Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Piboy on December 10, 2014, 09:40:37 pm
-
I am trying to grasp a photo sale for $6.5 million. Does this legitimize or deligitimize photography as fine art? Interesting points made in this article
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless
Cheers
Sam
-
already being discussed:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95855.0
-
Thanks will jump on that string.
-
Since the referenced thread topic is now closed, I will post my thoughts here, but first a great article:
Photography is art and always will be
(http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/12/11/1418314262261/419d8b1d-5d73-4e7c-94ac-e84641ed5177-620x418.jpeg)
Sean O'Hagan (http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/dec/11/photography-is-art-sean-ohagan-jonathan-jones)
Now, with respect to whether or not Peter Lik is "an artist," or a marketing genius, or whatever, I don't think it can be denied that he is successful at what he's doing. So, if "The American Dream" is to come to this country, pursue your passion, and have a chance at success, then Peter Lik has embodied that dream and should be respected for that.
Every single whiner about his work is just a jealous "wish they were," point blank, plain and simple.
Every single whiner would be tickled to receive $6.5M for one of their photographs, $10M total for a set, plain and simple.
It doesn't matter if the sale was through self-promotion, marketing, as well as photography ... it sold for that price.
That some of the critics may be able to take the same- (or better-) quality photos is irrelevant.
Because if they lack the savvy, the drive, or the roundedness in their marketing skills ... and so have UNsold photos on their wall (or photos that can't command anywhere near that price), then what "they" are doing is what should be scoffed at, not what the man who made millions is doing.
Success is as success does.
If any whiner's "opinion" can command more than $6.5M, then the reader should listen.
But if not, then the reader should "flush" that opinion down the pipes, to where it belongs.
It has been rightfully-said that, "Success is when opportunity meets preparedness."
Technical savvy alone isn't being prepared.
Artistic vision alone isn't being prepared.
The two of these together aren't even being prepared.
Technical savvy + artistic vision + marketing genius are all required to get beautiful photos in front of the right viewing eyes, so that they can be bought for that price.
I think it would be wiser for people to emulate "whatever it is" Peter Lik is doing than to criticize it.
Just my $0.02,
Jack
-
... it sold for that price[/b]...
Jack, I agree with the rest of your post.
The real question, however, remains if it sold for that price, i.e., was it a bona fide, arms-length transaction or just a marketing stunt arranged between Lik and the "anonymous" buyer.
-
Jack, I agree with the rest of your post.
The real question, however, remains if it sold for that price, i.e., was it a bona fide, arms-length transaction or just a marketing stunt arranged between Lik and the "anonymous" buyer.
I have seen the doubts raised, Slobodan, but I personally "doubt the doubts."
Fraud, in any form, is not cool. Of course.
I think if the purchase was fraudulent, then that would deserve castigation.
However, I see no actual basis to believe the purchase itself was a hoax.
Rather, the idea smacks more of whiners "thinking out loud" for "some way" to bring down a guy who causes their necks to stiffen when they look up at his achievements ...
So, unless proven otherwise, I take the "he bought it himself" idea as just another angle on a whine.
Jack
-
The dead horse getting flogged even more. :(
-
Just making sure (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/deadhorse.gif)
-
Taking the sale at face value, namely that the buyer was not planted as a marketing stunt and genuinely liked the photograph and thought it worth 6.5 million dollars, the sale price leads me to believe that $6.5M to that buyer is probably not even a month's income. Hence, the price is relative to the earned value of the money. It would be like most of us purchasing a nice print for a few hundred dollars. I do question whether the buyer should have stopped to consider that many important charities in the world would do much more good for mankind with this incredible sum than Peter Lik is going to do for the rest of his life. But that thought aside, all the power to Peter for finding such a buyer.
I would also add that the lines between photography and art do seem to be blurring a lot, and that painters can use photography as a means to an end, and photographers can transform a "straight photograph" to resemble a painting or drawing will relative ease in this digital age, but I remain steadfast in my view that great photographs capture a moment in time that is hard to repeat. In this sense, I'm pretty sure many competent photographers could go to Antelope Canyon and capture a very similar shot as the one being discussed here. But camp outside the San Xavier del Bac mission along route 84, and I would wager that you will be there a long long time before the moon, clouds, and light on the crosses in the graveyard align in a way to meet or exceed the Iconic mage captured by Ansel Adams in 1941 (or 1942, or 1943 depending on various account of the making of this photograph). That's where the power of photography lies for me, and that's what I'd pay 6.5 million for at auction if I was in the billionaire category...assuming my conscience didn't lead me to more noble purposes for such extravagant sums :).
-
Taking the sale at face value ... leads me to believe that $6.5M to that buyer is probably not even a month's income ... It would be like most of us purchasing a nice print for a few hundred dollars. But that thought aside, all the power to Peter for finding such a buyer.
I have often heard the idiom 'There's no fool like an old fool' but rarely heard that paraphrased into 'There's no fool like a rich fool'. In all probability because in the majority of cases, those who have a disposable income in excess of, say, $1,000,000 to 'invest' in art didn't amass their wealth by wasting money on worthless investments.
But, yes, I would certainly agree with the second paragraph of your post.
-
I think if the purchase was fraudulent, then that would deserve castigation.
IF fraud (as in a 'fraudulent transaction') is involved then that would eventually be subject to criminal proceedings, not castigation, as you so quaintly put it.
I personally "doubt the doubts." ...
However, I see no actual basis to believe the purchase itself was a hoax.
From what is currently known, no, none. It's precisely what is NOT known, that raises suspicions.
- Identity of the buyer ?
- Of what, a single print or a buyout ?
- If a single print, a limited edition of how many ?
- Is there any other consideration attached to the sale - stock, bond or promissory note ?
- Is there any brokerage commission involved ? If so how much and to whom ?
- Likewise, is there a deduction of any address commission (a form of in-house rebate) ?
- If there is a sizeable commission – in which tax jurisdiction is it payable ?
In an auction house sale the reported price is the 'hammer price' plus the buyer's commission. Without answers to the above, in a sale by private treaty, it's not possible to come to any definitive conclusion as to either the final net cost nor, as in this case, the plausibility of the reported sale. And I haven't yet touched upon the many possible corporate permutations that could give rise to a market distortion.
On a circumstantial basis there's even more reason to be sceptical:
- Notable that none of the major reputable news agencies deemed it worthy of reporting ...
- Unlike the other recent record sale of a Giacometti for $100 mill - [post] (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95855.msg783676#msg783676)
- Or any other number of questionable 'inconsistencies ' - [post] (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95855.msg783259#msg783259)
- A number of 'peer' rejections.
Finally there are 759 Lik works for sale on ArtBrokerage.com. Half (50%) are in the $2,000 - $10,000 range, 41 in the $25,000 - $36,000 range and 2 asking $40,000. All of them have OBO after the asking price (or-best-offer) – not a great indication of an indefatigable demand . It's a big leap from $40,000 to $6,500,000. In statistical terms it would be called an 'outlier' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier) - to put it politely.
I think it would be wiser for people to emulate "whatever it is" Peter Lik is doing than to criticize it.
You are, of course, free to think and believe what you wish.
-
Taking the sale at face value, namely that the buyer was not planted as a marketing stunt and genuinely liked the photograph and thought it worth 6.5 million dollars, the sale price leads me to believe that $6.5M to that buyer is probably not even a month's income. Hence, the price is relative to the earned value of the money. It would be like most of us purchasing a nice print for a few hundred dollars. I do question whether the buyer should have stopped to consider that many important charities in the world would do much more good for mankind with this incredible sum than Peter Lik is going to do for the rest of his life. But that thought aside, all the power to Peter for finding such a buyer.
I would also add that the lines between photography and art do seem to be blurring a lot, and that painters can use photography as a means to an end, and photographers can transform a "straight photograph" to resemble a painting or drawing will relative ease in this digital age, but I remain steadfast in my view that great photographs capture a moment in time that is hard to repeat. In this sense, I'm pretty sure many competent photographers could go to Antelope Canyon and capture a very similar shot as the one being discussed here. But camp outside the San Xavier del Bac mission along route 84, and I would wager that you will be there a long long time before the moon, clouds, and light on the crosses in the graveyard align in a way to meet or exceed the Iconic mage captured by Ansel Adams in 1941 (or 1942, or 1943 depending on various account of the making of this photograph). That's where the power of photography lies for me, and that's what I'd pay 6.5 million for at auction if I was in the billionaire category...assuming my conscience didn't lead me to more noble purposes for such extravagant sums :).
Great post.
-
IF fraud (as in a 'fraudulent transaction') is involved then that would eventually be subject to criminal proceedings, not castigation, as you so quaintly put it.
From what is currently known, no, none. It's precisely what is NOT known, that raises suspicions.
- Identity of the buyer ?
- Of what, a single print or a buyout ?
- If a single print, a limited edition of how many ?
- Is there any other consideration attached to the sale - stock, bond or promissory note ?
- Is there any brokerage commission involved ? If so how much and to whom ?
- Likewise, is there a deduction of any address commission (a form of in-house rebate) ?
- If there is a sizeable commission – in which tax jurisdiction is it payable ?
In an auction house sale the reported price is the 'hammer price' plus the buyer's commission. Without answers to the above, in a sale by private treaty, it's not possible to come to any definitive conclusion as to either the final net cost nor, as in this case, the plausibility of the reported sale. And I haven't yet touched upon the many possible corporate permutations that could give rise to a market distortion.
On a circumstantial basis there's even more reason to be sceptical:
- Notable that none of the major reputable news agencies deemed it worthy of reporting ...
- Unlike the other recent record sale of a Giacometti for $100 mill - [post] (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95855.msg783676#msg783676)
- Or any other number of questionable 'inconsistencies ' - [post] (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95855.msg783259#msg783259)
- A number of 'peer' rejections.
Finally there are 759 Lik works for sale on ArtBrokerage.com. Half (50%) are in the $2,000 - $10,000 range, 41 in the $25,000 - $36,000 range and 2 asking $40,000. All of them have OBO after the asking price (or-best-offer) – not a great indication of an indefatigable demand . It's a big leap from $40,000 to $6,500,000. In statistical terms it would be called an 'outlier' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier) - to put it politely.
Jealousy is an ugly thing.
Loosen-up and be glad there's this much interest, gossip, and potential $$ surrounding the sale of photographic images being seeded within the public's imagination ;D
You are, of course, free to think and believe what you wish.
I appreciate you granting me this freedom; it means a lot.
Jack
-
I doubt that it's fraud.
There are a lot of ways this could be a completely legal transaction and still not a fully "legitimate" sale of art to a collector. As I've stated in another thread, it could (for instance) be a planned cash infusion to the business from a silent partner, structured as an Art Sale to generate some publicity and prop up the secondary market (and, I suppose, the primary).
It's extremely unlikely to be a completely legitimate Art Sale from an Artist to a Collector. There are just too many strange pieces in the puzzle, well documented strange pieces.
Extremely unlikely isn't the same thing as certainty. You may doubt the doubters if you like, but it's redundant. Doubt has self-doubt built-in, otherwise it would be called certainty.
-
Also, my god, drop the "UR JUST JELUS" schtick. Are we all six years old?
-
... There are a lot of ways this could be a completely legal transaction and still not a fully "legitimate" sale of art to a collector. As I've stated in another thread, it could (for instance) be a planned cash infusion to the business from a silent partner, structured as an Art Sale to generate some publicity and prop up the secondary market (and, I suppose, the primary)...
I think it is time to remind us all of all the creative ways you can structure a deal (note, in particular, the American Capitalism way - sounds pretty much like Lik):
-
"Finally there are 759 Lik works for sale on ArtBrokerage.com. Half (50%) are in the $2,000 - $10,000 range, 41 in the $25,000 - $36,000 range and 2 asking $40,000. All of them have OBO after the asking price (or-best-offer) – not a great indication of an indefatigable demand . It's a big leap from $40,000 to $6,500,000. In statistical terms it would be called an 'outlier' - to put it politely."
This sums it up perfectly, Manoli. Why would anyone offer 6.5 million when the going rate for Lik's work is as posted above?
So the anonymous buyer pays 162X the most expensive works currently for sale.
Yeah... right. I've never heard of anyone offering over 100X the going rate for anything and requesting anonymity. Especially when the artist is still alive.
A friend went to one of the Lik galleries in LV last year... invited by her best friend to attend a Santana concert. They walked around and found themselves in the Lik Gallery. My friend's friend desperately wanted to buy one of the prints on display and asked what the price was?
She was told "We need to check with all of the other Lik Galleries as these are Limited Editions and the price goes up as the Edition nears it's end."
This woman would have paid the sun, moon and stars for the print as she is impulsive and loaded.
For over 1/2 hour they jerked her around, refusing to give her a price and driving her to the point of desperation.
My friend dragged her out... explaining "you're being had, sister. Stick around long enough and the price will be 100K!"
I find this sales "technique" highly suspicious... having visited several Lik Galleries and seen a similar sales technique employed.
Then again... I'm one of those types who doesn't think the world is flat. And it is a free world... so we're all free to think as we wish.
Just another conspiracy theorist... I guess.
-
"... It's a big leap from $40,000 to $6,500,000..."
Well, not exactly apples to apples. Lik already sold one image for one million, so that would be a more valid comparison for the "leap." How much that one million sale was a real one is another matter, however.
As for "prices going up toward the end of edition," that is a legitimate editioning technique, employed by many others. Whether it was used frivolously in your cited example is another matter again.
-
It would not matter if he shared his client list. What saddens about all this and I am not a nature photographer is all the great work that is done by guys who stay unknown but this guys work sells big because of his name. Liks work and yes I have some some in person is boring. In the fine art world it is not about the work all too often but who you know.
-
"but who you know."
I might also add "and how effective your sales technique is."
Whatever the case... it's good news for all photographers as it shows what a photograph's potential value can be.
Photography was supposed to experience a rebirth (in terms of sales) in the late 80’s after Van Gogh’s Irises sold to a collector for 53.9 million. The talk was that vintage paintings were becoming too expensive for all but the wealthiest… and this heralded a rebirth for other plastic arts such as Photography. Then came digital and the cell phone... and we've all seen a certain stagnation in photo sales.
Let's hope this sale heralds a shot in the arm for photo sales. That would be welcome by all of us.
-
It would not matter if he shared his client list. What saddens about all this and I am not a nature photographer is all the great work that is done by guys who stay unknown but this guys work sells big because of his name. Liks work and yes I have some some in person is boring. In the fine art world it is not about the work all too often but who you know.
I remember a fellow in a famous band (I think it was John Taylor of Duran-Duran) who said, of his talent as a musician, "I have decent talent, but I am certainly not the best base player out there. I see these amazing musicians in dive bars. Awesome talent. They can do things I never could to. But they don't know what a hit song is. They will never make it big. The members of our band were chosen as much for our looks and our hairstyles, as for our talent, and we know what the public wants to hear and see."
I think maybe this same passage might apply to some of you photographers who denounce Peter Lik.
Perhaps "his name" sells big, because he knows what a hit photo is.
While some of you may have talent, maybe it's the kind of talent that can only be appreciated by other photographers, not the public ???
Could it possibly be (as I originally posted above) that it's in the whole package, not just the photographic talent?
Maybe some of you are "amazing photographers," but are still in a dive bar because of the same reasons outlined in the above passage: you don't have a clue what a "hit song" is.
Be honest, even selling multiple single images in the $20,000-$40,000 range is great. How many of you do this?
Other record-breakers don't always make record-breaking sales; they just make one.
The fact Lik has sold other pieces in the top 10 means he's always a contender to do what he did.
So yes, I think it's jealousy. Plain and simple.
Jack
-
Peter Lik churns out fine examples of work of a kind any number of others churn out. His pictures are indistinguishable from many other photographers.
What he's done is he's gotten a little lucky, and he's done some fantastic work in building a business. Am I jealous? Not a bit. I could absolutely do what he's done. All is have to do is sell my soul and work 90 hour weeks for the next 30 years, and I too could be in charge of a business with many millions in revenue and probably quite modest profits - at best.
Good for him. Sure. He's a fine businessman. I know many of them. I know how to pay that game. And I have consciously chosen another path because I have seen the costs.
Seriously. Drop the jealousy line. It's insulting.
-
Peter Lik has won numerous competitions, several of which I've seen. Those competitions were supposed to be anonymous. Unless, of course, we also claim that he had the organizers in his pocket.
-
I could absolutely do what he's done.
Me too. Once I get finished with my best-selling novel and my professional football career.
Now, just time for a little nap ....
-
Peter Lik churns out fine examples of work of a kind any number of others churn out. His pictures are indistinguishable from many other photographers.
What he's done is he's gotten a little lucky, and he's done some fantastic work in building a business. Am I jealous? Not a bit. I could absolutely do what he's done. All is have to do is sell my soul and work 90 hour weeks for the next 30 years, and I too could be in charge of a business with many millions in revenue and probably quite modest profits - at best.
Good for him. Sure. He's a fine businessman. I know many of them. I know how to pay that game. And I have consciously chosen another path because I have seen the costs.
Seriously. Drop the jealousy line. It's insulting.
Drop the "I could absolutely do what he's done" thing.
It's embarrassing. Seriously.
And also drop the thing where you think you're in a position to tell me what to do. You're not there either.
-
All is have to do is sell my soul and work ...
I have consciously chosen another path because I have seen the costs.
That pretty much clears the air of everything, doesn't it?
Jack
-
The way that I look at it - there are 3 kinds of people in this world:
- some would pay 6.5M for the print under discussion
- some invest in all those fine offers we receive in Nigerian emails
- all the others
-
All I am claiming, Slobodan, is that Lik has a modicum of talent, and one hell of a work ethic. It's perfectly possible, don't you think, to win contests largely through hard work?
You get out there. You take a lot of photos. You pay attention. You pay attention to detail. You make the investment in great gear, in travel, in time, in printing. If one has a modest talent, and one works very hard, as Peter Lik has done, surely many people here could win competitions fair and square.
Whether it be Art or Decor, a common thread in success is hard work. Too many people think and say that talent is the key, and then they have an excuse. 'I'm just not as talented as Lik or Warhol or Cunningham. That's why I'm not a successful artist.'
Lik's success is 95% work, 4% talent, and 1% luck. Or something like that. And it's the same for many a successful artist.
Me? I don't want to work that hard. I feed my family for a great deal less effort in my current gig. Plus I get to take pictures for fun and I don't have to give a damn about marketability.
-
I don't know what Jack is on about but for non native English speakers:
'Sell my soul' in this context is an idiomatic expression meaning roughly to make a long term commitment to a task or role which is unpleasant, for money, profit, or survival.
-
Me? I don't want to work that hard.
Like I said, that clears the air of everything.
I feed my family for a great deal less effort in my current gig. Plus I get to take pictures for fun and I don't have to give a damn about marketability.
Rats feed their families, so what? Anyone can do that.
And anyone can take pictures for fun.
As I said in my opening post here, what Lik has accomplished takes technical skill + artistic vision + marketing genius (hard work constantly getting your stuff in front of "the right eyes" ...)
You're essentially saying the same thing I'm saying.
But instead admiring the man for the success wrought from his hard work, you're trying to put yourself on some sort of "higher moral ground" because you don't want to work as hard ...
You're also @$$uming you could achieve the same level of success, which is a knee-slapper really. Lots of people work hard who don't.
I don't know what Jack is on about but for non native English speakers:
'Sell my soul' in this context is an idiomatic expression meaning roughly to make a long term commitment to a task or role which is unpleasant, for money, profit, or survival.
The question isn't what I am on, the question is what are you on?
Have you ever considered the possibility that Lik loves his work, and works so hard for this reason as well?
There are worse ways to make a living than traveling the world, taking beautiful photos, and selling them for tens of thousands (and sometimes millions) of dollars.
Jack
-
Well it's nice that we agree. Not sure why you're being so acrimonious. Perhaps I am simply misreading though, this is the internet after all.
-
Well it's nice that we agree. Not sure why you're being so acrimonious. Perhaps I am simply misreading though, this is the internet after all.
I could swear I never even addressed you, originally, but that it was you who first became that way toward me.
A quick review of the progression of this thread ought to clear the air of that too.
Jack
-
Oh dear, are you interpreting my "drop the jealous thing" as a personal attack?
It was a generally directed remark, given the "you're just jealous" argument has appeared quite a bit on this site in one thread or another. I see, upon review, that you were the only person to use it in this thread prior to my remark, a fact I did not at the time note.
I might just as well take your "whiner" and "just jealous" remarks as a personal attack on me.
However, if you felt it a personal attack, which you are in hindsight justified in seeing it as, you have my apology. It was not intended as such, but I see that it could easily have been read as such.
-
Peter Lik has won numerous competitions, several of which I've seen. Those competitions were supposed to be anonymous. Unless, of course, we also claim that he had the organizers in his pocket.
Yeah - I do think the man has a bit of talent. If nothing else, he has a definite eye for clean, simple composition that is accessible and easy to enjoy. I realize this sounds like a backhanded compliment, but it's not at all - it's a skill that I both struggle with an admire greatly. He has it, and though their finished products couldn't be more different, Kenna has it too. The trick, which I think both of them have mastered, is knowing what to leave out.
Leaving all the controversial post-processig aside (the colors, the oversatration), his marketing/gallerist/retail consultants are also masterful at packaging an presenting the product.
Bottim line for me is that, regardless of his photographic talent, he's apparently built a viable *brand* around photography and art, and I think that is admirable. That said, I do think that this latest marketing stunt is a little wonky, because I just don't understand the valuation. Yes, there's the idea that something is worth whatever someone will pay for it, but even one-off Ferraris approved and built in house for special collectors sometimes don't go as high as this monochromed adaptation of a previous print. It's not that I think he's a fraud on the whole, it's that this specific transaction sends up a lot of flags for a variety of reason.
-
Selling photography involves both photography and selling.
-
So which should we respect more: diligence (work), or talent (an innate quality, based perhaps on one's genetics?)?
Should we celebrate the supermodel, or instead the super saleswoman? One owes success to having been born with a particular set of genes, while the other may have worked and sacrificed for a lifetime.
I've seen some really stunning shots produced by photographers just starting out. In galleries, I see huge prices on pieces that I don't like nearly as well. Which has "talent?"
Often, the photos I sell are not the ones I particularly prefer among my own work. Are they still "art?" I don't know.
-
Me too. Once I get finished with my best-selling novel and my professional football career.
Now, just time for a little nap ....
Hehe... So true... especially the nap part.
-
... Lik's success is 95% work, 4% talent, and 1% luck. Or something like that. And it's the same for many a successful artist...
Someone famous also said: "Success/creativity/genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration." Then there is this: "F/8 and be there." Then again: "80 percent of success is just showing up."
So, what are we ridiculing Peter Lik for? Lack of talent? Or "perspiration" (i.e., hard work)? Or for just showing up and being there? Or are we ridiculing success itself? And all that while we go to take a nap?
The only thing that I find questionable is the over-the-top selling/marketing techniques. Then again, who's to blame for that? The public that falls for it? Or the one who apparently just understands well what the public wants? Let's not forget that some of the most successful products in the history of mankind are quite idiotic in itself (imho, of course): gum that bubbles and bubbly sugared water; video games glorifying criminals and mass killings; etc., etc.
-
In Ansel Adams at 100 (https://books.google.com/books?id=95aUQAAACAAJ) John Szarkowski noted that the unknown Ansel Adams became the very well known photographer, producer of books of his work and educator and proselytizer for photography - thanks to his prodigious energy.
-
I'm not ridiculing Peter Lik for anything.
I think his work is rather thin, but so what? That is, if anything, by intention. You don't sell thousands of prints of moody concept art. So that's just an irrelevant opinion. I suspect that his marketing is a bit stunt-oriented, and I have heard 2nd or 3rd hard that his sales techniques are moderately obnoxious, and have no reason to doubt it.
He's obviously worked very hard to get where he is, and I certainly respect that. I wouldn't want any part of his life, but that is, once again, merely a personal opinion.
The only topic that seems of any import is whether there is any credibility to his high-dollar-amount private sales, and there doesn't seem to be anything to say even there except "well, it seems dubious".
-
I’ve stayed out of these discussions, not that I don’t have an opinion because I definitely do.
but just read more detail on the sale, and one thing that seems fishy to me is the “pricing” seems arbitrary. It seems a buyer purchased 3 Lik prints for a total of $10 million ... about 3.33 million per image. So the “value” and “price” of each individual print seems to be adjusted specifically about holding a record.
-
This whole situation fails to meet what we criminal lawyers refer to as the "air of reality" test.
-
I’ve stayed out of these discussions, not that I don’t have an opinion because I definitely do.
but just read more detail on the sale, and one thing that seems fishy to me is the “pricing” seems arbitrary. It seems a buyer purchased 3 Lik prints for a total of $10 million ... about 3.33 million per image. So the “value” and “price” of each individual print seems to be adjusted specifically about holding a record.
Very good point. Some more questions: why the need for high-end legal representation on both sides if this was just a straightforward purchase of three pieces of art from a well known dealer (who in this case is directly related to the "artist" so that provenance is unquestionable)? The purchaser supposedly wanted to remain anonymous. The law firms involved are legit and wouldn't likely allow themselves to be tied to misleading press releases claiming a bona fide transaction if that's not the case. On the other hand, it seems very very odd to me that a private purchaser represented by competent legal counsel and wanting to remain anonymous would have permitted ANY release of information about the terms of the sale. It simply makes no sense unless the plan is to stash the works in a vault in Switzerland or in a private bathroom. As soon as the work goes up in a house or an office, the world will find out and connect the dots because these are relatively unique versions of the works and the PR about the record-breaking sale would already be known to all. In short, competent legal counsel would have informed the purchaser that agreeing to a press release virtually guarantees a loss of anonymity. So why allow it? At the price paid, the purchaser was certainly in the deal-negotiating driver's seat and could have easily insisted on no PR. If the answer is that the purchase was purely an investment and, thus, release of the price was beneficial to the purchaser, then we're talking about a very different kind of transaction, the kind that ALWAYS involves consultants on valuations (and not just lawyers drawing up the documents). I don't run in those consultant/gallerist circles, but it seems highly implausible to me that ANY experts would advise a client on the need to pay that sum for Lik's work. As has been noted previously in the thread, his work has never sold for anywhere near that level in the SECONDARY/RESALE market. We're talking a factor of 10 here, so it's just unfathomable that this was done purely as an investment.
Hmmmmm...
-
So which should we respect more: diligence (work), or talent (an innate quality, based perhaps on one's genetics?)?
Should we celebrate the supermodel, or instead the super saleswoman? One owes success to having been born with a particular set of genes, while the other may have worked and sacrificed for a lifetime.
I think being able/willing to work hard enough to achieve success is a innate talent in itself. Success usually=specific skill+very hard work. So I respect both equally.
However hard work will never make you good at anything without something else to build on. I certainly do not believe in the 10,000 hour theory of genius that Gladwell likes to champion.
A mountain biker I know once said, if it was simply a matter of practice anyone could be as good as me. He's won the World Champion as a downhill racer, so rather good indeed. Also of note is that he had a reputation for being a party lad and some folk thought what he does was not even that athletic as 'gravity did all the work for him'. Behind the facade of party animal was someone who worked his arse off and took his fitness very, very seriously. Having done downhill racing myself I can vouch for how physically taxing it can be, 5 mins downhill can be tougher on you than 2 hours cross country as the ride is far more intense.
-
Very good point. Some more questions: why the need for high-end legal representation on both sides if this was just a straightforward purchase of three pieces of art from a well known dealer (who in this case is directly related to the "artist" so that provenance is unquestionable)? The purchaser supposedly wanted to remain anonymous. The law firms involved are legit and wouldn't likely allow themselves to be tied to misleading press releases claiming a bona fide transaction if that's not the case. On the other hand, it seems very very odd to me that a private purchaser represented by competent legal counsel and wanting to remain anonymous would have permitted ANY release of information about the terms of the sale. It simply makes no sense unless the plan is to stash the works in a vault in Switzerland or in a private bathroom. As soon as the work goes up in a house or an office, the world will find out and connect the dots because these are relatively unique versions of the works and the PR about the record-breaking sale would already be known to all. In short, competent legal counsel would have informed the purchaser that agreeing to a press release virtually guarantees a loss of anonymity. So why allow it? At the price paid, the purchaser was certainly in the deal-negotiating driver's seat and could have easily insisted on no PR. If the answer is that the purchase was purely an investment and, thus, release of the price was beneficial to the purchaser, then we're talking about a very different kind of transaction, the kind that ALWAYS involves consultants on valuations (and not just lawyers drawing up the documents). I don't run in those consultant/gallerist circles, but it seems highly implausible to me that ANY experts would advise a client on the need to pay that sum for Lik's work. As has been noted previously in the thread, his work has never sold for anywhere near that level in the SECONDARY/RESALE market. We're talking a factor of 10 here, so it's just unfathomable that this was done purely as an investment.
I know nothing about these circles at all, but I can see why the value of the purchase would be made public. If I were the photographer in question, I might even insist on that. It wouldn't bother me that the buyer(s) remain anonymous, for whatever reasons of their own. I gather that it's a common enough thing in the high-end art buying world, so nothing new about that. But there would be a tremendous advantage to the artist for the sale price to be made public, it would only do him/her good in the future (forum complaint threads notwithstanding).
-
I know nothing about these circles at all, but I can see why the value of the purchase would be made public. If I were the photographer in question, I might even insist on that. It wouldn't bother me that the buyer(s) remain anonymous, for whatever reasons of their own. I gather that it's a common enough thing in the high-end art buying world, so nothing new about that. But there would be a tremendous advantage to the artist for the sale price to be made public, it would only do him/her good in the future (forum complaint threads notwithstanding).
I doubt that I know much more than you do about private art sales of this magnitude, but this much I can assure you: disclosure of the terms of a private transaction is virtually always a negotiated element of the deal when lawyers are involved. Now let's put ourselves in the place of the purchaser here. He/she/it wishes to remain anonymous (that much is apparent from the press release). OK. How's the best way to ensure absolute anonymity of the transaction? No publicity! Period. What's the worst way to ensure absolute anonymity? A press release announcing that it's the largest price paid for a photograph ever - and by a large margin - and moreover it involves a controversial photographer whose work has never sold for anywhere near the price being paid. See what I mean? Everyone involved had to know that the press release would bring a lot of attention to the transaction...a lot! Now, from the seller's perspective that's great, but what's in it for the purchaser (who, remember wants to remain anonymous)? Why would the purchaser agree not only to specifics about the identity of the individual works involved but also exact amounts paid for each work? It's really quite unimaginable that Lik Galleries would have refused to sell the works at such an inflated value unless the purchaser agreed to the PR. No WAY does Lik refuse a $10 million transaction for three of his images simply because the purchaser wants to keep it quiet. Thus, the only explanation that makes any sense here is that the purchaser felt there was something of useful in the disclosure. Let's consider some options:
- The purchaser is a wealthy individual who likes to show his/her wealth - i.e., this was a "bragging rights" thing. But then why the need for anonymity? Why the need to purchase three works at inflated prices instead of just the one recordbreaker? Why the need to disclose the specifics instead of a generality about a record-breaking price paid? (As a side note, this scenario will result in the purchaser's identity becoming known sooner or later, just as is the case for most notable auctions of significant works of art. Word gets around, and any competent lawyer would have explained that risk to the client who agrees to this kind of disclosure in an otherwise private transaction.)
- The purchaser sees this as an investment and wants to set the market for Lik works to support the eventual resale of the works (or perhaps other Lik works already owned by the purchaser). Where I have trouble with this explanation is the magnitude of the price paid. An art investor willing to spend $10 million is going to consult with experts who know the market and the valuations supported by the market. Everything I've read about this transaction (including direct quotes from gallery owners and proclaimed experts in the art photo market) indicates that the price paid was grossly inflated if resale value was the motivation. Apparently, Lik's work just hasn't done very well in the secondary market, so this would have been an absolutely insane price to be paid for investment purposes, even for the shock value it might generate.
- Something else is going on to align the seller's and purchaser's interest in disclosing the deal. But what? The law firms involved are well enough known that they wouldn't want to risk association with a bogus insider transaction.
It's a mystery, but because of all of the red flags and anomalies from the norms of the market, I personally do not take the publicized valuation seriously.
-
Well, the buyer is still anonymous, in spite of all the publicity, isn't he? And if that ends, sooner or later, as you claim it inevitably does, the buyer might prefer later than sooner, no?
-
Lik sold a print for something like a million something like four years ago. Under pretty similar terms. I think that buyer (possibly the same one) remains anonymous.
-
Aloha,
Google; Peter Lik Bella Luna, view image.
Consider the source...
-
Not that Wikipedia is gospel or anything, but of all the 22 "most expensive" photographs ever sold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs), 4 are Peter Lik's, and all 4 are listed as "dubious" ... unlike anyone else's.
There were previous complaints that Lik's Phantom wasn't much of a photo, but really hardly of these record-holding photos are that technically difficult.
Quite frankly, the verified #2 is really nothing IMO.
Of those 27 photographs, only 7 and 9 really anything for me, though I enjoyed quite a few.
7 is truly haunting ... if you look at it up close in another view ... and of course the only photo ever of Billy the Kid has significant historical value.
But the rest, I honestly can't see it (except for maybe 3 and 4).
There are 5 other photographers who each got 2 of their images in there (Jeff Wall, Andreas Gursky, Cindy Sherman, Edward Weston, and Alfred Stieglitz) ... and, of these, I think Gursky's are undeserving, while Wall's and Sherman's really do stop you in your tracks.
Again, interesting how Peter Lik has 4 in there, and all are deemed "dubious" ... that's not a very good sign.
Jack
-
Wikipedia is big on verifiability. You can click the discuss link for details but I bet it's pretty much exactly what's been said on these forums.
-
Now, Jack, you'r just being jealous ;)
-
Nice that you’ve apologized to all of the doubters on this forum thread for your insults early on in the thread, Jack.
Do you need a reminder of what you wrote? Here’s a start:
On the first page of the thread, in post #4, you wrote:
“Every single whiner about his work is just a jealous "wish they were," point blank, plain and simple.
Every single whiner would be tickled to receive $6.5M for one of their photographs, $10M total for a set, plain and simple.
It doesn't matter if the sale was through self-promotion, marketing, as well as photography ... it sold for that price.”
“If any whiner's "opinion" can command more than $6.5M, then the reader should listen.
But if not, then the reader should "flush" that opinion down the pipes, to where it belongs.”
“I think it would be wiser for people to emulate "whatever it is" Peter Lik is doing than to criticize it.
Just my $0.02,”
Jack
Two posts later you wrote:
“However, I see no actual basis to believe the purchase itself was a hoax.
Rather, the idea smacks more of whiners "thinking out loud" for "some way" to bring down a guy who causes their necks to stiffen when they look up at his achievements ...
So, unless proven otherwise, I take the "he bought it himself" idea as just another angle on a whine.”
Jack
Seven posts later you write:
“Jealousy is an ugly thing.”
Jack
On page two of the same thread you wrote:
“The fact Lik has sold other pieces in the top 10 means he's always a contender to do what he did.
So yes, I think it's jealousy. Plain and simple.”
Jack
A few posts later, still on page two:
“But instead admiring the man for the success wrought from his hard work, you're trying to put yourself on some sort of "higher moral ground" because you don't want to work as hard …”
“Rats feed their families, so what? Anyone can do that.
And anyone can take pictures for fun.
As I said in my opening post here, what Lik has accomplished takes technical skill + artistic vision + marketing genius (hard work constantly getting your stuff in front of "the right eyes" …)”
“But instead admiring the man for the success wrought from his hard work, you're trying to put yourself on some sort of "higher moral ground" because you don't want to work as hard …”
“I could swear I never even addressed you, originally, but that it was you who first became that way toward me.
A quick review of the progression of this thread ought to clear the air of that too.”
Jack
Welcome to the whiners, Jack! Nice of you to come to your senses.
Do you think an apology to those you insulted on this thread for coming to your senses a full week after heaping insults on those who felt as you do now might be in order?
"Point blank, plain and simple."
-
This sort of dredging up of past sins is rarely helpful. I do it a bit myself, which lessens me. I try to stick to addressing direct attacks, when I'm getting snarly.
A guy can change his mind. This is an internet forum, not the politburo. We can let afford to let things go.
-
I am sure Jack is going to explain it better than me, but I do not see any contradiction in what he wrote now and then, nor the reason to apologize. In the earlier post he wrote about Lik's success side, in the latest one about artistic side. Even in the first post Jack said if true, false sale is not cool.
-
...This is an internet forum, not the politburo...
Amen, brother!
Besides, Jack is one of the few members that I recall being able to cede a point in a gentlemanly fashion. This is not to say that he is in this case, as I happen to agree with him 100% that a lot of comments about Lik stem from simple jealousy and whining. Again, this is not to say that there are no (or should't be) negative comments about Lik that seem well reasoned and justified.
-
I fully agree with you, Andrew. Anyone can change their mind. That's not the issue.
The anonymity of forums allows some to hurl insults whenever their sense of self righteousness is offended. I just cited John's posts as examples.
Many of his earlier forum posts are replete with insults to Bernard, Trevarthan, powerslave 12r, jjj, Torbjorn, yourself and others... whenever they express an opinion that is contrary to his own. This goes to the issue of decorum: "behavior in keeping with good taste and propriety."
There's no need to insult someone you disagree with on a public forum. That is the point of my last post.
I fail to see any relationship with your term "politburo"... unless you feel that accountability is pedestrian.
And for someone who often asks for "evidence"... I simply quoted his own words to preempt any request for examples.
Lawrence
-
... Many of his earlier forum posts are replete with insults...
Whether they are seen as "insults" or simply rhetorical tools depends on the thickness of your ego's shield (or is it thinness?).
-
I love your sense of humor, Slobodan!
-
Nice that you’ve apologized to all of the doubters on this forum thread for your insults early on in the thread, Jack.
I never apologized to anyone, actually.
Nor will I.
I'm pretty sure I simply said, "Interesting," in my last post.
(Glad you got all that off your chest though.)
My last post did reveal I am more sympathetic to the doubters now, but the sum and substance of my previous debate was with Amolitor's vituperations about "skill" (not credibility). The idea that technical skill is what sells photos, and that "anyone" can sell high $$ prints if (in his words) they "sell their soul" ...
This was the laughable jackassery with which I took issue.
As can be seen by my posting a link to all the high $$ photos historically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs), Amolitor's hooplah over Lik's skill being mediocre really is laughable, since most of these top $$$ shots are not technically-difficult in the least either.
Some are "artsy," and some are evocative, but none of the top $$ images is really technically-difficult. So what do I own an apology for?
Because, as far as the argument for true value goes, for the money spent, only the image of Billy The Kid was historically-significant (and possibly Wall's war/death image), which means (for investment purposes) most of the images do not actually justify the expenditure.
I remain staunch in my position that all the drama surrounding Lik is good for photographers, because it draws the public's imagination toward high $$ images. As I also clearly said, "Even Lik selling multiple single images in the $20,000-$40,000 range is great. How many of you do this? Other record-breakers don't always make record-breaking sales either."
In the end, I don't know the truth about who bought Lik's work (nor why), nor do any of you.
But even with all the doubt, two things I said remain true: (1) the highest-$$ images in history have almost nothing to do with "technical skill," at all. (2) These images either have to do with some kind of artsy "vision" that was evocative to someone with money, or capturing a graphic moment that resonated with someone with money, or (in only one case) it was an historically-significant photo (the only known image of Billy The Kid.)
High $$ photography is not about "technical skill"; it's about capturing someone's imagination ... or by being being somewhere to capture a great moment.
So yall can pretty much sit down. The "skill" issue can be put to bed.
In fact, go re-read everything I said with my statement giving the musician's quote: there are many "extremely talented" musicians who don't know what a hit song is. Being able to create hit songs is not about technical skill either; it's about being able to capture "something" (some beat/rhythm) that the public wants to buy.
The same principle translates to photography.
Gursky, Sherman, and Stieglitz were not geniuses "technically," but artistically.
And I am pretty sure they also put the work in to make sure they were at the right place at the right time.
Jack
-
While Peter Lik is a very talented photographer who produces beautiful images, he is a non-entity in the art world. Prices of this magnitude are paid for collectibility much more often than for actual aesthetics of the item itself. Where the item is an easily replicable digital print, from a photographer without any established resale history at serious art auctions, collectibility is almost nil.
Moreover, ask yourself this: would Lik have sold that print for $2 Million? Or $3 million? ..... all to double or treble his previous "high sale"? Damn right he would have. So why would a buyer offer three or four times MORE than that gratuitously. None of this has a shred of credibility or reality to it. To a mental walk-through on this:
"Nice print Peter. Give you a $1m for it."
"No, it's $6.5m".
"Hmm. It would look great in my living room, but $1.5m's the highest I can go."
"Now you're just insulting me, mate. I said $6.5m. If you want bargain art, we have some Adams prints in the back."
"Well, ok, since my sixth wife also really likes it, I'll go $2m for you, Peter. But that's the limit."
"Piss off."
"I have my lawyer on the phone ready to initiate a wire to your account in the Channel Islands."
"No, sod off you cheap cunt."
Not to say truly stupid rich people, ignorant of virtually every principle applicable to the realm in which they are operating, don't exist. Just saying that the odds of M. Lik finding two of them seems statistically improbable.
Just sayin'.
- N.
-
LOL, that was pretty funny.
-
Whether they are seen as "insults" or simply rhetorical tools depends on the thickness of your ego's shield (or is it thinness?).
lol
-
This sort of dredging up of past sins is rarely helpful. I do it a bit myself, which lessens me. I try to stick to addressing direct attacks, when I'm getting snarly.
A guy can change his mind. This is an internet forum, not the politburo. We can let afford to let things go.
I am sure Jack is going to explain it better than me, but I do not see any contradiction in what he wrote now and then, nor the reason to apologize. In the earlier post he wrote about Lik's success side, in the latest one about artistic side. Even in the first post Jack said if true, false sale is not cool.
In all seriousness, this is true. I wasn't even (originally) discussing the issue of credibility with respect to his sale.
I was discussing the expressed anger over his "slight" talent. (Even Amolitor said, "I doubt that it's fraud," on page 1.)
Now, of course, if you really want to put the artist Peter Lik under a microscope, he is a walking, talking marketing ploy.
First of all, his name: Peter Lik. Really? ???
Most people would shoot their parents for giving them such a name, or would select something different if re-naming themselves.
Second, if you go to Lik's website, he has more images of himself, than of his work.
He is pretty clearly a walking, talking egomaniac.
But hey ego sells. Self-promotion sells. "Selfies" are everywhere on FB.
Peter Lik has a name most men would never want to have, he promotes himself as much as he possibly can, and he pulls off "sale stunts" all with with the same goal in mind, which is to get the entire world talking about him, thinking about him, and looking at his photography.
And that is exactly what the world is doing. They're not doing it about you, or about me, but about him.
So, yes, I do think there is a lot of jealousy, and I can also see there is room for rightful derision, but at the end of the day, the guy is accomplishing what he is obviously trying to accomplish, publicity ... so you have to give him credit for that.
But, if you can scroll through all the images of himself, he does have a lot of gorgeous images to his credit too.
Jack
-
It's a shame that you've chosen to completely mischaracterize what I said, John. Just as a for instance, I never seem to have used the word "skill" in this thread at all, not once.
I said that I could duplicate, roughly, Lik's business. And it is mostly a business problem, not a photography problem. I don't want to. There is no aspect of the process which appeals to me.
I've sold. I've built businesses. I didn't, and don't, enjoy either. What Lik has done is work like fury and build a business. Lots of people have done that. I've done that. There's no magic. It's a lot of work and some mostly learnable processes.
The photography is minor. I'd spend perhaps a year on developing a marketable look and format up front, before moving on to the spadework. If I wanted to go that route, which I don't.
-
Also, Gursky's work is monumentally difficult to execute. Not that difficulty has anything to do with anything. Not that I ever brought up difficulty as an issue.
I can't speak to the others.
-
... I said that I could duplicate, roughly, Lik's business... I don't want to. .. I'd spend perhaps a year on developing a marketable look and format up front, before moving on to the spadework. If I wanted to go that route, which I don't.
Hmmm... how about coaching me, instead?
-
Hmm? Sure.
Pick something that you can print large, that's pretty. Stick to narrow color palettes, in complementary colors. Purple/blue + Orange/Yellow, and so on. Read it off your favorite color wheel.
I'd probably work on flowers, I'm pretty good with flowers. Think Georgia O'Keefe, but maybe not quite as close in. I'd have to experiment a little. I'm thinking selective color might be a decent gimmick. Or selectively saturate areas. I'd spend a few months simply developing technique, since you're going to want to print it BIG. There's some technical solutions to be developed here. Shoot sheet film? Digital MF? Get a D810 and stitch? I dunno. It's a thing to be figured out.
Flowers are nice because you save a ton of money on travel expenses.
Then you focus group a few photos, which just costs money, before you settle on a final look. Maybe 6-8 months in you've got a general look sorted out.
Then you grind out a portfolio of as many of those as you can.
Then you open a very small gallery in the best location you can afford. Pay attention, take notes. What sells? What are people looking at? In your copious free time, build out the portfolio (I did mention you'd be working 90 hour weeks, right?) At this point it's just business. Buy a couple books. Hire some people.
At this point my skin is crawling at the very idea. There is literally nothing in the above text that has the remotest appeal to me. I'd rather work at day labor.
-
I wonder how he arrives at the price tag...
For example, if you were selling a print and you were prepared to do a run of 1000 prints for something that costs $6500, it wouldn't be a stretch to say to someone that if they wanted to own the only copy it would cost them $6,500,000.
-
I remain staunch in my position that all the drama surrounding Lik is good for photographers, because it draws the public's imagination toward high $$ images. As I also clearly said, "Even Lik selling multiple single images in the $20,000-$40,000 range is great. How many of you do this? Other record-breakers don't always make record-breaking sales either."
My girlfriend would be very, very, very, very pleased if I was selling my photos at those prices. ;D
High $$ photography is not about "technical skill"; it's about capturing someone's imagination ... or by being being somewhere to capture a great moment.
In fact, go re-read everything I said with my statement giving the musician's quote: there are many "extremely talented" musicians who don't know what a hit song is. Being able to create hit songs is not about technical skill either; it's about being able to capture "something" (some beat/rhythm) that the public wants to buy.
The same principle translates to photography.
Gursky, Sherman, and Stieglitz were not geniuses "technically," but artistically.
A pet peeve of mine in any creative medium is people thinking being technically good at something is better than being creatively good at something. Technique is something anyone can learn and is nothing special, vision however is something you either have or do not have. Most do not have it, no matter how many course they go on to learn how to be a great photographer/painter..etc.
Also in my experience, those who tend to obsess of technical aspects tends to produce work that is aesthetically lacking. BTW I'm certainly not saying good artists are technically incompetent, usually they are very skilled there too. But they are happier to do whatever looks nice over what is 'correct'. You normally have to learn the rules to know how to break or rewrite them.
-
God! Please, can we just move along and let this topic die. It ain't worth the pissing wars going on over the internet. ::)
-
But it's so FUN to watch, gape-mouthed, as various angry people attempt to 'win' arguments with me by pretending I said crazy things which I did not say!
It's as if this was twitter or something.
-
While Peter Lik is a very talented photographer who produces beautiful images, he is a non-entity in the art world. Prices of this magnitude are paid for collectibility much more often than for actual aesthetics of the item itself. Where the item is an easily replicable digital print, from a photographer without any established resale history at serious art auctions, collectibility is almost nil.
Moreover, ask yourself this: would Lik have sold that print for $2 Million? Or $3 million? ..... all to double or treble his previous "high sale"? Damn right he would have. So why would a buyer offer three or four times MORE than that gratuitously. None of this has a shred of credibility or reality to it. To a mental walk-through on this:
"Nice print Peter. Give you a $1m for it."
"No, it's $6.5m".
"Hmm. It would look great in my living room, but $1.5m's the highest I can go."
"Now you're just insulting me, mate. I said $6.5m. If you want bargain art, we have some Adams prints in the back."
"Well, ok, since my sixth wife also really likes it, I'll go $2m for you, Peter. But that's the limit."
"Piss off."
"I have my lawyer on the phone ready to initiate a wire to your account in the Channel Islands."
"No, sod off you cheap cunt."
Not to say truly stupid rich people, ignorant of virtually every principle applicable to the realm in which they are operating, don't exist. Just saying that the odds of M. Lik finding two of them seems statistically improbable.
Just sayin'.
- N.
I raised some questions earlier in this thread based on the limited factual information available to us via the press release. I questioned then why the purchaser (wanting to remain anonymous) would agree to a press release and my reasoning was very much along the same lines as your "conversation" above. Perhaps it provides no insight into the (in)credibility of the claimed price paid, but I still wonder about the motive of any "anonymous" purchaser who agrees to PR that will obviously put at risk (at least to some tangible degree) the purchaser's anonymity. Since then I've looked up some information about the purchaser's lawyer. What's interesting is that he concentrates his practice in art law and representation of artists and patrons. He's also a serious (albeit young) collector of contemporary LA art and comes from a family of well known museum and art patrons. The guy is obviously tapped into the art scene and, as a collector himself, surely knows his way around the funny stuff associated with valuations of works of art. So, in the spirit of your humorous hypothetical conversation between Lik and the purchaser, let's continue with the phone call from the purchaser to his lawyer the next day:
"Hi Josh, I'd like you to represent me on a substantial purchase of three photos by Peter Lik."
"Mr X., I'm glad you called because I remember hearing about Lik Galleries being the subject of a number of consumer complaints, and the secondary market for his work is notoriously poor. I seem to recall there was a claimed sale of one of his works for a million or so that raised a number of eyebrows. So, how much are we talking?"
"Well, the whole deal is $10 million and the one I really want is priced at $6.5 million. I tried to get the price down, but Peter drives a hard bargain. I really was up against the wall on this one."
[Long pause]
"Ummm...wow...Mr. X. That's a lot for a couple of photos. You do realize that $6.5 million is well above the highest amount ever paid at auction for a photograph, right? Have you had any expert appraisals done? Can I direct you to a few art investment advisors I trust?"
"Well, these are each unique works. For instance the really expensive one is a one-of-a-kind print. Well, I mean sort of. There are a bunch of the same print at smaller sizes but they're all in color. This one is in black and white! So it's special, you know? Like, really unique. I mean the fact that the color versions are selling for about 1/100th of the asking price is irrelevant, right? How would an appraiser be able to give me a good valuation for such a one-of-a-kind work?"
"Trust me, they can do it."
"Well, my wife thinks the photos will look awesome in our Malibu beach house and I really like the works too. Besides, with the right press release, the publicity will be so great that there will be a feeding frenzy for Peter's work, and they'll surely appreciate in value as a result. By the way, that's where you come into the equation. I want to remain anonymous, but I need you to put your professional credibility on the line by attesting to the legitimacy of the sale. I know that the prior Lik record-breaking sale was questioned by many, so I figure if I have my mouthpiece...eerrr, I mean, 'my lawyer'...listed in the press release nobody will be able to question the legitimacy of the transaction. Smart thinking, right?"
"Ummm, yeah, I suppose so. Considering my stature as a savvy young art collector of contemporary art, putting my personal credibility on the line with no ability to actually say anything of substance about the bona fides of the deal won't be an embarrassment for me. I'm sure that nobody in the art world will make fun of me for getting involved in what will be widely derided as a sham. It'll actually be a great chance for me to advance my career as a valued advisor to art purchasers, I'm sure, so I'm happy to help out. Now, let's discuss details..."