$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.

[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.

[djdister]

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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Richard Johnson]

I favor the drug money laundry scenario.

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