, correspondences, interactivity in a composition, not just how much sugar you can pour into the dough until you can't taste anything else and basically go running for a glass of water.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I was once full of vim and vigor... deeply entrenched in my ideals... then I finally learned what the world is really about... and it's not the pretty place we all want it to be. It is what it is.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm not all that young either, but that doesn't make me compromise my ideals. And I do know a thing or two about selling and making money, and have learned that integrity, honesty, and quality are a far more likely combination for success in the long run than selling snake oil. What goes around eventually comes around. I've outlasted all my competition, and thrived even during the depth of the recession in a susceptible market by doing just the opposite of everyone else. And people take note of that, word spreads, etc. That's true in most fields. For instance, if you're lucky enough to find an honest an competent car mechanic, he'll have more business than he can handle. Word will get around. Anything aesthetic involves another layer of variables, namely taste, and I get involved in that for totally other reasons than monetary profit, though I do hope to get some welcome supplemental income from print sales after I retire. But I'll apply the same operating rule as here on my day job: Zero BS.

[Old-N-Feeble]

And just what precisely has Lik done to degrade his integrity other than sell images that you and some others consider junk? Is it proven that the $6.5M sale is fake?

[Drew Wiley]

There's really no was to actually prove Bigfoot doesn't exist or periodically hang out at the bar at the ski resort at June Lake, or that Elvis is not up there on a UFO
somewhere.....It kinda hard to get tickets for UFO trips these days... Let's just say the odds of any of this being truly pretty much defy common sense. But the sheer statistical probability of some snake oil salesman eventually getting caught for some other kinda business or legal hanky-panky just seems to come with the greedy lifestyle. As they say, where there's smoke there's fire.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm not saying Lik didn't fake the sale. I'm saying we don't know yet and I won't judge until we do know.

[Drew Wiley]

It obviously is the kind of thing that they don't want you to know. Otherwise there wouldn't be five layers of lawyers between anyone and the facts. And basically,
who gives a damn if some fool did shell out this kind of money. If this alleged piece isn't already literally faded in a couple decades, it's resale value to the next generation will be zero. I've just seen the same kind of stunt pulled way too many times, by the same kind of self-hyped individuals, and the strategy seems pretty obvious.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Drew, you may be right. I don't know. I'm just saying that speculations aren't facts.

[Deval]

For fun and to add to the conspiracy theories... If you YouTube Peter lik homes.. Apparently he is doing high end real estate as far as design. He has these " zen" homes filled with his prints. Homes like that may easily be worth the 10 million range depending on location. I wonder if this is an accounting shuffle where the pictures come with the house but no one gets the whole information for publicity sake. Either way, it is very interesting how there is more input to this thread than to any of the image sharing threads. Fun reading it regardless

[hoffner]

And basically,
who gives a damn if some fool did shell out this kind of money.

For names go to this thread: Re: $6.5 Million for a Peter Lik Photograph :)

[Deval]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1t8gS34x_c

Actually my conspiracy may hold up on price...but it is nice to know you could get a whole 10000sq foot home littered his most famous prints on plexi for the exact same price. It was sold in Nov 2011 for 6.5million
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4-Sable-Ridge-Ct-Las-Vegas-NV-89135/66833159_zpid/

[Drew Wiley]

"Zen" and Lik are antonyms.

[Kirk Gittings]

http://news.artnet.com/market/sothebys-sets-new-world-record-for-photography-auction-199945

Wow and that was without a Lik even!

[Drew Wiley]

Hmmm.... Guess I blew it pretty bad. Could've purchased a couple of classic Cameron prints for a two grand apiece about forty years ago, but that was a hecka
lot of money to me back then, even though I knew they'd increase in value. But it's all relative. Even classic EW prints got around for a few hundred dollars apiece
when I was a kid, back when I was trying to save up money for another rifle or whatever. At least I got to view the real thing. But some things have intrinsic value, not just ephemeral market hype.

[Kirk Gittings]

Drew, Yes I passed up many opportunities to collect work for a song that would've become very valuable today (Adams, Adams, Minor White, Witkin)-but amassing a fortune was never my goal-maybe it should have been but its not my nature. The photos I have collected were done so because I liked the image or were done by a friend etc. Only one piece in my collection (a painting though-traded a German Shepard puppy for it) has really become valuable but that was sheer luck not speculation.

[Bernice Loui]

All this print value stuff brings up the question of why photographers/artist do what they do with their lives. Would art be done as a means of expression driven by one's passion and gifts of talent or monetary gain?

Which of these two can bring meaning to one's life?


Bernice

[Kodachrome25]

All this print value stuff brings up the question of why photographers/artist do what they do with their lives. Would art be done as a means of expression driven by one's passion and gifts of talent or monetary gain?

Which of these two can bring meaning to one's life?

I do it because it is who I am and have been all my life. And because of that, I make sure I am well paid for it so I can have the freedom to do with it as I please and to always push the boundaries of my own vision.

[Bernice Loui]

;)

Artist do what they do for the simple reason that artistic expression is not only their passion, it is who they are. The value of their work should never be judged by monetary value assigned to their work. The better measure would be how their work contributes to how it improves the human condition by bringing awareness of the world we all share and live in. Be it the beauty of nature, or human atrocities, sensitivities to these events and things are the raw material artist use to form their work.


Bernice




I do it because it is who I am and have been all my life. And because of that, I make sure I am well paid for it so I can have the freedom to do with it as I please and to always push the boundaries of my own vision.

[Drew Wiley]

I opted for a separate career. But if I was trying to make a living from strictly photography, I'd be prone to do commercial work for income precisely so I didn't
have the temptation to compromise my personal work just for the sake of profit. I am certainly not alone in this respect. AA,EW, many recognized figures operated
this way much of the time, maybe Kirk does today. When I was younger and single and had the time, I basically combined all three - a day job that happened to
generate a certain number of architectural or products shoots on the side, then from time to time I did get some decent additional income from sales of my personal work. My next career, not too far away, will be to go on the public dole plus pension etc, and hopefully supplement it with a few decent print sales.

[Kodachrome25]

;)Artist do what they do for the simple reason that artistic expression is not only their passion, it is who they are. The value of their work should never be judged by monetary value assigned to their work. The better measure would be how their work contributes to how it improves the human condition by bringing awareness of the world we all share and live in. Be it the beauty of nature, or human atrocities, sensitivities to these events and things are the raw material artist use to form their work.

Of course, but as with many of the artists who's work I happen to respect the most, I would have *never* remotely had the creative freedom and massive experience I have had over the years if I had chosen another career. It's made all the difference for me as with others who I have spoken to in person ( IE: Sally Mann, Mary Ellen Mark, Trent Parke, Sam Abell, etc ).

Oddly somehow it seems to be a little too inconvenient / hard to hear on this site, it's certainly a recurring theme.

[StoneNYC]

I haven't :)

[Drew Wiley]

I talked to a commercial photographer just an hour ago who is probably FAR richer than Lik, who made it on photography and hard work (has never taken a day
of vacation in his life, but runs on adrenaline), and who can print a hundred times better..... but who has zero interest in the fine art aspect of it. Very high quality presentation, but strictly commerical. Now that he's starting to get up there in age, he is winding down things quite a bit and only doing food photography, though his actual profits have been spun off into resorts, restaurant, highrises, lots of commercial real estate. But you know that rags to riches to rags scenario. ... Kinkade drinking himself to death as his glitzy empire started falling apart, rock n' roll Hall of Famers found dead on skidrow down the street and not even getting noted on the Obituary page of the local paper. Fame and fortune is an awfully fragile thing.

[hoffner]

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.

Has it ever dawned on you that other people could say the same about your pictures?

[hoffner]

Now I'm going to be the cynical one.......I will believe it when I see such numbers in a public sale. Galleries have been known to fake such sales to boost an artists value-happens all the time. You get a "buyer" to front the money. The "sale" happens and then the money (or a large part of it) is quietly given back to the buyer. But the public perception is that the deal was for real and the artist stock goes way up.

Kirk,
exactly why do you want to by cynical so as to go to public belittling of the honesty of another photographer? What kick do you get out of it?

[Kirk Gittings]

Hoffner, I hear you are posting to me. Sorry but you have been on my ignore list for some time and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

[Kodachrome25]

Ruh-Roh......someone's gonna get bannanated, LOL!

[hoffner]

Guys, I hope throwing trash on Peter Lik's photography will last for another - 161 posts. It's so useful and funny. Or is it?

[Richard Wasserman]

And Hoffner goes on my ignore list...

What's your problem dude?

[StoneNYC]

I just... Uh... I feel like I'm on APUG right now... I'm out...

[Daniel Stone]

I (think) that was my first(and hopefully last) deleted posting on this forum... HA! :cool:

[Rick Rosen]

Drew,

Yes, I have been to his Vegas gallery and his SoHo gallery. He does, after all, sometimes use our camera.

And maybe my tastes differ from yours, actually they must, I liked some of the works I saw there and didn't like some that were also there.

Some were very sharp and printed very well and others were too grainy and not as sharp as I would prefer. But it really didn't matter if I did or didn't like them. I couldn't afford them. So I didn't look at them with a mind set of purchasing any.

I also really, really like Clive Butcher's work and have seen it several times at his studio, he also uses some of our stuff. But I also can't afford his work either.

I have no qualms about Lik leveraging whatever he has to market what he does. If he wasn't able to sell his work then he would never be able to keep all those high end galleries open. And would not be able to employ all those gallery people and production people. So somewhere there are people who like his stuff, enough to keep his empire going. And at least he isn't selling "hand painted" Hummel figurines or dinner plates like Kincaid.

I also admire some modern art that has lots of bright colors and stark white backgrounds even if I can not see what it is supposed to represent! OTOH I don't see why a painting of a Cambell soup can can be worth so much money either.

As you might have seen, I recently found a bunch of rare first edition photo books in my basement. One was just auctioned off in similar condition to mine for over $2,000.00. It was estimated to sell at auction for upto $4,500.00.

So who does these estimates? Where do I take mine to see what they are worth? We had a visitor from the Smithsonian here this week. He was from the rare documents department, they are scanning lots of old, rare, books and use some of our copy stands to mount their cameras to. He could not tell me where to go. So if they don't have an answer then it is more what the market will pay. The buyer will determine what its worth to them. I would have to see if that is an offer that I can accept. Market conditions will help us both to determine what that is.

If you don't want to buy a Lik, or anything else, that is your right and your decision. But if someone else is ready, willing and able to then it is between them what it is actually worth.

We had a doctor contact us who needed to buy a lens for a very old Linhof Technika. He was going to photograph the Smithsonian's collection of rare orchids and needed the best possible lens as he was going to print and bind them in an elephant portfolio size and had arranged to sell the first copy, sight unseen, to a foreign businessman for $1,000,000.00 and gave the second one to the Smithsonian. To do this he also bought a commemorative Linhof camera in red leather and actually did produce the book. He showed us some of the prints. Would you have paid $1,000,000.00 for a book of flower pictures? How about for a book that large?

But the point is, someone did. More power to the Doc!


Well said Bob!.

[jnantz]

Well said Bob!.

+1

[Drew Wiley]

How can you call anyone a "photographer" when they have almost no respect for the subject matter, and whose prints are more PS fabrication than anything real. Maybe somebody like that does have the talent to make a lot of money - but in Hollywood, where make believe is suitable for teenage action matinees. Yeah,
people in this country do have a right to spend their money on anything they please, but I also have a constitutional right to call a skunk a skunk.

[Bob Salomon]

How can you call anyone a "photographer" when they have almost no respect for the subject matter, and whose prints are more PS fabrication than anything real. Maybe somebody like that does have the talent to make a lot of money - but in Hollywood, where make believe is suitable for teenage action matinees. Yeah,
people in this country do have a right to spend their money on anything they please, but I also have a constitutional right to call a skunk a skunk.

Drew,
Have you ever printed an Ansel Adams negative straight?

What Adams, Yuelsman, Weegee and countless others in darkroom manipulation was no different then using a computer.
And what about all those famous portrait photographers with their Adams retouching machine?
Or their use of an airbrush?
Or National Geographic moving the moon on a cover?
Or did you ever compare an unretouched playboy image to what appeared in the magazine?

Whatever Lik is doing isn't any different then what has been done in the past. Big difference is that with the proper software anyone can sepia tone and manipulate a print image.

AAs for a "photographer" Bunny Yaeger was just as legitimate a photographer as Karsh or Adams. They all had their speciality. But all earned a living, some better then others.

[Old-N-Feeble]

People, as a whole, don't want realism. They want fantasy and perfection. Perhaps it's humanity's desire to escape from the truth. The world is a all-too-often a dirty painful place both physically and spiritually. Who can truly blame others for their desire and need for a little escapism? Therefore, who can blame those who provide that release for them?

I, for one, don't want to hang photos of starving children and dead soldiers on the walls of my home... is extremely depressing. That type if imagery certainly has its place and is more important in some respects than fantasy art. I realize this is an extreme example but I'm just trying to make a point. My point is... what most of us want to see every day are things that redirect our attentions and points of focus to happier times, prettier things and spiritually uplifting ideals. The truth hurts far too much to be reminded of it all the time.

If people like Lik become vastly wealthy by providing some sort of buffer against painful reality for people, then good for them. I'm poor as a church mouse but I'm not envious or jealous of those who are so vastly more successful than I. Would I sell an over-manipulated image that many better-informed people would call junk, for millions of dollars? Yes... and so would everyone on this forum.

[Mark Sawyer]

Would I sell an over-manipulated image that many better-informed people would call junk, for millions of dollars? Yes... and so would everyone on this forum.

Yes, but I'd be much happier selling something (at any price) that I felt had some value or meaning. But I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder.

Either way, I still doubt the veracity of the sale.

[Lenny Eiger]

From Drew: "How can you call anyone a "photographer" when they have almost no respect for the subject matter?"

From Bob - wildly paraphrased: Hey, he made some $$ so what's the problem?

From Old-N-Feeble: "People, as a whole, don't want realism. They want fantasy and perfection."


This is easy - there are some obvious differences in philosophy here, and opinions about what's "acceptable", or what should be called "photography".

Quite oddly to me, my opinion in this matter is closer to Drew's. I think that if we want to use the larger term of "Photography" that the image should actually be about something. However, I am acutely aware that there are plenty that don't share this view. We all simply don't agree.

Others apparently think Lik (or his work) is just fine because he made some money. That's not a value to me, the question of whether someone else was willing to pay for it or not.

Until we can agree on what "Photography" is we will continue to have these arguments.

Finally, a bunch of years ago the museums found that less people were coming to their shows and they commissioned a survey of what people wanted to see. It wasn't fantasy or perfection, in fact, it was"representations of the natural landscape" - for about 80% of those surveyed.

Lenny

[Old-N-Feeble]

Photography and every other form of "art", if we choose to use that term, is a personal interpretation of what the artist sees, feels or imagines. This has always been the case. Always...

There is little or no complete truth in art... just what we choose to convey or embellish.

[Tin Can]

Drew,
Have you ever printed an Ansel Adams negative straight?

What Adams, Yuelsman, Weegee and countless others in darkroom manipulation was no different then using a computer.
And what about all those famous portrait photographers with their Adams retouching machine?
Or their use of an airbrush?
Or National Geographic moving the moon on a cover?
Or did you ever compare an unretouched playboy image to what appeared in the magazine?

Whatever Lik is doing isn't any different then what has been done in the past. Big difference is that with the proper software anyone can sepia tone and manipulate a print image.

AAs for a "photographer" Bunny Yaeger was just as legitimate a photographer as Karsh or Adams. They all had their speciality. But all earned a living, some better then others.

+1 well put Bob!

[Drew Wiley]

Hmmm. Methinks a particular person has been sending me some anonymous crackpot mail. Talk about nerve. Ignore function deployed. You know who you are.

[Rick Rosen]

Near Ansel's death 16x20 Moonrise prints were selling at gallery auctions for $25,000 and up. The most Ansel was paid for one of those prints was $900. That in a nutshell defines the fine art market.

The difference between an Adams and a Lik is the value on the secondary market. When I taught with Ansel at his workshops I could have bought 16x20 Moonrise prints for around $600. Less than ten years later those prints were valued at $25K. I really doubt that Lik investors will ever see a positive return from his work at resale. He has virtually no secondary market and that is a factor in why he has to maintain his own galleries as a sales channel. There is no secondary appreciating value market for a framed print from an edition of 900 which is what his galleries sell.

This is not meant as a criticism of Peter Lik or his work. I am not a fan but then I have never been attracted to color images. What Peter Lik does masterfully is market a style of personna and prints that appeals to the affluent masses. Nothing wrong with that. Ansel was one of the very few fine art photographers, and the major one, that was known and followed by the general public. His images were safe black and white postcards and everyone was attracted to them. Nothing wrong with that either. No matter what you are selling you need to produce a product that the potential buyer will want.

I am annoyed by some of the photographers in this thread that are so elitist as to demonize Peter Lik and his work. Artists will always struggle unless they build a following of collectors, which is what Lik did when he sold three prints to this mystery patron. From what I have read about the "phantom" image it was a one-of-a-kind. Perhaps the unique nature is due to the black and white conversion, perhaps it is a large print, who knows, but the collector was paying that high fee partially because of that unique one-of-a-kind version. A number of Ansel's highest gallery sales went for large prints on room dividers and other unique presentations.

Lets all get off our elitist "arteest" pedestals.

Rick

[Bob Salomon]

Photography and every other form of "art", if we choose to use that term, is a personal interpretation of what the artist sees, feels or imagines. This has always been the case. Always...

There is little or no complete truth in art... just what we choose to convey or embellish.

That explains how Picasso, Degas, Giotto, Rockwell and Rembrandt could all have been called "artists".

Just because you like one's technique doesn't make any of the others less of an artist.

And then there is the Hudson River School.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Just because we can't see what another artist envisioned... doesn't mean sharp vision isn't there. Perhaps the bluntness is within ourselves rather than in others. Truthful introspection is the most difficult, painful and humbling characteristic for any of us to grind to an edge and hone. Many of us cannot sharpen that sword and never will. One cannot fight and win with a dull weapon.

[Rick Rosen]

Just because we can't see what another artist envisioned... doesn't mean the vision isn't there. Perhaps the weakness is within ourselves rather than in others.

+1

[Kirk Gittings]

+1

+2

[Lenny Eiger]

Just because we can't see what another artist envisioned... doesn't mean sharp vision isn't there.

We can all miss things. Sometimes we don't see it - or it doesn't speak to us.

I won't deny Avedon's abilities, but the art is not my preference. He is clearly making a statement, I just don't like what he is saying...

Then question is where does one draw the line? Are the shots of the High School basketball team art? What about that great one where he catches the star player at the apex of a layup?

I think the posed basketball shots were never meant to be statements about anything, just a record of who was on the team that season. They were paid for...

There appear to be a few levels on the "lack of statement" side.

1) No statement intended, 2) Incompetence, where there may have been a statement intended, but without success. 3) Ignorance that statement (saying something) is part of doing photography.

I think Peter Lik is on the failure side of getting a message across for one of these reasons. Avedon, or AA, or Caponigro would not be. My guess is Lik's reasoning is purely financial, its a commercial enterprise, and there was never any illusions of high art, or low art. It's sort of like real estate...

I don't think I am missing any sharpness here. The work doesn't hold up against work I don't even like.

Lenny

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yes, but I'd be much happier selling something (at any price) that I felt had some value or meaning. But I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder.

Either way, I still doubt the veracity of the sale.

I agree, Mark. But this isn't everyday reality in a seller's market. We, most of us, would be far happier conveying and selling truthful imagery. However, the public almost never buys art for what reminds them of "truth" because we must digest more of that than we care to... every... single... day. People buy what makes them happy and gives them some "relief" from those painful truths. Again, it's the escapism they want. Can we, any of us, really blame them for that? And if we can't blame buyers of "eye candy" then can we blame the makers of that candy to those who hunger from such diversions of reality?

[Drew Wiley]

I hate Avedon and Warhol both, for similar reasons. But I readily concede their creative bent, and do recognize the point behind their influence. Just not my school. So it's not so much about this taste vs that taste. Certain influential artists have also figured out how to spin the reputation for quite a buck. Some don't care. And a few like Rothko got hijacked. But there's something to anyone will real artistic vision that goes well beyond just a giant colorized stereotypical postcard mentality for sofa decor. You've got to have some kind of connection, somewhere in there. Kinkade had zero of it. Lik has zero of it. No empathy for his subject whatsoever, no subconscious evaluation or interpretation of it. Just a dollar sign. Just another piece of meat. So I feel perfectly comfortable repeating what I already said, and don't care if it does offend someone. The dude hasn't lived, because he hasn't seen a damn thing. He doesn't even know how to look. Just grab some marketable sterotype and grossly manipulate it into some marketable form, for the lowest common denominator of taste, or lack thereof.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Profit-making and talent are not necessarily mutually exclusive... though some seem to think so. Lik is a multimillionaire... most of us are not. He's extremely successful and famous... most of us are not. There are many "artists" of many genres that I absolutely hate their works and haven't a clue why they succeeded. Still... they succeeded and good for them. Am I jealous? No. Am I confused about why they succeeded? Yes. In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter... does it? They made millions... and we didn't. We can complain and disparage them all we want but... they still have fame and fortune... and we don't. End of story.

[Drew Wiley]

Sure, people are welcome to eye candy or escapist decor or whatever, and can spend whatever they please. Rich people go nuts trying to figure out how to waste money on themselves. The specific issue in this case is that here someone is making a de facto pretentious claim, via a suspect alleged sale, that his work is on an equal playing field with artists who have actually earned their collectible reputation. That plainly isn't the case. So far, the dude hasn't even been invited to a Little League playground, in this respect. It's snake oil marketing. And I've seen this very game over and over, and know what it leads to. It's deliberate bait to a naive
"investor" mentality. And the odds of this ever going anywhere in value, other than being Lik'd off the floor, are pretty much zero.

[Kodachrome25]

I don't care for most of Lik's work, but I do admire his steady rise in terms of business model. Funny thing too was back in the 90's I did like it, but I had close to zip in terms of being educated as to who was who in the high end art world of photography. So now I am educated and I don't like it, go figure, LOL!

But that business model thing, it motivates me big time to do it on my terms. I figure it this way, I am already a successful photographer surrounded by billionaires. So why not up my marketing game and give big bucks a shot?

Haters don't become millionaires, it's kind of a networking buzz kill...

[Lenny Eiger]

I reject the contention that because someone is able to sell a piece of art, that it automatically has some value beyond its financial value.

However, it clearly does not mean that if someone can sell their work, that they are successful at anything other than the financial part of it. Simply, being successful at fine art is not the same as being financially successful. No, they are not mutually exclusive, but they are also not transitive. One does not inherently follow the other.

Once again, levels. Success can be at (among many other things, I'm sure):

1) Making an image with a camera of some sort and getting a print. Photo.net folks are happy about this.
2) Getting the technology tuned to a large format level.
3) Showing the work or Selling the print somewhere and receiving money
4) Having something to say beyond the technical part of an image
5) Saying something about a superficial topic
6) Saying something about a medium-depth topic
7) Saying something deep, possibly universal, that changes that way we think or feel about ourselves, about our own humanity, that changes who we are.
(or however you want to put this.)

I like looking a work that is at Level 7. Mr. Lik is not successful at the level...

Lenny

[Drew Wiley]

I know some incredible cabinet makers that are close to starving, and some pretty run-of-the-mill ones that are making tons of money. Some people do things for the joy of being involved in fine craftsmanship and the kind of philosophical approach that goes with it, and some think more like business managers. A few people know how to do both, but that's less common. With someone like Lik, photography is only a tiny part element. He's got to be able to finance and manage facilities, employees, marketing, the whole nine yards. And the whole game is dependent on having the ability to mass-produce something on large scale. It's not about the preciousness of a particular print. Most of these prominent tourist galleries work on the same premise. Location, location, location (expensive to begin with), then scale of production to meet and exceed overhead. There are hundreds of "calendar" and "picture book" photographers out there who can take
more interesting shots than Lik, and don't even need to resort to the same exhorbitant level of PS sheningans. He's more like a CEO to something trying to achieve a tradmark, in which the actual quality of the product is far less important than the efficiency of marketing and ability to produce it in volume. Like the
average pizza chain.

[Old-N-Feeble]

And those who claim they expect some deep sense of the human condition to be expressed in images in order to call those "works of art": Do yours? Do mine?

If that's what defines "sincere art" then go out and photograph hunger, pain and extreme cruelty... because those are representative of the human condition and life in this world.

The lack of anything important to convey? Isn't that the epitome of superficiality? And if that's the case regarding what nearly all of us do... doesn't this define our so-called "art"?

[Lenny Eiger]

If that's what defines "sincere art" then go out and photograph hunger, pain and extreme cruelty... because those are representative of the human condition and life in this world.

They certainly are.

I appreciate the commitment it takes to look directly at this, to call it what it is, to peel away the layers of the onion until the truth is revealed, no matter how painful.

One this is accomplished, my question would be - what next? Is there some way back? Is there a way to heal from this? Can I return to humanity, love my wife and my child? Be a kind person? Express friendship? Do I have anything left to give?

One can photograph the horrors of the world, and plenty of people do. Some people need to see it. I don't anymore. I believe it. Fully.

I remember back when a group called Friends of the River was very active out here. They were trying to stop another dam being built on a river where people liked to go rafting. Instead of talking about all the issues this way or that, this group took local legislators on a rafting trip down the river. They had so much fun that they voted against the dam that would ruin the recreational resource.

Instead of talking about things, they presented an experience. If I can present an experience for some viewer, with my photographs, of some magical place, then I succeed. I don't have any illusions that I might be able to fix anything, however, maybe I can do one little part. If I can place someone on a beach, or in a forest, maybe something good can come of it. Maybe they can remember a time when they were in a forest and some part of them can feel some peace.

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

If I can present an experience for some viewer, with my photographs, of some magical place, then I succeed. I don't have any illusions that I might be able to fix anything, however, maybe I can do one little part. If I can place someone on a beach, or in a forest, maybe something good can come of it. Maybe they can remember a time when they were in a forest and some part of them can feel some peace.

Lenny

The essence of pursuing "a spirit of place" photographically.

[Old-N-Feeble]

They certainly are.

I appreciate the commitment it takes to look directly at this, to call it what it is, to peel away the layers of the onion until the truth is revealed, no matter how painful.

One this is accomplished, my question would be - what next? Is there some way back? Is there a way to heal from this? Can I return to humanity, love my wife and my child? Be a kind person? Express friendship? Do I have anything left to give?

One can photograph the horrors of the world, and plenty of people do. Some people need to see it. I don't anymore. I believe it. Fully.

I remember back when a group called Friends of the River was very active out here. They were trying to stop another dam being built on a river where people liked to go rafting. Instead of talking about all the issues this way or that, this group took local legislators on a rafting trip down the river. They had so much fun that they voted against the dam that would ruin the recreational resource.

Instead of talking about things, they presented an experience. If I can present an experience for some viewer, with my photographs, of some magical place, then I succeed. I don't have any illusions that I might be able to fix anything, however, maybe I can do one little part. If I can place someone on a beach, or in a forest, maybe something good can come of it. Maybe they can remember a time when they were in a forest and some part of them can feel some peace.

Lenny

Precisely... the best most of us can ever hope for is to chip at wrongs a tiny piece at a time. For most of us, that's making pretty photos of things important to share with those who may never see them otherwise.

[Jac@stafford.net]

The essence of pursuing "a spirit of place" photographically.

My top two favorite contemporary writers of place, Barry Holston Lopez and William Least Heat-Moon were first photographers. I know they did the right thing dropping it for writing. On the other hand, I don't know any successful writers of place who dropped writing for photography. Does anyone?

Back to the topic, I can ask my SO to write me a check for million$s for a snapshot.
.

[Kirk Gittings]

Two of my favorites too. No I can't remember a successful writer dropping it for photography.........but what does that mean? My friend John Nichols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nichols_%28writer%29) ventured into photography to illustrate his non-fiction but that is as far into photography as any writer that I know.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Two of my favorites too. No I can't remember a successful writer dropping it for photography.........but what does that mean? My friend John Nichols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nichols_%28writer%29) ventured into photography to illustrate his non-fiction but that is as far into photography as any writer that I know.

Ah! Thanks for that! I somehow drifted away from a reference to him. He is on my reading list now.
Sorry for putting Lik off-topic. NOT!

[Lenny Eiger]

Two of my favorites too. No I can't remember a successful writer dropping it for photography.........but what does that mean? My friend John Nichols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nichols_%28writer%29) ventured into photography to illustrate his non-fiction but that is as far into photography as any writer that I know.

One of my favorites. I was stunned by the Magic Journey. I read it many years ago. Absolutely brilliant, it taught me a lot.

Lenny

[Mark Sawyer]

Two of my favorites too. No I can't remember a successful writer dropping it for photography...

Wright Morris and William S. Burroughs pop to mind...

[Jac@stafford.net]

Wright Morris and William S. Burroughs pop to mind...

W. S. Burroughs became a photographer? I know that his friend Allen Ginsberg was first a photographer. In fact, once when hanging out with Ginsberg and Burroughs, Ginsberg admonished me for having a loud camera (Nikon F36). Burroughs was unusually quiet, which was a shame because when he spoke everyone immediately quieted to listen.
.

[Mark Sawyer]

I envy you the crowd you used to hang out with, and hope your current company is as interesting!

http://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/the-photography-of-william-s-burroughs

[Tin Can]

W. S. Burroughs became a photographer? I know that his friend Allen Ginsberg was first a photographer. In fact, once when hanging out with Ginsberg and Burroughs, Ginsberg admonished me for having a loud camera (Nikon F36). Burroughs was unusually quiet, which was a shame because when he spoke everyone immediately quieted to listen.
.

I did some post work on this Burroughs movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1466072/), I do not remember any photography, he did do shotgun paintings that sold for a bit.

This movie was edited by Ilko Davidov whom I just posted in portraits. I HAD IMDB and movie credit, but it has disappeared! Any unpaid work is never appreciated. :(

[StoneNYC]

W. S. Burroughs became a photographer? I know that his friend Allen Ginsberg was first a photographer. In fact, once when hanging out with Ginsberg and Burroughs, Ginsberg admonished me for having a loud camera (Nikon F36). Burroughs was unusually quiet, which was a shame because when he spoke everyone immediately quieted to listen.
.

You hung out with Gibsberg????

[StoneNYC]

I did some post work on this Burroughs movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1466072/), I do not remember any photography, he did do shotgun paintings that sold for a bit.

This movie was edited by Ilko Davidov whom I just posted in portraits. I HAD IMDB and movie credit, but it has disappeared! Any unpaid work is never appreciated. :(

I HAVE IMDB credits and those only go away when the person is claiming to be part of a movie but isn't. The movie industry is REALLY good at keeping records.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I envy you the crowd you used to hang out with, and hope your current company is as interesting!
http://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/the-photography-of-william-s-burroughs

Thank you for the URL. I'm onto it.

The company was largely accidental. Perhaps the most interesting meeting was breakfast at a local bar with Hunter Thompson. Breakfast!

Present company is zilch, although I dearly like the 'company' here.
.

[Jac@stafford.net]

You hung out with Gibsberg????

Only for a couple days, and with others. Frankly, I didn't dig the man.
.

[Tin Can]

I HAVE IMDB credits and those only go away when the person is claiming to be part of a movie but isn't. The movie industry is REALLY good at keeping records.

I never claimed anything, I do have credit on the DVD.

Who knows, lot's of people helped out, it just that my name was on IMDB and now it is not.

Not the end of my world.

[StoneNYC]

Only for a couple days, and with others. Frankly, I didn't dig the man.
.

Not surprising, lol.

[jnantz]

I never claimed anything, I do have credit on the DVD.

Who knows, lot's of people helped out, it just that my name was on IMDB and now it is not.

Not the end of my world.

i know a handful of people who were on IMDB even a year or 2 ago
and aren't on it anymore. its kind of weird...

[Tin Can]

i know a handful of people who were on IMDB even a year or 2 ago
and aren't on it anymore. its kind of weird...

Worked a 'classy porno' sometime ago and I was the only one to use his real name and I got a full screen 'Grip-Randy Moe' that looked out of place in the credits, because it was so prominent.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Worked a 'classy porno' sometime ago and I was the only one to use his real name and I got a full screen 'Grip-Randy Moe' that looked out of place in the credits, because it was so prominent.

Link or it didn't happen.:rolleyes: Are you certain you weren't credited as "mo' randy"?:p

[StoneNYC]

Worked a 'classy porno' sometime ago and I was the only one to use his real name and I got a full screen 'Grip-Randy Moe' that looked out of place in the credits, because it was so prominent.

Lol, I can't tell if this is a joke, I always assumed your name was a pun, ya know "Randy" as in "Horney"... Moe... And now you say it was in the porn credits? I don't think it would be out of place in porno credits at all.

You're a Grip? That makes sense.

[Ken Lee]

Enough sagacity.

Thread closed.