Peter Lik deserves our skepticism

[paulr]

And I seriously doubt he deserves any of the attention.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/buyer-beware-treat-peter-lik-photo-sale-with-scepticism-20141212-125khz.html

[Tin Can]

The hustle, I wonder how his antecedents arrived on the continent...

[Mark Sawyer]

His target audience would probably pay even more for his work if he put a big watermark on it...

[Drew Wiley]

Perhaps both his ancestors and him have done well because that continent is inhabited primarily by reptiles and marsupials, neither of which is particularly smart. The crowd that visits Vegas doesn't seem to be very smart either; or at least, it's a dependable statistical fact that it's an economy deliberately engineered to remove a lot more from your wallet that it gives in return. I was teasing a couple of his sales guys once, and told them I'd agree to the alleged fifty grand price of a particular print on only certain conditions. First, they pay me the fifty grand in advance just for the pain and suffering of having to look at the abomination in the first place; second, even though I agree to take possession of it, I also be allowed to place drywall and paint over it, so I never have to actually look at it again. Of course, if I were an actual potential purchaser, they would have happily sold me that fifty grand piece for a tenth the sticker amount. But these guys were real pros, so took it all in good humor, and replied that at least the work got a reaction out of me (implying that true art can be revolting
as well as beautiful - but this piece was just plain corny and atrociously colored, just like the colorized version of that Fauxtoshopped slot canyon shot we're talking about, with its phony foggy light shaft).

[Nodda Duma]

I showed my kids his pictures. They like them. But they don't have the money to buy.

They're better pictures than I could take, so I don't have anything bad to say about them.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'll not comment other than to state... he's extremely successful and we're not.... I guess he was better at knowing what sells... and was far better at marketing. Are we jealous??

[djdister]

I'll not comment other than to state... he's extremely successful and we're not.... I guess he was better at knowing what sells... and was far better at marketing. Are we jealous??

Jealous, hecky no! I am prepared to sell one of my works for the low, low price of $6.25M... (verified sales only please!)

[Old-N-Feeble]

LOL!! Yeah, me too!!:D I'm just tired of reading all the complaints about someone who made a ton of money because he understood what people want... delivered precisely that... and marketed so that he became rich and famous. It just sounds like jealousy to me. Much (or all) of his work may have been crap... but it made him wealthy. 'Nuff said...

[Peter Lewin]

Well. most of us (Drew excepted) agree that the work is decorative. The problem is that he is pricing decoration as if it was art.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Well. most of us (Drew excepted) agree that the work is decorative. The problem is that he is pricing decoration as if it was art.

So what... he got the money for it. He's filthy rich... we're not. More power to him. This still sounds like jealousy to me. I don't think there's anyone on this forum who wouldn't do the same for millions of dollars since it's not harming anyone other than separating the ignorant wealthy from their (often) ill-gotten gains.

[Tin Can]

So what... he got the money for it. He's filthy rich... we're not. More power to him. This still sounds like jealousy to me. I don't think there's anyone on this forum who wouldn't do the same for millions of dollars since it's not harming anyone other than separating the ignorant wealthy from their (often) ill-gotten gains.

The question the OP opines is did he actually get the millions?

[Nodda Duma]

The question the OP opines is did he actually get the millions?

You mean asking is the guy a liar? Kind of an immature question, no?



Bottom line is, the photograph is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it. That's the beauty of free-market economics.

[Jody_S]

I've been trying to sell out for years, without success. I could use the money. I would gladly take lessons from Lik, if he would give them.

As for the $6.5M sale, of course I'm skeptical, but the point is what his customers believe, not what the bunch of us think of it. He is obviously a genius at marketing, and he can make a decent print when he wants to. Yes I have seen his work in person, in Vegas. Some of them were quite good, if a little on the garish side.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Whether he did or didn't make the sale, I think the question is whether it means anything in terms of the fine art/investment market, since there isn't much of a secondary market for the photos. If the prints aren't sold at auction or by an independent gallery and aren't particularly collected by museums, then it's more in the realm of decor like Kinkade, Wyland and such.

It can also be a ploy to create an investment market (for instance, a collector of Peter Lik prints could pay an outrageous price for one print to pump up the value of the rest of his collection), but it doesn't seem to be one that the high-end gallery world is likely to buy.

[Drew Wiley]

Why would anyone be jealous of him?? You can get rich by setting up a chain of greasy pizza franchises. But is that the life you want. Like I said, this guy has never lived. He has never seen beauty. He doesn't understand it. The world is just a commodity to him, a piece of meat or real estate. Might as well sit on his butt indoors and draw on the computer to begin with. It couldn't come out all that much more fake. Are all you guys so damn shallow that you can only evaluate your life or visual work on a monetary basis? There are all kinds of ways to make money. Rob a bank. Why destroy what you really like by whoring it out to the lowest common denominator of taste? Get rich owning a McDonald's franchise instead, then you'll have plenty of cash leftover for large-format film (though you'll probably be too obese to fit thru the darkroom door after awhile). What joy is there is making something that stinks? I don't care how many "billions" he's served. It's still just visual junk food. Ridiculously overprice greasy Big Macs, that's all. Anyone who has ever eaten a real steak knows the difference.

[Tin Can]

Now I need to visit a Chicago steakhouse. :)

[Nodda Duma]

One should be careful on insisting that everyone's opinion on art be the same as theirs. I think conformity went out with the 50s. ;)


That said, steak sounds awesome

[paulr]

Whether he did or didn't make the sale, I think the question is whether it means anything in terms of the fine art/investment market, since there isn't much of a secondary market for the photos. If the prints aren't sold at auction or by an independent gallery and aren't particularly collected by museums, then it's more in the realm of decor like Kinkade, Wyland and such.

It can also be a ploy to create an investment market (for instance, a collector of Peter Lik prints could pay an outrageous price for one print to pump up the value of the rest of his collection), but it doesn't seem to be one that the high-end gallery world is likely to buy.

It's been my understanding that every one the $million-plus sales of contemporary photography has been on the secondary market. Which lends a lot of the suspicion to this "private sale."

It would be gratifying if someone snooped around and blew the cover on him.

[paulr]

You mean asking is the guy a liar? Kind of an immature question, no?

No, it's a serious one, and one that's finally being asked by journalists. It wouldn't be the first time a photographer made up a bombastic story like this to attract interest. The other megabux sales people have talked about recently (Gursky, Sherman, etc.) have been publicly documented. This one was announced on a private website. It's just so entirely unlikely.

[richardman]

You mean asking is the guy a liar? Kind of an immature question, no?

Jason, if you look through the other thread and the linked posts, there have been episodes of "yes, a sales was made" when it really hasn't in respect to other art sales. So not necessarily an immature question.

[dsphotog]

Why is it that guys with long hair and a foreign accent do so well?

[Drew Wiley]

People in the art world lying????? Gosh, some of you guys are either naive or haven't been around the block yet (or maybe I'm just showing my age). If you compiled a list of all the ostentatious art scams of the past century you'd probably have a list of names as fat as a phone book. In this case I suspect he's just trying to drum up hype so he can sell duplicates at 5% of that price, which would still be an obscene sum. But that is an old trick, and based on the testimony of
certain people who have worked for him, kinda his mode of operation. It does take a lot of overhead to properly mount and display big prints, and he does have
a right to make a living. But the mere fact that big things are not really archivable and are inevitably going to be subject to an awful lot of UV makes them inherently dubious in terms of long-term value. But the same could be said for big work by photographers who are actually respected by someone other than
Aunt Maude in Peoria, who just won the lottery and wants something that goes well next to her black velvet Elvis rug.

[David A. Goldfarb]

There is corruption in the serious international art market where auctions are public as well, so any time a sale far exceeds expectations, it's fair to ask why.

[Nodda Duma]

Not naive, just a different world than that of professional occupations, I guess. In my world you don't need to worry about blatant dishonesty...the greater danger lies with blatant incompetence. Liars go away quickly and cause no damage. Idiots, however, never go away.

So it's a relevant question then, eh? Fair enough, I stand corrected!

[Tim Meisburger]

To those that think true art something special that the mass cannot appreciate. That only connoisseurs, the cognescenti, academics and acolytes can appreciate true art. I disagree. Its not till the late 20th century that art in its traditional forms moves from the public sphere to the academy. Lik is clearly brilliant, and the images he creates seem to most people new and different and special. He uses his creative vision and art to craft those images, and many many people are moved. My guess is his work will stand the test of time.

And remember, envy is one of the seven deadly sins. Or is that gluttony...

[Drew Wiley]

Some people got it, some don't. Peter Lik don't got none. So what if he has money? So do drug dealers and sports jocks and rappers. Big deal. Most rich people I've
known (and I've known a lot of em) aren't happy at all. Why should we envy them. I wouldn't even accept someone like Lik that as my own photo student. And I'm perfectly serious. My, my, my .... Back to culinary analogies.... You're never going to learn to be a gourmet chef if you study at the Burger King or Domino's Pizza
academy. There seems to be a serious gap here in role models. Have some of you ever even seen well made color prints? I seriously doubt it.

[Jim Becia]

Why would anyone be jealous of him?? You can get rich by setting up a chain of greasy pizza franchises. But is that the life you want. Like I said, this guy has never lived. He has never seen beauty. He doesn't understand it. The world is just a commodity to him, a piece of meat or real estate. Might as well sit on his butt indoors and draw on the computer to begin with. It couldn't come out all that much more fake. Are all you guys so damn shallow that you can only evaluate your life or visual work on a monetary basis? There are all kinds of ways to make money. Rob a bank. Why destroy what you really like by whoring it out to the lowest common denominator of taste? Get rich owning a McDonald's franchise instead, then you'll have plenty of cash leftover for large-format film (though you'll probably be too obese to fit thru the darkroom door after awhile). What joy is there is making something that stinks? I don't care how many "billions" he's served. It's still just visual junk food. Ridiculously overprice greasy Big Macs, that's all. Anyone who has ever eaten a real steak knows the difference.

So, "this guy has never lived." Drew, you constantly amaze me with your pronouncements, and you hit the motherlode with this post.

[Ray Heath]

Mr Wiley
Wow, as a proud Aussie, as a thinking, feeling open minded person, just wow.

What is your major malfunction?

[paulr]

If it's fake, I'm curious to know more about the history of this kind of thing. It probably has a name. The only other case (alleged) that I've heard of was a relatively unknown Aussie painter who claimed out of the blue to have made a $5 million sale. This raised much more skepticism than the Lik sale; presumably because she didn't even have the kind of populist renown of a Lik or a Kinkaide.

[paulr]

What is your major malfunction?

Researchers speculate that Drew is an advanced artificial intelligence algorithm that can spontaneously generate jeremiads on any topic.
It seems to be functioning perfectly.

[Tin Can]

I knew we would get there.

I thought it.

[Brian Sims]

In the 1890s the estimate was "there's a sucker born every minute." That was when there was only 1.7 billion people in the world. Now, there's 7 billion. And I haven't seen any indication at all of a lower propensity of suckerhood. That means, today, there's a sucker born about every 14 seconds.

ps. If anyone held the rope while rock climbing like Mr. Lik does, he'd be dead.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Nailed what exactly? Googled pictures of antelope canyon applied a few curves in PS and used his "fame" to make a big sale in his private gallery? Let's see how well he does at open auction.

[Kirk Gittings]

Soooo I have been publicly skeptical of this sale on a couple of forums including Facebook. Yesterday I received this email:


Name: richard
Sender Email: justfYI@me.com
Message: LF LIk.
have noticed that everyone reads only so far … the curse of Social Notworking?

here:
“”””"
These sales may be confirmed through the buyer's counsel, Joshua Roth.

"Our client is a long-time collector of Lik's works and is delighted to add these one-of-a-kind photographs to his impressive collection," said Roth.

Joshua Roth (Art Attorney / Corporate Lawyer)

Associate

Los Angeles (main)



t: 310.282.6292
f: 310.785.3292
jroth@glaserweil.com

http://mailresponder.sitewelder.com/track/click/30004335/www.glaserweil.com?p=eyJzIjoiaEVBbHV0eGVrQzk5bHY5cUdUdkppMnNOTEJjIiwidiI6MSwicCI6IntcInVcIjozMDAwNDMzNSxcInZcIjoxLFwidXJsXCI6XCJodHRwOlxcXC9cXFwvd3d3LmdsYXNlcndlaWwuY29tXFxcL2luZGV4LnBocFxcXC9wYWdlXFxcL2F0dG9ybmV5c1xcXC9BcnRBdHRvcm5leUxvc0FuZ2VsZXNDb3Jwb3JhdGVMYXd5ZXJcIixcImlkXCI6XCJiYzJhNzY0YmIxYzY0NDcxOThkN2JmMzBkMWRiNDlkNVwiLFwidXJsX2lkc1wiOltcIjkwZTZlZmVjNGYwMGJkZGE4MWFhNzQ2NTEzYTZmZGY5OWIwN2M5YmVcIl19In0

“””"
about attorney:

http://mailresponder.sitewelder.com/track/click/30004335/www.artspace.com?p=eyJzIjoiU3pDTTRwakhfcGJwRF9heFhzQmFGSVZ3cWFVIiwidiI6MSwicCI6IntcInVcIjozMDAwNDMzNSxcInZcIjoxLFwidXJsXCI6XCJodHRwOlxcXC9cXFwvd3d3LmFydHNwYWNlLmNvbVxcXC9tYWdhemluZVxcXC9pbnRlcnZpZXdzX2ZlYXR1cmVzXFxcL2hvd19pX2NvbGxlY3Rfam9zaF9yb3RoXCIsXCJpZFwiOlwiYmMyYTc2NGJiMWM2NDQ3MTk4ZDdiZjMwZDFkYjQ5ZDVcIixcInVybF9pZHNcIjpbXCI0NGQwM2JiMTVhMjhkMTY3YWM5NjNhZDMyNThkNjQ5NjdhOGUwMjRkXCJdfSJ9





This email was sent via your SiteWelder Mail Form. If you wish to reply to this user, simply hit reply in your mail program.

What i find funny about this is the assumption that mentioning the lawyer precludes this being a scam as if no lawyer would participate in a scam.......

[DG 3313]

Nailed what exactly? Googled pictures of antelope canyon applied a few curves in PS and used his "fame" to make a big sale in his private gallery? Let's see how well he does at open auction.

Many of the photos on the LFF have been graced with PS. LF Analog photography has become a digital slave. Scan, clean, manip. and save.....Peter nailed his target market (well to do travelers (tourist)) with brilliant prints of places they may never see. The images are seen in splendid light. He isn't selling to the elite. He is selling to the people that can pay for the print in cash. And it's working for him...

[RodinalDuchamp]

I know you are probably playing devil's advocate. Yes it is true PS is a seemingly necessary evil for some people. I feel like I've seen Lik's image a hundred times over


Here is one image from Clyde Butcher which I find to be even more interesting. http://www.clydebutcher.com/uploaded/admProductsImages-0.007752001383888565-Antelopecanyon1L.jpg

Lik is a great salesman. A tremendous marketer. A decent photographer, but an artist he is not.

[Jmarmck]

Personally, I could care less about Lik or his work, or his success. It serves no purpose. There is nothing to learn here.
I am heading that way shortly. I will ask the guide to steer me AWAY from that particular canyon.....if I even go there.
I am surprised that one can only go there via a guide. I am curious to see how Lik's success will influence the business there.
Hopefully I will be able to get in and out of there with both arms and all my fingers....and a somewhat full wallet.

[Kodachrome25]

I'm
Whether he did or didn't make the sale, I think the question is whether it means anything in terms of the fine art/investment market, since there isn't much of a secondary market for the photos. If the prints aren't sold at auction or by an independent gallery and aren't particularly collected by museums, then it's more in the realm of decor like Kinkade, Wyland and such.

It can also be a ploy to create an investment market (for instance, a collector of Peter Lik prints could pay an outrageous price for one print to pump up the value of the rest of his collection), but it doesn't seem to be one that the high-end gallery world is likely to buy.

Well the above statement does not sound like jealousy to me, just someone who is in touch with reality.

The saying that people are jealous thing is truly ridiculous, I am far from that and if anything this nonsense motivates me to be even more innovative in how I present my work and my self. But yeah, generally speaking, he is super over rated. Antelope Canyon is one of "those" places too in that if I can't bring something stunningly fresh from the place then why even bother.


Researchers speculate that Drew is an advanced artificial intelligence algorithm that can spontaneously generate jeremiads on any topic.
It seems to be functioning perfectly.

That....is truly hilarious!

[Michael W]

I wonder what he'll say when the IRS come for their cut?

[Jmarmck]

Probably laugh in their face. He is not a US citizen.

[bob carnie]

I must disagree here Paul... Drew invented photography and we must appreciate his topical posts.


Researchers speculate that Drew is an advanced artificial intelligence algorithm that can spontaneously generate jeremiads on any topic.
It seems to be functioning perfectly.

[TXFZ1]

Probably laugh in their face. He is not a US citizen.

From the press release: Peter Lik's love for America and its landscapes led him to become a naturalized citizen in 2013.

David

[Jmarmck]

Ah, my mistake. The IRS will show up. But then again I am sure he has his own corporate lawyer and/or accountant.
Wonder what the tax rate is on sales.

[MDR]

To those that think true art something special that the mass cannot appreciate. That only connoisseurs, the cognescenti, academics and acolytes can appreciate true art. I disagree. Its not till the late 20th century that art in its traditional forms moves from the public sphere to the academy. Lik is clearly brilliant, and the images he creates seem to most people new and different and special. He uses his creative vision and art to craft those images, and many many people are moved. My guess is his work will stand the test of time.

And remember, envy is one of the seven deadly sins. Or is that gluttony...


I agree with the statement except for the test of time part. I personaly never understood the view that true art is only for a special whereas art made for the masses isn't true art. Personaly I prefer art that is accesible to the masses to the overly conceptual academia art that seems to be the vogue for the last 80 years or so. In fact the concept and pure academic art is getting a bit long in the tooth. Also artist/craftsman of the past were able to produce art that was made for the masses but included things that were only accessible to those in the know which is the best form of art it makes you think and it doesn't but less knowledgeable people down. The art world doesn't do itself a favour either with the view of art for elites of masses taxes etc... are paid by the masses and many art institutions have money problems which could be solved by the public but the public has a problem with funding elitist art.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I wasn't stating that David, nor anyone in particular, is jealous... only that some might construe some comments to appear that way. Look... the guy became wealthy doing whatever it is he does and he isn't hurting anyone nor doing anything illegal in the process. If I could sell crap and make millions from those with too little sense and too much money then I'd do it. I don't have enough health nor time left to enjoy the wealth but at least I could leave something to my son.

[ic-racer]

.. he's extremely successful and we're not....

He is? I have never heard of him. Why would someone who is "extremely successful" risk his successful career with putative fraud?

[koh303]

so what happens to his image now?
Does he have to destroy all copies of the image other then the one granted to the buyer? Do i have to pay royalties for my web browser cash?
How exactly do you sell a digital photograph, especially if so much money is involved, a buyer would want some assurances that no other reproductions can be made, IE cut the negative, hand over the hard drive? This image is so proliferated how could anyone actually sell it?

The age of the interweb has not reached everywhere on earth.

[richardman]

Probably laugh in their face. He is not a US citizen.

The sales is probably to the Gallery he owns, not to him personally. Either way, if the sales happens in US, then he will probably have to pay income tax, even if he is not naturalized.

[koh303]

He is? I have never heard of him. Why would someone who is "extremely successful" risk his successful career with putative fraud?

With out commenting on weather or not this person is really famous or successful, there is lots of money to be made with fraud - so many ex mayor/senator prisoners will tell you, fraud/crime pays.

I do not think this is fraud though, more like a business antic, designed to increase the current value of a commodity, for short or long term. Nothing wrong with that. Its a free market. Honestly and profit never go hand in hand.

[Peter Lewin]

We're sure having a lot of fun with Mr. Lik. Here's my question. If this was a false sale, then it never gets reported to the IRS on a tax form (why report something that never happened?) and it simply disappears. If the IRS tries to collect, and discovers it was a sale-buyback (i.e. again, never really happened) they won't report it to the public, it is probably covered by privacy laws. So again, we will never hear about it. So in the end, we will all probably continue to wonder, and if the whole thing was a publicity stunt, we will probably never know. Kind of unsatisfying, but then the number of people who even care is probably an infinitesimal portion of the population.

[Thad Gerheim]

Soooo I have been publicly skeptical of this sale on a couple of forums including Facebook. Yesterday I received this email:



What i find funny about this is the assumption that mentioning the lawyer precludes this being a scam as if no lawyer would participate in a scam.......

Is his father a long time collector of his work? I might be able to convince my 95 year old dad into buying one of mine for 7.2 million if I give him until 2050 to pay it off with zero percent interest!

[Sal Santamaura]

...Honestly [sic] and profit never go hand in hand.You apparently never had the pleasure of conducting business with Dick Phillips.

[koh303]

You apparently never had the pleasure of conducting business with Dick Phillips.
No i guess i have not but i did meet da man Norman Chompsky once or twice.

[Kodachrome25]

A visual tidbit, industrial in nature, pun intended:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IMgg1SVy6zc

[Tin Can]

Perhaps demand for images like his will increase with TV screens upgrades. This season Costco is full of UHD or 4K TV and now they are talking about 8K and beyond. If people have 100" diagonal screens hanging in the living room and soon the bedroom, maybe they will want big splashes of color that doesn't move all the time. Meaning still images instead of video. Even now, I leave my 3 small monitors on all the time and Chrome Cast displays an ever changing medley of fantastic images.

Screensavers

[Old-N-Feeble]

RE 4K and 8K TV: I can see the pixels in 1080P so I guess it's really not going too far.

[Drew Wiley]

Some of you don't get it yet. The "trick" is that he claims to have sold a version of this image, allegedly an "artist's proof" perhaps, for such and such an amount of money, specifically so he can sell multiple reproductions of said image at a higher than normal prices. But his galleries would probably happily take five grand for one, provided it wasn't absolutely huge with a big framing expense. This is just a routine mode of operation with slimy-slick galleries that I've encountered over and over. Nothing new here. People were doing it long before Kinkade. Whether it is legal or not depends on the specific state laws the work is sold in. And just because neither the FBI and IRS automatically pounce often just means they have other priorities first. It certainly doesn't mean someone isn't potentially in their sights.

[Lenny Eiger]

Honestly and profit never go hand in hand.

This is simply not true. Billions of times per day people do the best they can to offer an honest service in exchange for fair compensation. Or sell products at a reasonable rate. You can't suggest that the average person is like our politicians (on both sides) or multinational corporations or some minuscule percentage of the populous.

And that would be "Noam Chomsky"...

Lenny

[bob carnie]

I am with Lenny here... they do go hand in hand... but ones profit is curtailed a bit by ones honesty, but there is something to be said about a clean honest approach to business.

I have been self employed for 24 years now.. I strive to be honest with my clients... My long term relationships with them provides me the income to live a decent life. One cannot have a decent income without profit.




This is simply not true. Billions of times per day people do the best they can to offer an honest service in exchange for fair compensation. Or sell products at a reasonable rate. You can't suggest that the average person is like our politicians (on both sides) or multinational corporations or some minuscule percentage of the populous.

And that would be "Noam Chomsky"...

Lenny

[David_Senesac]

The link reads like a promotional ploy. Announcing what others are buying his framed prints for may influence unsophisticated in art though rich clients to swallow such spin. A decade ago while on one of my spring wildflower trips to Carrizo Plain National Monument, I ran into a confused photographer at an obscure dirt road location where I was about to head up into remote areas almost no others know about.

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/10-H-10.jpg

He essentially related he was "scouting" locations for Peter Lik and was surprised I had never heard of him but was informed he makes millions each year from a gallery in Las Vegas. That Mr Lik was eager to find special aesthetic locations all over the world. Somewhat against my usual nature, I let him tag along despite the fact he had no water bottle, as waterless he soon had no choice but to turn around despite being overwhelmed by the colorful landscapes.

I essentially told him unless Mr Lik visited that place in the next few days, that the blooms would soon fade, then it might be years before another big bloom like this, and even then the window to being there at peak like this was not easily discerned, nor would I ever be divulging its secrets to others.

As to Mr Lik's work later upon searching the web, I noted he did have some fine images, likely has developed reasonably good craft at what he does, and knows what his audience wants. That although his work was not as impressive as numbers of others, he apparently hit (Vegas) jackpot marketing his work, so congrats on that score. Just another of many many examples in the art world of how financial success for artists often have very little to do with the quality of an artist's work. Well at least until they are too old or dead to benefit from such.

[Lenny Eiger]

but ones profit is curtailed a bit by ones honesty

If I am not honest, I will have no clients. It's that simple for me.

Lenny

[Drew Wiley]

Some business lines obviously garner more disrespect than others. I remember back when I sold equipment to local car dealerships. Literally only one in fifty had an honest service dept. And marquee glitz tourist-row galleries tend to attract more questionable operators than most business models. I remember when the FBI had a full time detail just in Carmel - a town noted for great photographers but sleezy painters - some of these allegedly famous painters didn't even exist - the painting were mass-produced on assembly lines in Mexico! But overall, given all the business contacts I've had over the years, big and small, I'd estimate that it's only about 2% of the people that generate 98% of the grief. And it rarely pays off for them in the long run. Yeah, there is a culture in this country of vulture capitalism and flipping companies like toilet paper, and it has a huge impact on the entire economy. But for every such instance there are plenty of decently run corporations. They just don't make the headlines.

[Tin Can]

Drew, I have to agree. When I sold tools to auto mechanics, I sold only with my own cash loans. Which was Snap-On Tools full retail prices on a payment plan. No added interest and no one in my territory ever qualified for bank type loans. I had at least $100K on the street at all times. 2 to 4% of these not credit worthy individuals would disappear, lose their job or just stiff me. But 96% paid. I was selling in a long empty Chicago territory in an all immigrant area. 4 miles square, however half the land was cemetary, so many of my potential customers were dead. I made good money. I hustled. I only quit due to divorce lawyer greed. They lost.

[koh303]

If I am not honest, I will have no clients. It's that simple for me.

Lenny

That might be true on the micro scale, but honesty and sucsess in business have little to do with each other, despite american dream idioms we like to believe in.

Any profit is based on the disenfranchisement of someone else, which init of its own is an inherently dishonest thing to do, especially while claiming someone is doing their best ____ for ____. That is of course not to say any one making a profit is a dishonest person, especially none of the posters who commented here, its just the way things are, business and personal practices aside.

My man Norman Chompsky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro


Billions of times per day people do the best they can to offer an honest service in exchange for fair compensation. The problem here is that the concept of what is "fair" or "honest" or even "best" varies wildly form culture to culture, from place to place, and is a moral implication, which is not universal. The only constant is that profit arises from surplus value, which can only be generated off the devaluation of someone else (or their work/value etc.). The morality of profit is constant even if the above quote varies.

And to get back on track in the same direction - even if Lik is totally dishonest, he is no better or worse then a politician or corporation, just because profit is on his mind. He is infact no worse then any of us because of this, even if we might impose some misplaced moral judgment against him.

[paulr]

And to get back on track in the same direction - even if Lik is totally dishonest, he is no better or worse then a politician or corporation...

Ok, I'm going to have to unpack this tautology. You are not naming a specific corporation or politician, so you are implying that all corporations and politicians are dishonest—and that they therefore set a benchmark for our expectations of dishonesty. And then you are saying that if Lik is lying, he's no worse than this benchmark, and so we have nothing to fault him for.

Do you see how this is ... uh ... problematic?

[paulr]

My take: if Lik staged this sale, it is problematic because


1) it means he's dishonest;

2) His dishonesty served to create false value, and therefore fleece his potential customers;

3) he made an international spectacle of his dishonesty, which also served to fuel his (apparently) colossal ego;

4) his ruse is so preposterous as to insult the intelligence of his peers and the entire art community.



On the other hand, if he didn't stage this sale,


1) he has $10 million and doesn't have to care what anyone thinks;

2) but I'm not betting on it.

[koh303]

Ok, I'm going to have to unpack this tautology. You are not naming a specific corporation or politician, so you are implying that all corporations and politicians are dishonest—and that they therefore set a benchmark for our expectations of dishonesty. And then you are saying that if Lik is lying, he's no worse than this benchmark, and so we have nothing to fault him for.

Do you see how this is ... uh ... problematic?

sorry, i do not, i did not say anything about expectations but this might be due to my cultural lag.

[paulr]

sorry, i do not.

That logic could be used to excuse literally anything.

[koh303]

My take: if Lik staged this sale, it is problematic because


1) it means he's dishonest;

2) His dishonesty served to create false value, and therefore fleece his potential customers;

3) he made an international spectacle of his dishonesty, which also served to fuel his (apparently) colossal ego;

4) his ruse is so preposterous as to insult the intelligence of his peers and the entire art community.

All of this can be said, regardless of the very high price, the subject of this thread. How do you in fact sell a digital image which is so widely proliferated?
How can anyone, let alone someone who's images are on so many screen savers worldwide confirm to a potential buyer/owner, that he owns the rights to the image, in the digital age? Its not like he can shred his hard drive as evidence towards no more reproductions. Can he sign a legal agreement precluding him from reproducing the image again and selling it off the books again,to someone who might not have heard about this 6.5M sale? what if he gives it away for free without telling anyone?

Even when silly thins like cutting the negative and handing it over with the AP at a gallery sale were common practice this was meaningless, and thus the prices paid for photo "fine arts" are always lower then those paid for other "hand crafted" craft things, such as paintings (though maybe there is also a historical aspect here that drives the two prices apart which needs to be considered).

At any rate, the rediculous thing here is not the sum, nor the potential dishonesty (which as i mentioned above, can be said of a 7eleven selling cum at a profit, as the quesiton of how much is fair for one to earn, or what is a decent living standard cannot be universally answered), but is in fact the concept that digital art can be sold, in reality.

I asked these questions about 20 posts ago, but it got sidetracked i guess, so here it is again:


so what happens to his image now?
Does he have to destroy all copies of the image other then the one granted to the buyer? Do i have to pay royalties for my web browser cash?
How exactly do you sell a digital photograph, especially if so much money is involved, a buyer would want some assurances that no other reproductions can be made, IE cut the negative, hand over the hard drive? This image is so proliferated how could anyone actually sell it?

The age of the interweb has not reached everywhere on earth.

[johnmsanderson]

anything so overdone is from the purpose of playing

[RodinalDuchamp]

so what happens to his image now?
Does he have to destroy all copies of the image other then the one granted to the buyer? Do i have to pay royalties for my web browser cash?
How exactly do you sell a digital photograph, especially if so much money is involved, a buyer would want some assurances that no other reproductions can be made, IE cut the negative, hand over the hard drive? This image is so proliferated how could anyone actually sell it?

The age of the interweb has not reached everywhere on earth.
Very valid questions. It will be interesting how intellectual property rights will clash with the fine art world in a digital era. I mean I could take a bunch of famous photos reprint them and hang them in a gallery or display them on the web my defense would be that I am making an artistic statement about the state of art as media vs art as ethereal. Does the digital plane equate or simulate a third dimension? How does one limit production of something one is marketing online?

Yes I am sure lik can afford more lawyers but some artists are already dead broke nothing to lose and everything to gain from scandal. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

One step further. If I was to write/paint/print the binary code for phantom on a canvas would I be infringing on lik's property rights?

[swmcl]

Noam Chomsky ? I'm thinking it aint Norman ...

[Tin Can]

My take: if Lik staged this sale, it is problematic because


1) it means he's dishonest;

2) His dishonesty served to create false value, and therefore fleece his potential customers;

3) he made an international spectacle of his dishonesty, which also served to fuel his (apparently) colossal ego;

4) his ruse is so preposterous as to insult the intelligence of his peers and the entire art community.



On the other hand, if he didn't stage this sale,


1) he has $10 million and doesn't have to care what anyone thinks;

2) but I'm not betting on it.

I really like this presentation.

Concise and correct.

[paulr]

All of this can be said, regardless of the very high price, the subject of this thread. How do you in fact sell a digital image which is so widely proliferated?

You don't sell an image, you sell a print. Just like in analog photography.

Photographic print sales include certain stipulations. One is copyright (the photographer almost always retains it). Another is any promise regarding rarity/exclusivity (as implied by the editioning).

The whole stunt of destroying the negative is outmoded and never really became standard practice. Today people acknowledge that photography (in most forms) is a medium of multiples.

[RodinalDuchamp]

You don't sell an image, you sell a print. Just like in analog photography.

Photographic print sales include certain stipulations. One is copyright (the photographer almost always retains it). Another is any promise regarding rarity/exclusivity (as implied by the editioning).

The whole stunt of destroying the negative is outmoded and never really became standard practice. Today people acknowledge that photography (in most forms) is a medium of multiples.
Certainly. However the image is online everywhere. He is still likely selling prints of "phantom" what makes this particular print a $6M print? The likelihood of Lik producing and selling the same exact print again is highly likely though not at that price. Where is the exclusivity? This guy has "limited" runs of 950 units.

[uphereinmytree]

I need to earn a marketing degree so I can get on with making money instead of earning money.

[hoffner]

Ralph Barker,
please delete also the post n. 33. Reason - quote of inappropriate language.

[hoffner]

For those who wonder what comment got deleted in my post here it is:
Usage guidelines: To have a healthy and informative forum, it's essential that participants maintain a respectful and professional decorum. Name calling, personal attacks, character assassination, coarse or inappropriate language, or enticing/baiting others to violate forum guidelines will not be tolerated here.

[Drew Wiley]

If there's a reason I REALLY don't like these kind of art venues it's what they do to communities. Yeah, inside some casino mall in Vegas, Lik is just another faux
whatever. Big deal. But then I want a quiet beachside down from the classic old hotel in Hawaii and whammee - there's a glitzy tourist trap in your face, completely out of character. Then there's an incident where he undercut the lease of an adjacent gallery under the pretense of expansion, then apparently sublet it out to a non-gallery business to get rid of potential competition. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've seen this very strategy happen before. And as for Kinkade ... I walk out of my sister's house in PacificGrove down the street to the aquarium, and there's this googaw hideous gift shop totally out of character with the entire neighborhood, and then up the street, a bright pink Victorian which deliberately stands out like a sore thumb, as a mausoleum to his own ego. Don't know if it's still that color or not since his empire collapsed. And in that neighborhood, even McDonalds isn't allowed to use a lighted sign or have the golden arches. One more step down the path to ruining the ambiance of these communities. But just another slick buck to them.

[Richard Johnson]

I must disagree here Paul... Drew invented photography and we must appreciate his topical posts.

I thought Drew made light and everytime he farts it rains.

[ic-racer]

My curiosity lies in how one determines what an "artist proof" is by examination. How does one separate the 6 million dollar colorful piece of paper from the many others that are not "artist proofs?" A work of art with no unique characteristics can not have a unique provenance.

[RodinalDuchamp]

My curiosity lies in how one determines what an "artist proof" is by examination. How does one separate the 6 million dollar colorful piece of paper from the many others that are not "artist proofs?" A work of art with no unique characteristics can not have a unique provenance.

I asked something very similar. Its not like Lik is turning people away from buying the other 949 prints in his limited releases.

Very valid questions. It will be interesting how intellectual property rights will clash with the fine art world in a digital era. I mean I could take a bunch of famous photos reprint them and hang them in a gallery or display them on the web my defense would be that I am making an artistic statement about the state of art as media vs art as ethereal. Does the digital plane equate or simulate a third dimension? How does one limit production of something one is marketing online?

Yes I am sure lik can afford more lawyers but some artists are already dead broke nothing to lose and everything to gain from scandal. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

One step further. If I was to write/paint/print the binary code for phantom on a canvas would I be infringing on lik's property rights?

[Drew Wiley]

This is a somewhat different thread than the other one, so I'll comment on this aspect separately. When something is a serial release, there are distinct rules
which potentially differ from state to state in what might or might not constitute fraud. Merely charging a ton of money for one print and comparatively little for the
next thousand of the same thing is not in itself illegal, though under certain circumstances it might be ethically deceptive. But let's give a known example or two.
When Dali was on his deathbed, he was still so greedy that he was signing stacks of completely blank paper, which then went to the printer to mass produce particular painting subjects, which dealers then sold to naive "collectors" for thousands apiece. This was ruled fraud on two counts, namely, he never directly saw and approved the final image, and second, these were just fancy posters (photolithographs), not true lithographs, and crossing the line in this respect also happens to be illegal. The result was certain dealers in this country being prosecuted for fraud, and basically a collapse in alleged value in much of his reproduced work, with quite a few people finding out they had "invested" a lot of money into something totally worthless. And this latter fact was also grounds for fraud charges, based on the deceptive sales incentive. Of course, a true Dali painting or genuine lithograph is not something the average person can afford
to invest in at all, so mass-produced work was the bait used. Then there comes along someone like Kinkade, who must be given credit for technically upping the
ante in terms of how to mass-produce copies of his own work, but who soon starting sliding into ambiguous territory of legality himself. So he basically threw a
curve ball at the laws, and put one or two spots of real paints by his own hand onto these glorified posters, so he could call them original paintings and sell them
for a high sum. The rest is history. Somebody like that plays with fire just too much, and inevitably got into real legal trouble. ... So take your best guess in this
particular case.

[Peter Lewin]

Resurrecting an old thread because of a long article on Peter Lik in this weekend's NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/business/peter-liks-recipe-for-success-sell-prints-print-money.html

The tone of the NYT article is very similar to many of our posts.

[Robert Langham]

Peter Liks art is making money, not photographs.

[bloodhoundbob]

As I am fond of saying....there's a fine line between high self-esteem and delusions of grandeur. After reading the NYT article, I suddenly feel the need of a long, hot shower.

[Jmarmck]

Peter Liks art is making money, not photographs.

As I am fond of saying....there's a fine line between high self-esteem and delusions of grandeur. After reading the NYT article, I suddenly feel the need of a long, hot shower.

+1

[Robert Oliver]

I wonder if the Business Editor at the NYT figured out his Lik isn't worth a Lick? Pretty big hit piece on the Peter Lik business practices and their perceived value.

[dtheld]

P.T. Barnum was right - "There's a sucker born every minute."

Dave

[bob carnie]

Reading the article... it states that sales reps will be fired if promising an investment opportunity with purchase, rather they have to state one must love the work..

I think he is being quite up front with that aspect of the purchase..

[Kirk Gittings]

Reading the article... it states that sales reps will be fired if promising an investment opportunity with purchase, rather they have to state one must love the work..

I think he is being quite up front with that aspect of the purchase..

But they are dodging the actual question don't you think? Bob did you read a different article than I did?


“People tell me all the time, ‘I’ve been in touch with the gallery, and they say my photograph is now selling for $150,000 a copy,’ ” he says. “So they want to know what they can sell theirs for.”

A tiny fraction of that sum is the answer. A subscription service called Artnet — which bills itself as the most comprehensive database of its kind — captures the resale value of Lik photographs by cataloging auction results, and the most anyone has ever paid for one his photographs is $15,860, for a copy of an image called “Ghost,” in 2008. (It’s a color version of “Phantom.”) After that, it’s a long slide down, to $3,000 for a copy of “Eternal Beauty (Antelope County, Arizona)” in 2014. Fifteen images have sold for between $1,000 and $2,500, and four have sold for between $400 and $1,000. Another handful failed to sell. And that’s it.


This confusion over price, which is dictated by the company, and value, which is determined by the broader market, is sometimes encouraged by the sales team, according to two former executives at Peter Lik USA, who declined to be identified for fear of being sued by the company. The eight-step presentation, the elaborate price tiers, the long list of professional awards, the “romancing” of the art — all have the effect of suggesting to potential customers that they are making an investment, not spending money. “The salesman would say, ‘Peter Lik is the most awarded landscape artist in history,’ ” said one former executive. “This photograph started at $4,000 and it sold out at $200,000. Now, you tell me how good an investment it is.”


The secondary art market was the one subject that Mr. Lik was reluctant to discuss. Presented with the Artnet results and pressed for a comment, he said of his work, “It’s like a Mercedes-Benz. You drive it off the lot, it loses half its value.”

If honesty was the rule then that last quote by Lik would be the answer to customer's questions at the point of sale about whether the photographs are a good investment. "Mr Lik has stated in reference to that question that 'It’s like a Mercedes-Benz. You drive it off the lot, it loses half its value' ". But that's not what sales persons do I guess :)

[bob carnie]

I think they are very wise in avoiding the resale value of Peter Liks work. by telling potential clients that they need to love the work.... His editions are crazy in size and he is shooting himself in the foot with that size edition..

[Lachlan 717]

P.T. Barnum was right - "There's a sucker born every minute."

Dave

Apparently true, given he didn't say this.

[dtheld]

Sorry. I fell for legend and not fact. Credit supposedly goes to David Hannum for the quote.

[prendt]

Peter Liks art is making money, not photographs.

With the same flawed logic one could say - you make judgements, not sense.

[Jody_S]

Reading the article... it states that sales reps will be fired if promising an investment opportunity with purchase, rather they have to state one must love the work..

I think he is being quite up front with that aspect of the purchase..

I sat through the sales pitch at his Vegas gallery, the wisp of a girl selling never once mentioned the word 'investment', to the best of my recollection.

[Tin Can]

I wonder if he lets potential buyers snap a smartphone image to show their fathers...

[Corran]

His editions are crazy in size and he is shooting himself in the foot with that size edition..

An interesting statement when according to the article last year he sold "$1.6 million worth of photographs every week." Of course he has a large overhead with the business (employees, rent, etc.) but apparently it's working out for him.

He's probably the best businessman when it comes to selling photographs, ever, and that's all there is to it.

I really don't see a problem with him myself. He is working the market. There are a lot of great photographers out there, several I could name on this forum, who if they had a lot more acumen for business or getting their work out there would probably start to really get noticed and maybe start making a name for themselves in the "art" world.

[Peter Lewin]

I didn't really want to re-open the same debate we had two months ago, but I was surprised to find such a long article (something like two full newspaper pages in the print edition of the NYT), and to find it as the front-page lead article on Sunday's business section. Clearly something about him caught the Times's attention.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Ray McSavaney and I sat through the sales pitch in his Aspen gallery, it was sort of fun. The sales rep did all the classic stuff as mentioned in the NYT, starting with "Amazing work isn't it". He took us through the entire gallery and then into a little room that was dark, he then proceeded to light an image on the wall and tell us about how the magic of the special Fuji paper made the image almost glow from inside! Ray and I were very moved, as were several of the participants of the workshop. With tears in our eyes, we departed knowing that the world is a better place thanks to Lik and Fuji.

But honestly, as has been said many many times, he is a very astute business person and I only wish I could make a fraction of what he does each year with my work. Those who purchase his work are the same type of buyer who used to buy Thomas Kinkade and Lik will one day be lumped into the same group as Kinkade. Not much talent as an artist but a great business person, which is fine! We all know his images are over done, over colorful and are really just like giant sized post cards.

I found the NYT piece good and brought some light onto him as a business person. He has NO respect for the history of the art or for those, such as Adams, who came before him and blazed the way. As a result he deserves no respect from the art world or any serious collector. If someone loves his work and wants to emulate him, that is fine, more power to them. But the NYT shows him to be just as shallow as his work.

[Ray Heath]

"Peter Lik deserves our skepticism", what, do you mean more than we should be skeptical of the Leica mystique or the saintedness of AA or the loss of our dearly beloved Kodak, or insert your own pet love/hate?

[Greg Y]

Thank you Robert L!

[Lachlan 717]

At least he's got more talent than Rockwell...

[Sal Santamaura]

At least he's got more talent than Rockwell...I'm sometimes not very good at recognizing humor here, especially when it's not accompanied by an emoticon. If you're referring to Norman Rockwell, surely you jest.

[Tin Can]

I'm sometimes not very good at recognizing humor here, especially when it's not accompanied by an emoticon. If you're referring to Norman Rockwell, surely you jest.

I'll bet he meant the camera reviewer, Ken Rockwell.

[welly]

I'll bet he meant the camera reviewer, Ken Rockwell.

Or the actor Sam Rockwell.

[Lachlan 717]

Nup, Barry Rockwell from apartment 8 down the hall. Shit photographer. But he's still better than Rockwell.

[bob carnie]

The statement refers to resale value of prints sold... his editions are huge.... I guess if Peter L sells out an edition, very very good for him,,, not so good for someone buying #15 and thinking the value of that
image is going to go up.
I do not know of anyone that has such large editions and sell out... Ed Burtynski edition size is 15 and he does sell out. I never looked at the prices of his work on the resale market.

I do know of three Irving Penn Worker series that were purchased for 10k by a friend of mine , who resold for 140K .. Not sure how contemporary photographers with colour work will fare.



An interesting statement when according to the article last year he sold "$1.6 million worth of photographs every week." Of course he has a large overhead with the business (employees, rent, etc.) but apparently it's working out for him.

He's probably the best businessman when it comes to selling photographs, ever, and that's all there is to it.

I really don't see a problem with him myself. He is working the market. There are a lot of great photographers out there, several I could name on this forum, who if they had a lot more acumen for business or getting their work out there would probably start to really get noticed and maybe start making a name for themselves in the "art" world.

[jp]

Closest thing I can think of with an edition of 1000 is "Camera Work" and those artists are dead and famous and each print does not sell for crazy money today, but is very highly regarded as tasteful and historically important. Edward Curtis's book was an even shorter run and you can get prints from that for less than Lik prices. Camera work was comparitively inexpensive and may not have sold out often. Curtis's books were expensive and were a tough sell.

We can not dictate people's taste or Lik's business practices, much less adequately understand the art world. I think the grand lifestyle and behavior that we consider repulsive/course/lame is part of the sales pitch. So many pop-artists of the 70-80's were famous for being famous as much as their art.

[Corran]

The statement refers to resale value of prints sold

I just don't think Lik is shooting himself in the foot. Resale value of the print is irrelevant to his bottom line. Maybe from a fame/notoriety angle if that only comes from a photographer's prints gaining value over time? But who knows, maybe after he is gone they will, regardless of edition size.

[John Kasaian]

What exactly, am I supposed to be skeptical about? I've never met Lik, I doubt I've seen his photographs, or if I have, I certainly don't remember them.:confused:

[Drew Wiley]

If you saw them, you'd remember them, John, cause they're really really gaudy awful. Fauxtoshop at its worst. But I give Lik credit for admitting he drinks a lot of Bull, cause that's exactly what comes back out.

[tgtaylor]

But the NYT shows him to be just as shallow as his work.

From the NYT article:

There are no people in any of the photographs, nor are there any hints of ambiguity or darkness.
He is happy to explain why. “A) that is not going to make us any money,” he said. “And B) I don’t want to see that side of life. I just want to see the beautiful side.” (Emphasis added)

No Wabi-sabi but so what? What's wrong with that?

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

It's all about marketing sheer ostentation. If he were a singer, he'd be Lady Gaga, but with the voice of a frog.

[Drew Wiley]

Thomas - this dude is blind to beauty. He doesn't even know how to look. He sends out paid scouts for stereotypical subject matter, suddenly shows up, and then
butchers the scene in PS until it matches his idea of a marketable image. Just giant kitchy postcards. The only color he is capable of seeing is "green".

[tgtaylor]

Well, he sure sees a lot of green!

Thomas

[Drew Wiley]

There is no doubt that he has been relatively financially successful; but he has a TV show, and a BS-style gallery and real estate empire which could collapse just as fast as Kincaid's did. And a lot of the extreme success he alleges is really his own unsubstantiated spin, so is probably hollow in several aspects. Since there is
no secondary market for his work, and it is all basically just ostentatious conspicuous-consumption decor, there is nothing to sustain it once the fad appeal wears
thin - and it will soon enough. One can only eat so many boxes of Krispy Kreme donuts before getting sick of sugar and wanting something salty!

[RSalles]

It's business model only succeeds due to the fact that the idiot's mother is always pregnant. Is like buying a big piece of broken glass, waiting for the day it transmutes into diamond.

Cheers,

Renato

[bob carnie]

Yes from a financial point of view he is doing very well... from a fame/notoriety angle these large editions will hurt him.


I just don't think Lik is shooting himself in the foot. Resale value of the print is irrelevant to his bottom line. Maybe from a fame/notoriety angle if that only comes from a photographer's prints gaining value over time? But who knows, maybe after he is gone they will, regardless of edition size.

[Drew Wiley]

He's using these quantities hypothetically, to imply a volume of demand that probably isn't even remotely there. Just like claiming staggering sales prices for certain images when his galleries would be happy to drop the price 95% if you pull out the checkbook and start to haggle. Yes, there's some kind of bottom line
involved, due to the overhead, and it would seem a lot like buying a car. Only in this case, you pay for a Ferrari but get a Fiat.

[Tin Can]

It's all about marketing sheer ostentation. If he were a singer, he'd be Lady Gaga, but with the voice of a frog.

Lady Gaga handled 'Sound of Music' pretty darn good last night. You almost couldn't see her tattoos and Julie Andrews did not throw up. Julie Andrews is a very difficult act to follow.

[Drew Wiley]

I saw a tad of that. She can sing. I just don't care much for that genre. My boss once sadly recited the headline when Julie Andrews lost her voice. I told him that
was the best new I heard all day. But my analogy was that Lik can do all the ostentatious costuming and posturing, the wild hair-dos to attract attention and
establish an over-the-top reputation, but can't sing at all.

[prendt]

For all of you, who don't like Peter Lik's photography - how long do you need to beat the dead horse? Or, in other terms - what else is new?

[Drew Wiley]

This is one dead horse that deserves not only beating, but having its ashes dug up and thrown to the winds.

[Tin Can]

Can't the OP ask for it it to be closed?

[Greg Miller]

He's using these quantities hypothetically, to imply a volume of demand that probably isn't even remotely there. Just like claiming staggering sales prices for certain images when his galleries would be happy to drop the price 95% if you pull out the checkbook and start to haggle. Yes, there's some kind of bottom line
involved, due to the overhead, and it would seem a lot like buying a car. Only in this case, you pay for a Ferrari but get a Fiat.

He sells $1.6 million per month. At $4,000 each that's 400 prints per day. That's a pretty darn good volume of demand I would say. Let's say he has 400 images that he is actively selling, that gets us to 1 print per day of each image. Each image then would, on average, reach it's edition max in about three years.

[prendt]

This is one dead horse that deserves not only beating, but having its ashes dug up and thrown to the winds.

You underestimate the intelligence of forum members - at least of some of them.

[bloodhoundbob]

My last comment on this is that anyone who prefaces an interview by stating "I'm the world's most famous photographer, most sought-after photographer, most awarded photographer" instantly loses credibility with me. I had never heard of this individual until the recent thread about his "$6.5" million dollar print.

[fishbulb]

Never heard of this guy. Spent some time looking at his website. http://www.lik.com

His photos are very good for the style that they are in - I call it "Windows Wallpaper". Others call them "Postcard Shots." You get the idea.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that aggressive marketing combined with an immensely popular type of photography ends up selling.

Is it really "art" though? I fail to see any deeper meaning behind his images. Call it "pop art" I guess. Just like pop tarts. Sweet, colorful, and I love consuming them, but in the end very little real substance.

It is what it is.

[welly]

My last comment on this is that anyone who prefaces an interview by stating "I'm the world's most famous photographer, most sought-after photographer, most awarded photographer" instantly loses credibility with me. I had never heard of this individual until the recent thread about his "$6.5" million dollar print.

Is that what he said? I'm not sure it's for him to make such a statement.

[Drew Wiley]

Greg - this guy is a career bullshitter, and so are his slick sales people. He says he sells such and such per month, and for so much money. Even with multiple
retail outlets, I'd be shocked if he ever sold a dozen prints a day. I've had the misfortune of walking past his Vegas gallery twice of days for several days on end
and never saw a single customer in there, nor did I ever see a single customer in his primary gallery in Lahaina, even with cruise ships in dock, which I've been told by his neighbors are his primarily clientele. All he needs is one or two real suckers a week to pay asking full price and it's a pretty handsome payday. And
if somebody does bag the kinds of top end prices in question, why is it his own press release in the first place, buffered by lawyers? The whole thing stinks. Even
if this dude's images were vaguely appealing to me, the sheer lack of ethics would leave me nauseated. I've gamed his salesmen. They're real pros and probably
well compensated. I'll give them credit for that. But what exactly is it they are selling? Largely BS themselves. That's what they're paid to do. Just a Kincaid clone.

[Ken Lee]

This thread has reached a degree of... ripeness... to which all threads aspire.

Thread closed.