Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Manoli on December 10, 2014, 12:55:25 am
-
This is What a 6.5 Million Dollar Photograph Looks Like (https://fstoppers.com/landscapes/what-65-million-dollar-photograph-looks-49113?utm_source=FS_RSS&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=Main_RSS)..
-
A 50,000 sq foot production facility in Las Vegas, 250 permanent employees, a top-secret printing process ...
Becoming an Art Consultant for Peter Lik is lifting yourself to a higher kind of sales. This isn’t soulless “churn and burn” or high-pressure retailing to get one sale. This is selling incomparably beautiful images that enhance the lives of many people at our 14 galleries worldwide, all of them in high-traffic, ultra-high-end, luxury locations. This is about building artful relationships, creating collectors for life.
At Lik, you really are a Consultant, helping people discover the art that’s perfect for them. Our focused training will make you a friendly expert for our gallery visitors, even if you’re a newcomer to the world of art and photography yourself.
What we do want are sales professionals comfortable in marketing luxury products and services. If you have a passion for art, all the better - but what we are really looking for are people who want to be a part of something fun, great, and historic. Oh, and who also want to learn our way of selling for a true chance at a six-figure income.
Self-promotion video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMgg1SVy6zc)
One of the most important artists of the 21st century ..
The world's most influential fine art photographer ..
Am I just being overly cynical or does this have the whiff of 'Bernie Madoff' undertones ?
-
The guy is IN BUSINESS to sell his photographs(can they really be called that with all the PS after-effects done?) More like graphic arts to me, than photography.
Anywho, his business is to GENERATE business. People buying $6.5 million dollar prints probably aren't even sneezing at the fact they're doing so. Who knows, maybe it'll be adorning the northern wall of some rich guy's loo. Perhaps it'll inspire "peaceful movements" ;D!
-
Umm... A marketing genius.
I went to his website and saw a lot of overworked, over saturated mediocre images. Maybe I'm the dummy though. He's making photography pay, and pay well, which puts him in a very small club.
-
He's a terrific promoter with great shots. I saw his store in Honolulu when I vacationed there a month ago. First class presentation. No. I didn't buy anything.
-
A 50,000 sq foot production facility in Las Vegas, 250 permanent employees, a top-secret printing process ...
One of the most important artists of the 21st century ..
The world's most influential fine art photographer ..
Am I just being overly cynical or does this have the whiff of 'Bernie Madoff' undertones ?
No, but that would be the "true chance at a 9-figure income...."
;)
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Worth watching a couple of these...
https://www.youtube.com/user/peterlikphotography/videos
-
Good for him.
And sales-speak nearly always sounds pretentious.
-
Good for him.
-
Sour grapes, whiners! ;)
-
Well done!
Smart redistribution of assets. Some of that money will support the camera and printing industry.
-
I don't see how he's a Bernie Madoff.
His pictures are real and belong to him, I'm sure, so there's no cheating.
How much they're worth is really the business of the person paying for them.
If he is able to concvince people to pay millions for his photographs, then good for him.
I'm, pretty sure he's not conning retirees out of their pensions, and that those that pay these numbers are looking to throw that money away on anything.
If you're playing a big money game, you got to pucker up and spread some industrial grade BS.
In this case I see nothing wrong with anything he does.
His photographs are fine - not very exciting for me, so I won't buy them.
-
What I don't understand... is what Andreas Gursky has to do with any of the above..., or the O/P? ...can you explain Manoli?
-
What I don't understand... is what Andreas Gursky has to do with any of the above..., or the O/P? ...can you explain Manoli?
He held the previous record for the highest sold photograph, around $4 million, if I remember correctly.
-
He held the previous record for the highest sold photograph, around $4 million, if I remember correctly.
Yeah... but, what is the relation to the conversation? ....the money? ...is that it?
-
Yeah... but, what is the relation to the conversation? ....the money? ...is that it?
The title of the thread means, in a humorous way: "AG, you are not the highest paid photographer anymore, get lost!" So, yes it is about the money, and the fact that photographs are (finally) reaching selling levels previously reserved only for oil paintings. Then again, it is a moving target, as oil paintings have gone into hundreds of millions.
-
At least it's better than the shitshow Gursky managed to con someone out of 4.3 million for.
-
The (already updated) top 6 of most expensive photographs:
http://shutyouraperture.com/the-top-5-most-expensive-photographs-ever-sold/
-
At least it's better than the shitshow Gursky managed to con someone out of 4.3 million for.
Easy, Sandeep, some of us quite like Gursky :)
References to Bernie Madoff and cons are quite misplaced here. The only con would be if the piece of art is a forgery, anything else is a free exchange between the artist and the buyer, both knowing perfectly well what they are getting into.
-
The title of the thread means, in a humorous way: "AG, you are not the highest paid photographer anymore, get lost!" So, yes it is about the money, and the fact that photographs are (finally) reaching selling levels previously reserved only for oil paintings. Then again, it is a moving target, as oil paintings have gone into hundreds of millions.
OTOH, there can't be a comparison... the paintings reaching that kind of values are paintings of the past that change hands to next owners... The photo-graphs under subject are sold to first owners.... None knows the resale values of them after 10 or 50 years or ...two centuries! Or knows if the photographers mentioned here will be among the art investors choices or not... My opinion is that photo-graphy is not yet established as an art... and this is closely related with both "photographers" and the public, to have a "wrong mind" on "what photography is" or what they call "images"....
-
It's not clear to me who's getting the money.
Gursky's work is selling for millions but on the secondary market. Ditto Sherman. Is Lik (Or Lik Incorporated) seeing this money? It sort of sounds like it.
-
Well... there's one thing for sure (which I happen to know well due to occupation)... Art collectors don't choose their investments according to their likes (at least they don't choose their most valuable investments with that criteria - they may only have some cheaper ones that they buy because they like them)... Usually, buying art by a collector, is a process that involves many people (consultants, advisors, art marketeers etc ...& the collectors) and is based on pre-judgment on what will be valuable in the future... So, it works more like a stock market and it involves comparable (financial) risks to stock markets... There are very expensive investments, which are of much higher values because they are considered as timeless "safe investments" (but they provide less percentage of profit - but minimum risk) and then there are "aggressive investments" (of much lower values, like the photo-graphs mentioned here) that the criteria behind them, is of huge profit, but with the risk of failure (of the investment to provide profit) highly involved...
-
Well, I think it varies. Sure, it's a pile of money, and so there's usually some notion of investment and some consultation with the Money Guys.
But in the first place Fine Art is a horrible investment anyways. Selling a piece at all is pretty tricky in a couple of ways, and even if you can, making money on the transaction isn't all that likely. The gallerists of course talk it up, but they're full of crap.
Just wait, in 10 years the Shermans and Gurskys and Liks will be going for 6 figures, or even 5, instead of 7 as the current fad for extremely expensive photographs is replaced by something else.
-
Well, I think it varies. Sure, it's a pile of money, and so there's usually some notion of investment and some consultation with the Money Guys.
But in the first place Fine Art is a horrible investment anyways. Selling a piece at all is pretty tricky in a couple of ways, and even if you can, making money on the transaction isn't all that likely. The gallerists of course talk it up, but they're full of crap.
Just wait, in 10 years the Shermans and Gurskys and Liks will be going for 6 figures, or even 5, instead of 7 as the current fad for extremely expensive photographs is replaced by something else.
I haven't understand why it won't be 8 or 4 figures in ten years.... where is the evidence or the reasoning behind them being 6 or 5 or 7 figures?
Also... I haven't understand why ALL Shermans, Gurskys and Liks will be undervalued and will all be of the same future...? Are they all of the same value or are they all "just photos"...? ...I'm afraid your post is full of "thin air"... Have you seen a photo-graph of Gursky or Sherman or Lik ever? ...(I mean a ...photo-graph)! I believe that most that post here haven't....
-
Not sure if this adds to the discussion but the comments are fun to read.
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless#comments
R
-
Not sure if this adds to the discussion but the comments are fun to read.
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless#comments
R
Imagine the author writing this when Adams or Bresson or Kappa where around... :D IMO the "author" is a pure web troll... not different to those that post their "opinions" or "images" to ...wherever in web! ???
-
One needs to read the press release (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/legendary-photographer-peter-lik-shatters-world-record-with-65-million-sale-of-phantom-300006716.html). Sometimes it's not what they say but rather what they don't say.
Secondly, a quick wikipedia search brings up this list of most expensive photographs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs).
Of the top twenty, only one has this qualification: 'Anonymous collector. This purported sale was a private sale and not verifiable. All other sales on this list are public auction records' – yup, no prizes for guessing which sale they're referring to. And to further cast a modicum of doubt, the only sources listed are PMA Newsline, Peta Pixel, PR Newswire and Art Daily.
Taking three random recognized artists Gursky, Crewdson and Sugimoto (irrespective of one's personal opinion) and doing a quick google search < artist sotheby's> brought an immediate (first) hit for each one :
gursky (http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/2013/contemporary-art-evening-auction-l13024.html#&i=0) lot 7, sold,
crewdson (http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2013/may-2013-contemporary-day-n08992/lot.592.html), lot sold, #1 from an edition of 6 plus 2 artists proofs
sugimoto (http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2013/photographies-pf1320/lot.99.html), lot sold, #8 / from an edition of 6
Compare the above to Lik's 'New Release' posting on his website (screenshot below) – an edition of 950 limited and 45 artist proofs.
So today, out of the blue, PR Newswire release the news that, not one, but three works have been sold, for a total of $10,000,000 and in one 'coup' gives Peter Lik not only top spot, but a total of 4 entries in the top twenty. Again there is no identifiable buyer, no confirmation of any kind that its an arms length transaction and the only guys who are 'speaking' are the attorneys. There's no verifiable track record, just a whisper of a 'top-secret' printing process - ( of course one that guys like Jeff Schewe and Mark D Segal are blissfully ignorant of) – and an avalanche of self publicity.
Now, hypothetically speaking, if I was a cynical b'stard (which of course I'm not), given only the details above, I might be excused for suspecting that this could possibly be what, in stock market jargon, is sometimes referred to as 'pumping the market' and 'front-running'. It attracts attention, artificially raises the perceived value of Lik existing art, and starts a buying circle which feeds on itself – an upward spiral.
But being a trusting soul, I've no reason to doubt that it's all true. It's just that if one of his works were to be sold at a free-market auction ( Sotheby's or Christie's) much like Gursky et al we'd have a far more representative and verifiable reference point as to exactly where Peter Lik stands in the pantheon of modern day artists.
-
Beyond money or value competition, I would be very much interested on your own reasoning as to why (the reasoning behind it) Lik is in the Pantheon...
P.S. I don't say that he isn't... I just want some reasoning behind the post (which may be taken as an insult to Gursky)... as otherwise, it stands as a "bold argument" IMO... I mean, I want your art experience and superior knowledge with the reasoning behind it to support the O/P... In fact, I demand it...!
-
I haven't understand why it won't be 8 or 4 figures in ten years.... where is the evidence or the reasoning behind them being 6 or 5 or 7 figures?
Um. What? evidence regarding future events is notoriously hard to obtain, and reasoning is thus: more high-priced art drops in value over time than increases in value. That's an assertion, which you can look and and attempt to find evidence for, or against. If you like.
Also... I haven't understand why ALL Shermans, Gurskys and Liks will be undervalued and will all be of the same future...? Are they all of the same value or are they all "just photos"...? ...I'm afraid your post is full of "thin air"... Have you seen a photo-graph of Gursky or Sherman or Lik ever? ...(I mean a ...photo-graph)! I believe that most that post here haven't....
Huh? I don't understand any of this very well.
In general, prices follow the artist more than the piece, so if one gursky sells for less, this tends to devalue the other gurskys. It's probably not universal. What does this have to do with anything?
What's this about "photo-graph" as opposed to "photograph"? I don't follow, and I don't see what having seen either has to do with anything.
-
Um. What? evidence regarding future events is notoriously hard to obtain, and reasoning is thus: more high-priced art drops in value over time than increases in value. That's an assertion, which you can look and and attempt to find evidence for, or against. If you like.
Huh? I don't understand any of this very well.
In general, prices follow the artist more than the piece, so if one gursky sells for less, this tends to devalue the other gurskys. It's probably not universal. What does this have to do with anything?
What's this about "photo-graph" as opposed to "photograph"? I don't follow, and I don't see what having seen either has to do with anything.
Oh no... not again! ...money isn't resoning, I'm looking for reasoning to support OPINION as ARTISTIC value... One selling more expensive, doesn't make him better... that's common logic! ...it makes him successful, but reasoning is (self) CRITERIA (about art - photography in consequence)... not money!
-
What's this about "photo-graph" as opposed to "photograph"? I don't follow, and I don't see what having seen either has to do with anything.
Yes... that's obvious to me (that you (or others) don't understand the difference)... a photo-graph is the artists visualisation printed in a PHOTO-GRAPH... a "print" is the outcome of "photographers"... that have treated their images to AN outcome without ever have visualised it...
-
Oooookay then.
-
I just want some reasoning behind the post (which may be taken as an insult to Gursky)... In fact, I demand it...!
Dear Theodore,
ηρέμησε !
The title of the thread is 'facetious', it's treating a serious issue with deliberately inappropriate humour . It's not at all a reflection on Gursky - anything but - its a gentle ridicule of both the title of the press release and the front page of Lik's website.
Recognised artist(s), usurped in the money stakes by a relatively unknown (Lik) with an, as yet, unverifiable track record.
-
Any photo competition judge would tell you that the problem with this photograph is the central placement of the Phantom.
If Lik adhered to the rule of thirds and mixed in a little bit of color to the dust, that piece could be easily worth twice as much. I wonder if he used Olympus or Panasonic.
-
I saw Peter Lik's gallery in New York a few years back and my jaw dropped to the floor. Beautiful presentation of images - both framing and interior design. Probably the highest quality photographic art I've seen, taken as a package. I'm not necessarily talking about the images, which I happen to like, just the whole deal if I was a customer. He's giving people something that is actually really special so it doesn't surprise me that he's selling one off pieces at 7 figures.
All credit to him for being successful. It takes extraordinary energy, commitment, focus and vision to create any business on that scale, let alone a creative business. Personally, I'd like to emulate his success rather than complain!
-
Dear Theodore,
ηρέμησε !
The title of the thread is 'facetious', it's treating a serious issue with deliberately inappropriate humour . It's not at all a reflection on Gursky - anything but - its a gentle ridicule of the implication that , prima facie, is a consequence of the alleged record sale.
Recognised artist(s), usurped in the money stakes by a relatively unknown (Lik) with an, as yet, unverifiable track record.
ηρεμησε=be calm! ....an advise? ...Μανωλακη will you "advise me"? ...Thanks buddy, I don't see where you've ever spotted my temper going high... It's simple reasoning that you have been asked for... the same that you fail to provide talking about money all the time! It's your bold post... not mine! ...I'm only defending photo-graphy and photo-graphers here... not capital!
-
I saw Peter Lik's gallery in New York a few years back and my jaw dropped to the floor. Beautiful presentation of images - both framing and interior design. Probably the highest quality photographic art I've seen, taken as a package. I'm not necessarily talking about the images, which I happen to like, just the whole deal if I was a customer. He's giving people something that is actually really special so it doesn't surprise me that he's selling one off pieces at 7 figures.
All credit to him for being successful. It takes extraordinary energy, commitment, focus and vision to create any business on that scale, let alone a creative business. Personally, I'd like to emulate his success rather than complain!
Sure... but that doesn't mean one has to ridicule other photo-graphers based on ....money!
-
This is life. It is the sum of hard work and, at a certain level, chance.
This chance can reach all of you, guys (but chance like to be ignited some times = hard work, drugs...).
-
Theodore,
In this context the correct translation is 'calm down' and it has nothing to do with your 'temper going high' but rather an appeal to not get over-excited.
When a press release starts with the title
< Legendary Photographer Peter Lik Shatters World Record With $6.5 Million Sale Of "Phantom"
Award-Winning Photographer Now Holds Four of the Top 20 Most Expensive Photographs Ever Sold>
It brings money into the equation. Not only money for money's sake but it also infers a yardstick by which the art market values his artwork. It has zero to do with ridiculing anybody and everything to do with questioning the validity of the implication.
-
Theodore,
In this context the correct translation is 'calm down' and it has nothing to do with your 'temper going high' but rather an appeal to not get over-excited.
When a press release starts with the title
< Legendary Photographer Peter Lik Shatters World Record With $6.5 Million Sale Of "Phantom"
Award-Winning Photographer Now Holds Four of the Top 20 Most Expensive Photographs Ever Sold>
It brings money into the equation. Not only money for money's sake but it also infers a yardstick by which the art market values his artwork. It has zero to do with ridiculing anybody and everything to do with questioning the validity of the implication.
It has been answered... (back on No.24)... If I may remind/repeat...
"Well... there's one thing for sure (which I happen to know well due to occupation)... Art collectors don't choose their investments according to their likes (at least they don't choose their most valuable investments with that criteria - they may only have some cheaper ones that they buy because they like them)... Usually, buying art by a collector, is a process that involves many people (consultants, advisors, art marketeers etc ...& the collectors) and is based on pre-judgment on what will be valuable in the future... So, it works more like a stock market and it involves comparable (financial) risks to stock markets... There are very expensive investments, which are of much higher values because they are considered as timeless "safe investments" (but they provide less percentage of profit - but minimum risk) and then there are "aggressive investments" (of much lower values, like the photo-graphs mentioned here) that the criteria behind them, is of huge profit, but with the risk of failure (of the investment to provide profit) highly involved..."
-
It is a good image, infinitely more evocative (to me) than the slightly less expensive snapshot of Gursky. Lik's gallery in the desert (http://www.parrikar.com/blog/2014/04/13/gallery-in-the-desert/) is quite a sight, especially during the twilight hour.
-
Legend. 8)
This is what photography needs in a time when big business like Getty's is doing everything they can to make photography worthless...
-
One needs to read the press release (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/legendary-photographer-peter-lik-shatters-world-record-with-65-million-sale-of-phantom-300006716.html). Sometimes it's not what they say but rather what they don't say.
Secondly, a quick wikipedia search brings up this list of most expensive photographs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs).
Of the top twenty, only one has this qualification: 'Anonymous collector. This purported sale was a private sale and not verifiable. All other sales on this list are public auction records' – yup, no prizes for guessing which sale they're referring to. And to further cast a modicum of doubt, the only sources listed are PMA Newsline, Peta Pixel, PR Newswire and Art Daily.
Taking three random recognized artists Gursky, Crewdson and Sugimoto (irrespective of one's personal opinion) and doing a quick google search < artist sotheby's> brought an immediate (first) hit for each one :
gursky (http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/2013/contemporary-art-evening-auction-l13024.html#&i=0) lot 7, sold,
crewdson (http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2013/may-2013-contemporary-day-n08992/lot.592.html), lot sold, #1 from an edition of 6 plus 2 artists proofs
sugimoto (http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2013/photographies-pf1320/lot.99.html), lot sold, #8 / from an edition of 6
Compare the above to Lik's 'New Release' posting on his website (screenshot below) – an edition of 950 limited and 45 artist proofs.
So today, out of the blue, PR Newswire release the news that, not one, but three works have been sold, for a total of $10,000,000 and in one 'coup' gives Peter Lik not only top spot, but a total of 4 entries in the top twenty. Again there is no identifiable buyer, no confirmation of any kind that its an arms length transaction and the only guys who are 'speaking' are the attorneys. There's no verifiable track record, just a whisper of a 'top-secret' printing process - ( of course one that guys like Jeff Schewe and Mark D Segal are blissfully ignorant of) – and an avalanche of self publicity.
Now, hypothetically speaking, if I was a cynical b'stard (which of course I'm not), given only the details above, I might be excused for suspecting that this could possibly be what, in stock market jargon, is sometimes referred to as 'pumping the market' and 'front-running'. It attracts attention, artificially raises the perceived value of Lik existing art, and starts a buying circle which feeds on itself – an upward spiral.
But being a trusting soul, I've no reason to doubt that it's all true. It's just that if one of his works were to be sold at a free-market auction ( Sotheby's or Christie's) much like Gursky et al we'd have a far more representative and verifiable reference point as to exactly where Peter Lik stands in the pantheon of modern day artists.
I take back what I said before.
If in fact like you suggest he is cheating and misreporting transactions, I don't see that as legitimate.
The press release is nausiating for sure, but the real question is whether the facts quoted are true or not.
-
I saw his store in Honolulu and he obviously knows how to market. All his stores around the world are beautiful and expensive. Does he generate the sales to cover the cost?
So, I wonder whether this was just an investor with him trying to get him more notoriety and raising the stakes for his work that he will sell in the future- all at higher prices of course. Now everyone will know of him and collectors will be willing to pay a lot more than they have had in the past. Reminds me of three card Monte or the shell game on a NYC street where the shill lures in the unsuspecting marks by winning some games and making it seem so easy.
-
This is great news for all of us, in particular for stitchers. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
People will pay what they want to pay. I think the image technically well executed, but nauseatingly cliche. Then again, I happen to admire Gursky's work. Each to their own, eh?
-
It's HOLLYWOOD.....what else can we expect ? He does have some great images in his collection but most of them are way over the top for my tastes. I've just sold one of my images to a private investor for $10 million dollars. How can anyone prove otherwise ?
Pete
-
"Legend.
This is what photography needs in a time when big business like Getty's is doing everything they can to make photography worthless..."
+1
-
+2
He does have some great images in his collection but most of them are way over the top for my tastes.
Maybe, but the impact of seeing them in large size in his gallery, exquisitely lit is quite different from seeing the miniscule pictures on a computer screen. And of course, the finishing plays a role, too.
We are, indeed, talking about apples and oranges. Well, maybe more like tiny crabapples and large pumpkins.
-
Modern CGI software makes the evanescant central figure in Lik's work easy to fabricate. Particle systems.
The idea that the sale is also a fabrication is Nothing if not thought provoking.
-
Peter Lik seems to be a good photographer. His work is visually interesting and technically well done. He created a body of work even before digital tools became mainstream and helped in creating stunning, professional outcome. Are the images too saturated? It is a taste thing and it looks like that he is sucessful with his recipe. Very sucessful indeed. Would I put him alongside with Gursky or Cindy Sherman? Not really. The difference I see is that Gursky and Sherman opened new doors for photography. They experimented in directions that were not defined by mainstream taste. But over time mainstream adapted to their styles and embraced them. Peter Lik is not opening new doors for photography as an artform. He goes for mainstream taste and perfectly creates a highend product around it. He goes to places that have been well explored and are well liked and takes images that in their form have been taken before. But he adds a bit to make them more spiritual and more perfectly executed. They appeal to a mainstream assumption that an object being photographed needs to be beautiful. Nothing wrong about that. Most of us do this. Only a small percentage of us actually open new doors, territories for photography, as Sherman, Gursky, Shore, Adams, or Bresson did. Lik is smart by bypassing the art business and using his own galleries to create an outlet. It makes him independent from the stricter art market that may not give him the outlet for his work. So how can he sell at higher prices as Gursky, etc? Because it is very possible that a rich collector actually likes his work. They are indeed beautiful prints and many people are willing to pay for beauty. The buyer is from Las Vegas, so is Lik. So there may be a connection. As someone mentionded here before, only time will tell if the price was driven by art market demand or if this was a marketing stunt. Everything is possible. If Lik wants to be seen as a credible artist, he may have to expose himself to the art market. Otherwise he will be seen as a photography version of Thomas Kinkade. But he may not need that. He is sucessful and that is admirable. I would like to have my own galleries. Pulling that off and getting top sells on the work is a great accomplishment for any photographer. But we should not mistake $ for impact in the arts. Congrats to Peter for his success and his inspiration to other photographers. I personally don't align with his style but that does not let me dismiss his approach and success.
-
+2
Maybe, but the impact of seeing them in large size in his gallery, exquisitely lit is quite different from seeing the miniscule pictures on a computer screen. And of course, the finishing plays a role, too.
We are, indeed, talking about apples and oranges. Well, maybe more like tiny crabapples and large pumpkins.
Maybe yea.
My mother started photography around one year ago. If she find a good banker she might be able to get rich ?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/100374867%40N08/
Because, despite the fact she's my mother, objectively, and despite the fact she push a bit cursors in light room, I find her work more beautiful than a load of "so called" Landscape photographers.
-
Oooookay then.
That was the perfect response. Gave me a real LOL moment, thanks!
Ray
-
Maybe yea.
My mother started photography around one year ago. If she find a good banker she might be able to get rich ?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/100374867%40N08/
Because, despite the fact she's my mother, objectively, and despite the fact she push a bit cursors in light room, I find her work more beautiful than a load of "so called" Landscape photographers.
I agree, that's a lovely body of work - my compliments to your mother.
Personally, I'd take out the cats, though. And not just the photos of the cats. The cats themselves, too.
Ray
-
Peter Lik seems to be a good photographer. His work is visually interesting and technically well done. He created a body of work even before digital tools became mainstream and helped in creating stunning, professional outcome. Are the images too saturated? It is a taste thing and it looks like that he is sucessful with his recipe. Very sucessful indeed. Would I put him alongside with Gursky or Cindy Sherman? Not really. The difference I see is that Gursky and Sherman opened new doors for photography. They experimented in directions that were not defined by mainstream taste. But over time mainstream adapted to their styles and embraced them. Peter Lik is not opening new doors for photography as an artform. He goes for mainstream taste and perfectly creates a highend product around it. He goes to places that have been well explored and are well liked and takes images that in their form have been taken before. But he adds a bit to make them more spiritual and more perfectly executed. They appeal to a mainstream assumption that an object being photographed needs to be beautiful. Nothing wrong about that. Most of us do this. Only a small percentage of us actually open new doors, territories for photography, as Sherman, Gursky, Shore, Adams, or Bresson did. Lik is smart by bypassing the art business and using his own galleries to create an outlet. It makes him independent from the stricter art market that may not give him the outlet for his work. So how can he sell at higher prices as Gursky, etc? Because it is very possible that a rich collector actually likes his work. They are indeed beautiful prints and many people are willing to pay for beauty. The buyer is from Las Vegas, so is Lik. So there may be a connection. As someone mentionded here before, only time will tell if the price was driven by art market demand or if this was a marketing stunt. Everything is possible. If Lik wants to be seen as a credible artist, he may have to expose himself to the art market. Otherwise he will be seen as a photography version of Thomas Kinkade. But he may not need that. He is sucessful and that is admirable. I would like to have my own galleries. Pulling that off and getting top sells on the work is a great accomplishment for any photographer. But we should not mistake $ for impact in the arts. Congrats to Peter for his success and his inspiration to other photographers. I personally don't align with his style but that does not let me dismiss his approach and success.
IMO, This is a "perfect post"... I don't know how many will read it... or how many will understand it... BUT, for one to "dig" into the matter he must first have the codes of what photo-graphy is, or art is... In other words, one must reference on matters that he fully understands how they work and to refer on things (art in this case) within the matter's case, after he makes sure to the recipient that he knows what he is talking about.... Unfortunately, we all live in a world, where "everybody" has an "opinion".... despite his knowledge on the fundamentals of what art is... or his knowledge on what photo-graphy is as a consequence.... Thanks for the post Dirk.
-
Peter Lik is a "Fine Art" photographer, which means that he makes expensive large format decor. I am informed that the work is really stunning, up close and personal.
It's fine decor, there's nothing wrong with it. LuLa is arguably the strongest proponent of this sort of thing on the internet, and, hey, here we are.
But he's not a serious artist at all. His work is purely decor, and you can tell by looking at it. Not every piece, but most of them, have two dominant colors, or narrow palettes. These are photographs that are designed to go in to rooms that are designed by designers. This are pieces meant to go with the couch.
Is this a scam designed to break Lik into the ranks of the Artists? Is it a scam simply designed to increase the value of all his work on the secondary market? Is it a fully legit transaction? I have no idea. It's certainly not going to make Lik a Serious Artist, though, since the man simply has nothing to say. It almost certainly will increase the value of his work on the secondary market (right now it looks a great deal like his work's value drops quite a lot the moment you take delivery).
-
... This are pieces meant to go with the couch.
Most art is meant to go with the couch. So?
-
I just sold a Fine Art photograph to a private collector (myself) for $20,000,000.
Of course, I haven't been able to collect payment yet... :-[
-
So? So nothing.
"It's fine decor, there's nothing wrong with it."
I'm simply making statements about what Peter Lik's work is, and what it is not. Are you objecting to my characterizations?
-
The world and his wife are pointing their cameras at the great outdoors and describing the resulting images as "Fine Art". It's called marketing.
This is actually what "Fine Art" means in photography. It means expensive decor. It's standard usage.
If you want photographs with messages, or whatever, that's called.. I don't know. Perhaps just "Art"?
-
I am simple pointing out, Andrew, that most art was meant initially as decor, to enrich walls of rich patrons. No one ordered initially "fine art," just a portrait of themselves, or their wives or daughters, or a religious or natural scene to decorate their homes or churches. The "fine art" characterization comes hundreds years later, by art critics and such. So you are evaluating today's apples with tomorrow's oranges.
-
... If you want photographs with messages, or whatever, that's called.. I don't know...
My high school literature professor told us that novel with a message is not art, but propaganda ;)
-
Let me guess, you're American?
We're all Americans, these days!
But seriously, insofar as the Internet is International, try a google search on "Fine Art Photography" and see what pops up.
-
I am simple pointing out, Andrew, that most art was meant initially as decor, to enrich walls of rich patrons. No one ordered initially "fine art," just a portrait of themselves, or their wives or daughters, or a religious or natural scene to decorate their homes or churches. The "fine art" characterization comes hundreds years later, by art critics and such. So you are evaluating today's apples with tomorrow's oranges.
You know, I hope, that I have nothing but love for you, Slobodan. But I think I am evaluating today's apples with today's standards!
You're perfectly correct about historical usages (although before THAT "art" was message-rich being as much a story-telling medium as anything -- things evolve). But in today's climate, the multi-million-dollar artwork is generally decorative only by accident, or at any rate really only "goes with" somewhat unusual decor. The multi-million-dollars is, by today's standards, paying for a piece that says something about something.
-
My high school literature professor told us that novel with a message is not art, but propaganda ;)
Art is not a mirror, but a hammer!
(someone said this, or something like it, but it is variously attributed. Bertolt Brecht? Leon Trotsky? Karl Marx?)
-
Peter Lik is a "Fine Art" photographer, which means that he makes expensive large format decor. I am informed that the work is really stunning, up close and personal.
It's fine decor, there's nothing wrong with it. LuLa is arguably the strongest proponent of this sort of thing on the internet, and, hey, here we are.
But he's not a serious artist at all. His work is purely decor, and you can tell by looking at it. Not every piece, but most of them, have two dominant colors, or narrow palettes. These are photographs that are designed to go in to rooms that are designed by designers. This are pieces meant to go with the couch.
Is this a scam designed to break Lik into the ranks of the Artists? Is it a scam simply designed to increase the value of all his work on the secondary market? Is it a fully legit transaction? I have no idea. It's certainly not going to make Lik a Serious Artist, though, since the man simply has nothing to say. It almost certainly will increase the value of his work on the secondary market (right now it looks a great deal like his work's value drops quite a lot the moment you take delivery).
There are two completely different answers to your post... 1.Those that accept the term "art distorted" that you posted (but haven't provide evidence based on codes for it - "using only two colours" isn't evidence or criteria) and that would agree (or disagree if they receive different info from his work that has the opposite than yours appreciation to them)... and 2. Those that base their criteria of judgment on others, because they are unable to approach the meaning of art (or it's a minor matter in their existence (to them) that doesn't worth bothering with...)
...In both cases, I don't see Lik "surviving" out of this thread... (simply because the first category will be split in two (based on unsupported) "opinion", while the second is "irrelevant to the subject"), that is unless... you develop the first of the above with ....real art criteria! (as to why (in which I happen to agree) "he's not a serious artist at all" as you state in your post... "Just my 2 Cs"...
It's "Supporting Why? makes a case"... Cases can't be "bold"! ..."I like", or "money", or "the majority likes", or "he does against my taste" (without explaining why you would like more (or less) than two colours) may be a reasoning, but is still a "bold" reasoning!
-
Believe me, we're not.
The usual shit?
Internet searches are widely considered a good way to estimate current usage of a phrase. All I am claiming is that "Fine Art Photography" as a phrase in common usage means a certain thing. The google search on the same phrase produces strong evidence of that usage as being dominant.
Your wishes and your usage of the phrase are not at issue. What I claimed, and continue to claim, is that in common usage the phrase means something.
-
I am simple pointing out, Andrew, that most art was meant initially as decor, to enrich walls of rich patrons. No one ordered initially "fine art," just a portrait of themselves, or their wives or daughters, or a religious or natural scene to decorate their homes or churches. The "fine art" characterization comes hundreds years later, by art critics and such. So you are evaluating today's apples with tomorrow's oranges.
Now, none can't deny that's true... Art is appreciated later... by people that have the criteria on it and are able to enforce their knowledge to the rest...
-
... I think I am evaluating today's apples with today's standards!...
Ok, maybe I (or we) confused the metaphors or extended them too much, but I meant to say that we do not know what tomorrow's oranges will be. Or in other words, what critics decades away from "today's standards" will consider art or kitsch.
-
Art is not a mirror, but a hammer!
(someone said this, or something like it, but it is variously attributed. Bertolt Brecht? Leon Trotsky? Karl Marx?)
I think you missed a part from the quote:
"Art is not a mirror, but a hammer and sickle!"
Sounds more like Trotsky, no? ;)
-
My high school literature professor told us that novel with a message is not art, but propaganda ;)
IMO, you didn't have the best of "literature profs"... Art can't be without a message, it's exactly the importance of the message and the coding of it that makes art great, or minor, or non-existent... and it's the ability of one to de-code the message that makes art so important... Propaganda is completely different, it doesn't code things or matters... It TELLS you... it's a "one way process..." Art is a two way process, coding from the creator and de-coding from the recipient...
-
I think you missed a part from the quote:
"Art is not a mirror, but a hammer and sickle!"
Sounds more like Trotsky, no? ;)
I think Marx implement it... (But called trivial art "people's opium" - correctly IMO - it applies just the same today with Lady Gaga or other "GA-ga" (donkey's voice sound...)), Trotsky said it (a claim on Frida's work?) and Brecht expanded into Trotsky's consideration for the importance of it for having "worthwhile" people that think "open minded" among society, for the society's progress...
P.S. "People's opium" might be the correct words for this thread and the "reasoning" behind some posts... :'(
-
The Marx quote is "Religion is the opium of the masses"
He did... (on his book "The capital") ...but also referred to (trivial) art as having the same impact as religion (and being used as a media to control masses the same) in his reference to art... Notice that in my post I say "implement"....
-
If I found a Lik on the street, I'm gonna keep it.
If I found a Gursky on the street, I'm gonna sell it.
If I found an Ansel on the street, I'm gonna worship it.
Take it any way you will.
-
If I find IKEA stocks on the street... I'm gonna keep them...
If I find some Da Vinci, or Michelangelo, or Renoir... I'll keep them, have them copied ...and sell you guys the copies!
...I've watched 2nd part of Mr. Ripley too...
-
I would say that anyone who is capable of putting food on the table for 250 families through his photography deserves a bit more respect, art or not.
-
If I found a Lik on the street I'd return it to Ikea.
Funny, when I saw Rhein II, my first reaction was that it just belongs in a cheap IKEA frame.
-
I would say that anyone who is capable of putting food on the table for 250 families through his photography deserves a bit more respect, art or not.
But what if his photography is not photography... but business? ...Does it then applies the same? Is then anybody (that is a "business man" able to put food on the table for 250 families - which he doesn't - Al Capone included) a "deserve respect" person? ....What about those that can provide food for ...2500 families or 25000 families after they are dead? (and do provide it) ...Do they deserve less respect? ...Surely it's more complicated than that with art... it's more complicated than counting things with ...(todays) money for sure.
-
Funny, when I saw Rhein II, my first reaction was that it just belongs in a cheap IKEA frame.
When (and where) did you ever see Rhein II?
-
When (and where) did you ever see Rhein II?
On the Internet, just like most other mortals.
I don't care how big he blows it up, it's a boring snapshot that sold so high because of who shot it. Put it up on Flickr under some nobody's name and no one would give it a second look.
-
On the Internet, just like most other mortals.
I don't care how big he blows it up, it's a boring snapshot that sold so high because of who shot it. Put it up on Flickr under some nobody's name and no one would give it a second look.
OOOH... it's the internet picture that have costed the money... I see... LOL :P
-
Speak English please. You type words, but they don't make a lot of sense when read together.
-
Speak English please. You type words, but they don't make a lot of sense when read together.
I know... LOL...
-
But did he use a Phase One digital back? Because if he used the Pentax 645Z instead, it's only worth $3 million AT BEST...
-
Put it up on Flickr under some nobody's name and no one would give it a second look.
Unfortunately that can be said for almost all pictures on Flickr that do not have a sexy thumbnail, this one probably being one of the best know examples:
http://petapixel.com/2011/07/13/why-you-shouldnt-give-too-much-weight-to-anonymous-online-critics/
-
Rhein Ii is a boring image when you see it on the internet. Some would say that it is boring even in a gallery. The thing is that the river Rhein is boring in many places. It mostly runs in an artificial bed with just some grass around it. Most photographers would have been tempted to wait for sunset or sunrise. Or they would have put a boat, tree, or a biker into it, or just some blue sky with dreamy clouds. Or they would have added some angles to make it look more dramatic than it is. It feels like a boring snapshot because it is a perfect representation of the river without any added photography fluff. Would it have gotton many likes on Flickr? Probably not. I grew up in that area and when I first saw the print it pulled me right into it. It is like being there. For that the size matters. While the river is not asthetically great, it has a presence through size. Gursky didn't try to make things better than they are, a very typical approach in photography. He focused on creating the most reduced portrait of that river. What he did is technically difficult, not just from a printing perspective but from a capturing perspective. It it easy to stitch a few shots together to get that angle but to capture the detail of the waves and grass is impressive. Try it. Yes, someone would get more Likes by adding saturated colors and a bridge. People like that. But that has been done millions times before and won't get anybody anywhere in the art world anymore. Too often we follow images that we have seen before. Ask people to take a photo of Route 66 and most likely you will get a romantic image with some old cars, not what it actually looks like. It is like following a default. Stephen Shore changed that in the 70s and he has influenced people like Gursky. Gursky has created his very own contemporary approach and that made him super sucessful. I would highly recommend to see photography and any Art in its original form. Even Ansel Adams original photos look different than in the books or on posters.
-
Are you kidding? Lik's work is exactly the sort of trite overwrought thing that does brilliantly on flickr.
Assuming you've done the spadework of following a few thousand people, to build up a few thousand followers, and joined/posted to a giant collection of groups to get the exposure you want.
It's easy, pretty, unchallenging stuff which can be judged purely on how pretty it is and how technically excellent it is. It would do very very well on flickr, and all the other photo sharing social network thingies.
-
But did he use a Phase One digital back? Because if he used the Pentax 645Z instead, it's only worth $3 million AT BEST...
I would say less... the Phase One is 4 times as expensive, so the resulting picture must be 4 times as good and expensive as well, right...?
-
Speak English please. You type words, but they don't make a lot of sense when read together.
:D strange fact is that you never said that to me before.
I'm not king of photographers but I'm king of strange English sentences.
-
Rhein Ii is a boring image when you see it on the internet. Some would say that it is boring even in a gallery. The thing is that the river Rhein is boring in many places. It mostly runs in an artificial bed with just some grass around it. Most photographers would have been tempted to wait for sunset or sunrise. Or they would have put a boat, tree, or a biker into it, or just some blue sky with dreamy clouds. Or they would have added some angles to make it look more dramatic than it is. It feels like a boring snapshot because it is a perfect representation of the river without any added photography fluff. Would it have gotton many likes on Flickr? Probably not. I grew up in that area and when I first saw the print it pulled me right into it. It is like being there. For that the size matters. While the river is not asthetically great, it has a presence through size. Gursky didn't try to make things better than they are, a very typical approach in photography. He focused on creating the most reduced portrait of that river. What he did is technically difficult, not just from a printing perspective but from a capturing perspective. It it easy to stitch a few shots together to get that angle but to capture the detail of the waves and grass is impressive. Try it. Yes, someone would get more Likes by adding saturated colors and a bridge. People like that. But that has been done millions times before and won't get anybody anywhere in the art world anymore. Too often we follow images that we have seen before. Ask people to take a photo of Route 66 and most likely you will get a romantic image with some old cars, not what it actually looks like. It is like following a default. Stephen Shore changed that in the 70s and he has influenced people like Gursky. Gursky has created his very own contemporary approach and that made him super sucessful. I would highly recommend to see photography and any Art in its original form. Even Ansel Adams original photos look different than in the books or on posters.
To all surprise I bothered to read ALL this... yes I did!
Never the less my opinion of Gursky's A-MAZ-ING image of the Rhein... has nothing to do with the Rhein... or how the Rhein is presented, or its environment or its power, or what the waters is... or the reality...
IMO it's an AMAZING shot that works in three dimentionality like NO OTHER ever... (not even of Adam's other AMAZING shot of the moon clocking in between rocks as an oscillator), that origins it's DEPTH and three dimentionality (using lighting for its amazing depth) from ancient Greek philosophy of mathematics and balance to an extent that "stupid watchers" of snaps can't realise or have a relation with... It's pure Genius of balance... It challenges philosophy by its presence, It DEMANDS its presence (and admittance - influence) in the environmental balance of existence or simple presence and that makes it THE BEST PHOTO ever taken... as simple as that! ...and of course none gives a dime of what ignorants on codes of art or "photographers" of BS think... as simple as that (said once more)!
-
But what if his photography is not photography... but business? ...Does it then applies the same? Is then anybody (that is a "business man" able to put food on the table for 250 families - which he doesn't - Al Capone included) a "deserve respect" person? ....What about those that can provide food for ...2500 families or 25000 families after they are dead? (and do provide it) ...Do they deserve less respect? ...Surely it's more complicated than that with art... it's more complicated than counting things with ...(todays) money for sure.
Well, that was quite... silly, to put it politely. I specifically added "with his photography" to avoid that kind of smart-ass comment you made, involving Al Capone (seriously!?), or any other business or criminal enterprise. The rest of your questions are simply non sequitur , i.e., conclusions that do not follow from what I said.
You seem to have a rather narrow and very personal interpretation of what photography and art is or isn't. That is fine if it works for you, but I tend to disagree. I also understand that you are not going to change your opinion because because of anything I might say on the subject. And vice versa.
I consider Peter Lik a fine art photographer, just as I consider myself so. Not because I think he or I are such great Artists (with a capital A), but simply because the way I use the term "fine art." For me, it is simply a way to distinguish it from, say, wedding photography, or sports photography, or fashion, product, commercial, etc., when someone asks what I do. I consider myself (and him) to be simply photographers, not Artists, though I think we both have some basic artistic tendencies and inclinations.
-
Well, that was quite... silly, to put it politely. I specifically added "with his photography" to avoid that kind of smart-ass comment you made, involving Al Capone (seriously!?), or any other business or criminal enterprise. The rest of your questions are simply non sequitur , i.e., conclusions that do not follow from what I said.
You seem to have a rather narrow and very personal interpretation of what photography and art is or isn't. That is fine if it works for you, but I tend to disagree. I also understand that you are not going to change your opinion because because of anything I might say on the subject. And vice versa.
I consider Peter Lik a fine art photographer, just as I consider myself so. Not because I think he or I are such great Artists (with a capital A), but simply because the way I use the term "fine art." For me, it is simply a way to distinguish it from, say, wedding photography, or sports photography, or fashion, product, commercial, etc., when someone asks what I do. I consider myself (and him) to be simply photographers, not Artists, though I think we both have some basic artistic tendencies and inclinations.
Let's hear on your (supported with reasoning) explanation of what art is then... I made mine clear (and fully supported) on my last post... Let me "bring it up once more"...
"Never the less my opinion of Gursky's A-MAZ-ING image of the Rhein... has nothing to do with the Rhein... or how the Rhein is presented, or its environment or its power, or what the waters is... or the reality...
IMO it's an AMAZING shot that works in three dimentionality like NO OTHER ever... (not even of Adam's other AMAZING shot of the moon clocking in between rocks as an oscillator), that origins it's DEPTH and three dimentionality (using lighting for its amazing depth) from ancient Greek philosophy of mathematics and balance to an extent that "stupid watchers" of snaps can't realise or have a relation with... It's pure Genius of balance... It challenges philosophy by its presence, It DEMANDS its presence (and admittance - influence) in the environmental balance of existence or simple presence and that makes it THE BEST PHOTO ever taken... as simple as that! ...and of course none gives a dime of what ignorants on codes of art or "photographers" of BS think... as simple as that (said once more)!"
But I won't take anymore "bold statements" of art that are based on "I like..." (without reasoning) or "this is technical" (without explaining what "right" technicality would be) or other nonsense... Reasoning only exists if one can support it... otherwise it's all "blah-blah" talking of thin air... It's like Erik non ever answering the simple question "is a test of other applicant to other"? ...that you supported Erik's side by saying nothing... as you do above...
To the subject please... on specifics, with (supported and explained) reasoning behind it... Please refer to your codes of what art means to you in other words... but speak about codes... not "I like" stuff.. otherwise I'll use my 87's year old aunt's logic to back up reasoning... (it will make it sound Babel... but she insists it's logic to an extend that none ...logical... will bother to argue anymore).
-
I'm not king of photographers but I'm king of strange English sentences.
I've never had any trouble understanding what you write, because (a) you organize your thoughts well before committing them to text, and (b) you do write in normal sentences, with a minimum of sub-clauses and tangents to keep track of. Once those basics are there, a few slips (in grammar, spelling, or the precise meaning of words) don't really matter.
Theodoros, on the other hand...I do try, but my concentration collapses after the 13th clause in the same sentence. :(
Ray
-
I would say less... the Phase One is 4 times as expensive, so the resulting picture must be 4 times as good and expensive as well, right...?
Ah yes, you're right! Should be a little over $1.5 million with the Pentax, $6.5 million if shot with the Phase One. My bad.
-
Let's hear on your (supported with reasoning) explanation of what art is then...
There are subjects worth debating on the Internet. "What is art" is not one of them, at least not for me, not with you, not now, and not related to the OP issue.
-
You are right Theodoro that there is a lot of Blabla in the art world. Mostly done by art dealers and critics, less by artists themselves. Explaining what Art is is going nowhere. Art is anything that anybody declares to be Art. Like anybody can declare him or herself to be an artist, or fine artist. So there is a lot of stuff out there that people say is Art. Then there is the Art Business. In some cases it works like a self fulfilling prophecy. A famous gallerist selects something and says it is influencial and because the famous gallery selected it it actually becomes influencial. You get yourself into one of the well known galleries and the prophecy may start to fulfill itself. But here and there you have people who try very new things and they actually influence a lot of other people in their craft. Besides being known for his mass event photography, Gursky is known for his large scale prints, which were unknown at the time he started those. Suddenly photo art was at the same scale as large paintings in museums. It changed people's perception of photography. Actually Gursky wouldn't decribe his work as photography. Most pieces are time consuming collages created out of photos, showing a scenario that in that form never existed. So is Rhein Ii the most amazing photo ever, or Peter Lik's work? No, of course not. Not even Gursky would claim that. ( not sure about Lik so). The price is just a reflection of an investment potential. It is an investment, like a house. While personal taste may be one factor, the hope for some return in the long run is important. And most investors believe that Gursky's work will still be relevant in a few years. Is the most expensive house the best house ever. Probably not. Most people wouldn't even like it. Is it worth the bricks and wood being used to build it? No. There are other criteria that would determin the price. For houses it is location and size. For Artwork it is reputation, influence of the craft, amount of pieces available, promise of future work and interest in the artist. And size as well. Larger prints get higher prices. It is all a mix of talent, marketing, and lots of talk. Gursky leaves the last two to his dealers. He doesn't run a website or talks about his work. Lik does that through his own channels. They are both sucessful in their ways at their individual levels. Don't like that, do it your way.
-
... For Artwork it is reputation, influence of the craft, amount of pieces available, promise of future work and interest in the artist. And size as well. Larger prints get higher prices. It is all a mix of talent, marketing, and lots of talk.
Gursky's grandfather was a photographer and his father is still one. Gursky first studied at the Folkwang School in Essen, then from 1981 to 1987 at the Academy of Art in Düsseldorf. He was a master-class student of Bernd Becher and started his career as one of Becher’s shooting stars like Thomas Struth, Candida Höfer and Thomas Ruff.
Gursky has not only photographed Prada, but also fashion shows, basket weavers in Vietnam, Formula One racing, the Tokyo stock exchange and the Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong, along with huge concerts and a spectacular political rally in North Korea. He has even used satellite images for his Ocean series. He succeeds at mass depictions such as have not hitherto been seen. Work, sport, politics – he shrinks from no subject.
He has a track record - both commercial and artistic. Lik has neither.
His claim to a proprietary and top-secret new printing technology borders on the preposterous. His website offer to both educate and accommodate newcomers into his his world of 'ultra-high-end fine art' sales is nothing more than a thinly disguised ad for commission-based 'runners'. His LasVegas factory, 250 employees, 14 galleries are financed how - from sales? I doubt it.
His balance sheets and IRS returns would make for interesting reading.
Until the world sees a verifiable, arms length transaction there will, at the very least, always be 'a doubt' . What is equally surprising, given the current climate, is that so far not one single copy of the several thousand works of art, that must have presumably been sold to date, has appeared in an auction house for sale. Surely there must be ONE punter who, dazzled by the figures being thrown around, would decide to cash-in on his/her windfall ?
Or else the auction houses are keeping their distance.
-
Gursky's grandfather was a photographer and his father is still one. Gursky first studied at the Folkwang School in Essen, then from 1981 to 1987 at the Academy of Art in Düsseldorf. He was a master-class student of Bernd Becher and started his career as one of Becher’s shooting stars like Thomas Struth, Candida Höfer and Thomas Ruff.
Gursky has not only photographed Prada, but also fashion shows, basket weavers in Vietnam, Formula One racing, the Tokyo stock exchange and the Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong, along with huge concerts and a spectacular political rally in North Korea. He has even used satellite images for his Ocean series. He succeeds at mass depictions such as have not hitherto been seen. Work, sport, politics – he shrinks from no subject.
He has a track record - both commercial and artistic. Lik has neither.
His claim to a proprietary and top-secret new printing technology borders on the preposterous. His website offer to both educate and accommodate newcomers into his his world of 'ultra-high-end fine art' sales is nothing more than a thinly disguised ad for commission-based 'runners'. His LasVegas factory, 250 employees, 14 galleries are financed how - from sales? I doubt it.
His balance sheets and IRS returns would make for interesting reading.
Until the world sees a verifiable, arms length transaction there will, at the very least, always be 'a doubt' . What is equally surprising, given the current climate, is that so far not one single copy of the several thousand works of art, that must have presumably been sold to date, has appeared in an auction house for sale. Surely there must be ONE punter who, dazzled by the figures being thrown around, would decide to cash-in on his/her windfall ?
Or else the auction houses are keeping their distance.
I think that's the kind of post you should have done at the first place Manoli...
IMO, what makes Gursky's work so special, is the fact that he makes so obvious the visualisation path until the final print... Gursky doesn't look at a scene and says "Hey, that's nice, lets shoot it" as most "photographers" do... Instead, he works the same way as any other artist (a painter. an author...), he visualises the print first and then designed the path to achieve it, exactly like he visualised it... The size, the subject, the lighting, the coding of the message involved (i.e the presentation of the subject) has all been pre-decided and the technical path has been pre designed and pre decided... and this all he makes obvious on the final result.
Now, one can't imagine a painter that grabs his brush and starts painting without first having visualised the final painting... can it be otherwise? Neither an author can start writing a novel, unless he first has visualised the scenario, the characters, their looks, the lighting, the environment that will be in the novel...
Visualisation is the fundamental behind art, photographs without visualisation behind them cannot be art (by definition of art)... After all, Adams has spend the whole chapter in his very first book on the mater... but let's hear him on video speaking on the subject... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT-G42cskH4
-
Scott Reither
blog post (http://scottreither.com/blogwp/2013/02/02/are-peter-lik-prospective-buyers-becoming-more-savvy/)- a first hand account:
Later in our dialogue, some of the Lik gallery…“selling techniques” began to come to light. Of course I am not surprised – I’ve been hearing them for years, but I suppose I am still a bit surprised that people believe everything they are told. This customer was told that Lik uses a special “patented” print and only his prints react to light this way. Hah! Lik has a patent on Fuji Supergloss?! Doesn’t every art gallery in the world take prospects into the viewing room to show how light interplays with the art? Of course they do! One of the other hilarious ones that I used to hear a lot while working on Front Street was that Lik was one of only a few people on the planet to know how to operate a Linhof 617. I guess myself, and the other photographer I worked with at the time, were the other two, unbeknownst to us! Or, that he only shoots film and doesn’t use photoshop (this was a big one back when I worked for him years ago). Or, more lately, that he uses digital but reintroduces the digital file back into film in order to make a true photographic print. What!? Who believes this stuff?
and,
back when I worked for him (http://scottreither.com/blogwp/2012/06/11/peter-lik-gallery-photographer-my-story/) :
This focus on make-believe value was another interesting shift in Lik’s career. Soon enough, they realized that having the $25+k Artist Proofs (AP) helped sell the $3k and $4k pieces. Someone would fall in love with a piece that was being showed as an AP and be told is was $32,000! Their heart sank knowing they could not afford that, and then they’d offer you a “regular edition” piece for only $3700. What a bargain! You were sold.
-
Theodore,
Congratulations on the much improved presentation - it makes your posts both easier to read and understand !
It's an interesting topic and I don't disagree with your post above but it's not directly related to the central topic of this thread, which you queried and I answered in post #33. There are 'serious' commercial and ethical issues raised by this, as yet, 'unsubstantiated' announcement and that is what I sought to highlight in starting this thread.
M
-
...
Until the world sees a verifiable, arms length transaction there will, at the very least, always be 'a doubt' . What is equally surprising, given the current climate, is that so far not one single copy of the several thousand works of art, that must have presumably been sold to date, has appeared in an auction house for sale. Surely there must be ONE punter who, dazzled by the figures being thrown around, would decide to cash-in on his/her windfall ?
Or else the auction houses are keeping their distance.
I've known artists to buy back their own works on eBay and then resell them themselves for more than what was paid on eBay. It goes something like this:
A sells picture on A's website to B for $x
B sells picture to A (anonymously) via ebay for $y where $y < $x
A sells picture on A's website to C for $z where $z > $y and $z <= $x
and it helps maintain the value of A's work.
Which is to say that if this picture that Lik took was auctioned tomorrow and it was bout back by Lik for $5 million then he has made only $1 million but kept the value of his brand high.
-
I've known artists to buy back their own works on eBay and then resell them themselves for more than what was paid on eBay... Which is to say that if this picture that Lik took was auctioned tomorrow and it was bout back by Lik for $5 million then he has made only $1 million but kept the value of his brand high.
Nothing wrong or dubious about that. It's been done, in one form or another, for several decades. And no reason to believe that any 'work of art' one has just bought, one can immediately re-sell at a profit. But this is not about an artist standing behind his work, (and having the financial means to do so), rather the contrary.
If you read the blog posts I've linked to above, a rather unsurprising picture begins to emerge..
" No clue why she contacted me…but, I guess this poor collector didn’t feel that adding to the 591 others currently trying to sell their pieces for exorbitant prices on Art Brokerage.com was a reasonable option. Probably because it isn’t. Right now, for example, there are 18 different people with Angel’s Heart listed for sale. Some are asking $28,000 for a 60” print, and others are asking $16,000 for a 75” print, while still others are asking $73,800 for a 78” print. This would all be laughable, except that there’s still apparently a large number of people that believe that there is value to large editions, or at the very least, there’s currently 591 people on Art Brokerage hoping so."
-
I wonder on the following...
1. Wouldn't a resale of a piece of art (not just a photograph - any art) in lower price than it was bought affect the creator's reputation negatively? (and thus his future pricing)?
2. How many prints of the same subject does Lik makes? ...I know Gursky has printed most of his work at least twice, sometimes three times and there are cases that he has made four prints... (all with the same profile on the same material and same size).
3. Aren't collectors negatively affected on buying photography, since there can always be more (original) copies produced? I mean one sells the print... not the negative or the file rights with it...
-
1. Wouldn't a resale of a piece of art (not just a photograph - any art) in lower price than it was bought affect the creator's reputation negatively? (and thus his future pricing)?
No, it wouldn't. It's unrealistic to expect any vendor whether he be an artist or otherwise, to sell his goods at below 'market' value, and that value is the free-market price between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
2. How many prints of the same subject does Lik makes? ...I know Gursky has printed most of his work at least twice, sometimes three times and there are cases that he has made four prints... (all with the same profile on the same material and same size).
I don't know, there are so many. If you look at the screenshot I posted earlier (and again below) there are 950 limited edition prints and 45 artist proofs. Compare that to the usual edition size in the Sotheby's listing I linked to of 6 -8 proofs. Once you go over 25, the residual value is much reduced.
3. Aren't collectors negatively affected on buying photography, since there can always be more (original) copies produced? I mean one sells the print... not the negative or the file rights with it...
Normally edition prints are signed and numbered.
-
Gursky and Lik is not working in the same genres and not selling to the same customers. Gursky has good credibility in the art world (he's an art professor at Kunstakademie Düsseldorf by the way), prints are in various modern art museums. The record sale of Rhein II was made at an auction at Christie's (and if I remember correctly the seller was not Gursky, but an art gallery that had bought it earlier).
As far as I know Lik does not have much acceptance in the art world, but his style works very well in the US and there's a good amount of resourceful buyers there. Lik images is something beautiful you hang on the walls in a home, while Gursky's images like most modern art photography is better suited in an art gallery. I'm personally not so fond of Lik's style of photography (too "Las Vegas" to me) and surely think that Gursky's work speak more to me and fit better on the walls of an art museum (price is still crazy...), but it's comparing apples with oranges.
If the buyer would be worried about resale value in say 50 years (look at art as an investment), I think it's safer to buy work by Gursky and other which have prints in famous art museum collections than work by Lik.
-
Gursky and Lik is not working in the same genres and not selling to the same customers. Gursky has good credibility in the art world (he's an art professor at Kunstakademie Düsseldorf by the way), prints are in various modern art museums. The record sale of Rhein II was made at an auction at Christie's (and if I remember correctly the seller was not Gursky, but an art gallery that had bought it earlier).
As far as I know Lik does not have much acceptance in the art world, but his style works very well in the US and there's a good amount of resourceful buyers there. Lik images is something beautiful you hang on the walls in a home, while Gursky's images like most modern art photography is better suited in an art gallery. I'm personally not so fond of Lik's style of photography (too "Las Vegas" to me) and surely think that Gursky's work speak more to me and fit better on the walls of an art museum (price is still crazy...), but it's comparing apples with oranges.
If the buyer would be worried about resale value in say 50 years (look at art as an investment), I think it's safer to buy work by Gursky and other which have prints in famous art museum collections than work by Lik.
Basically Lik is possibly the most successful "Photo Gallery" or "Calendar" photographer ever. Along with Rodney Lough Jr. (which IMHO produces nicer and "truer" prints than Lik). You are right. These type of photographers concentrate on selling to regular folk or "walk-ins" in touristy areas around the US. Completely different from the typical Art Gallery and Art scene (and don't think either would go to Art Basel for example) They are the highest example of the typical photo gallery you see at most tourist towns that depict the local scenery beautifully but instead of being local or staying and displaying in their home town they traveled all across the US. Even so Rodney Lough's work is mostly composed of scenes withing driving distance of his Oregon home. And having talked to him he is really passionate about his work and the places he photographs. He cares about protecting and conserving those places. It is not about capturing a scene and milking every cent out of it after photoshopping it to shreds. His work is quite honest.
Gursky is just in another world in regards to concept compared to Lik.
-
Normally edition prints are signed and numbered.
Yeah, I know... but surely there is always the risk that there can be another edition at some later time (with photography that is)... This can't be irrelevant to pricing, surely a collector always has in the back of his head the possibility that his precious owning can be undervalued in the future, because there can be "unexpected competition" in the market at lower price.... I say this, because although I admire Gursky's work as much as any photographer, I believe that fame and appreciation of his work would be the same if there where (much) more prints and thus prices where "down to earth"... It surely would be the same (or even more) profitable for the artist, but surely the fame appreciation would be higher.
By the way, I also have this enquire that would like to discuss with (some of) the people here:
If visualisation is fundamental behind art (and for photography as a consequence), then, a photo-graph can only be the one printed by the creator himself... no? I mean, one can't imagine a painter directing his painting to others and to only sign it... Visualisation can't be shared between two minds... can it? At least we know that Adams was printing every single print he ever printed all by himself... It can't be otherwise, can it?
As a consequence, one can't present a print made in a lab... and proudly say: "Hey, look at this photograph of ...mine!" ...it's not his photo-graph anymore, ...is it?
-
Visualization is one way to go about "art" and seems to appeal to some people as making "art" more serious and legitimate, but it is by no means the only road to art. Novels have been written with no plan, starting only with a single sentence or feeling, or an ending is written and a beginning is then filled in. Paintings have been painted by reacting to a single stroke of color, then seeing, reacting and building on it. The final composition is only discovered when it appears. "OK, that's it I'm done." Some fine photographs are the products of a flash of recognition that there is something important in front of me. I need to work with it to find it. Don't know quite what it will be yet. (Certainly, digital has made this method of working more common.) And, this process of experimentation can continue in the darkroom or on the computer. If visualization were the only method, we would take only one picture of any subject.
Experimentation and play are vital in art. Any ridgid prescription of artistic method limits our possibilities.
Best,
Mitchell
-
Visualization is one way to go about "art" and seems to appeal to some people as making "art" more serious and legitimate, but it is by no means the only road to art. Novels have been written with no plan, starting only with a single sentence or feeling, or an ending is written and a beginning is then filled in. Paintings have been painted by reacting to a single stroke of color, then seeing, reacting and building on it. The final composition is only discovered when it appears. "OK, that's it I'm done." Some fine photographs are the products of a flash of recognition that there is something important in front of me. I need to work with it to find it. Don't know quite what it will be yet. (Certainly, digital has made this method of working more common.) And, this process of experimentation can continue in the darkroom or on the computer. If visualization were the only method, we would take only one picture of any subject.
Experimentation and play are vital in art. Any ridgid prescription of artistic method limits our possibilities.
Best,
Mitchell
Do you mean that experimentation can exist without visualisation? ...I would strongly disagree on that, IMO, it's completely the opposite that is true... Besides, I would prefer if there was a reference on a specific works that didn't involve visualisation IYO... I think you may confuse the criteria that where the reasoning and initiated a piece of art, with the existence of visualisation in the implementation of it... If this is the case, it's a common mistake that people do when they refer on the matter...
-
...if there was a reference on a specific works that didn't involve visualisation.....
Jackson Pollock
-
"I am suggesting that the price paid for a work of art becomes its absolute and authoritative value, even if the value the price implies is not particularly clear. It is presented without explanation -- the price is the explanation."
"Thus art has become a venue for the exhibition of money."
ART VALUES OR MONEY VALUES? (http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/kuspit/kuspit3-6-07.asp) by Donald Kuspit 2007
-
isaac
Posting a link to an article whose core tenet is that 'art has become a venue for the exhibition of money' misses the point, in this case, by a golden mile.
The question raised here is whether or not the reported price is in anyway a bona fide transaction. 48 hours later it would seem there is little doubt. There have been two reported record sales recently. One a Giacometti and this Lik thing the second. Do a Google search on " <artist> record sale " and look at the first page of results in each case . - note the sources and you'll perhaps get an idea why the Lik news has been disregarded by almost every reliable news source other than The Guardian's Art critic ( and then only to rubbish it).
Just to make it easier for you, attached are the two 'suggested search' screen shots. Capisce ?
-
The question raised here is …
… all about Money Values.
-
Jackson Pollock
Exactly who I had in mind for proving that visualisation is a fundamental, if innovative ways of coding are to be applied. Pollock! ...a perfect example!
Ed Harris' film is explaining it better than words can. Have you seen it?
Another good example would be Goya's late B&W paintings that describe perfectly his late life mind disturbance...
-
... late life mind disturbance...
I hope you are not there yet ;)
-
I hope you are not there yet ;)
FUNNY! ...Ha, ha, ha... :P
-
Plenty of Art with a capital A is done without previsualization. It generally has an idea or concept in mind, but there's no particular reason to have any particularly precise idea of what it will look like.
There's Art being made via random processes, and so on.
-
Exactly who I had in mind for proving that visualisation is a fundamental, if innovative ways of coding are to be applied. Pollock! ...a perfect example!...
I am confused. Are you saying that Pollock is a perfect example of visualization, or that he is an example of what happens without visualization?
-
I am confused. Are you saying that Pollock is a perfect example of visualization, or that he is an example of what happens without visualization?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrVE-WQBcYQ
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrVE-WQBcYQ
Cat cut your tongue? You can't verbalize an answer to a simple question?
-
Coincidentally Rodney Lough Jr posted this yesterday on his public facebook page:
"Let’s just make it official. I have reached the end of my rope.
Today I was told about a photograph supposedly selling for $6.5M dollars by a photographer (I will not call him an artist, although the folks in his graphics department are obviously very good at what THEY do) who should be strung up by the nearest tree for the deceptive business practices he perpetrates on the general (unknowing) public.
The repeated and sickening marketing orchestrations done by this person is beyond contempt!
Not only is the press release a BS sales tactic, but also Imaging USA has him as a keynote speaker and is presenting him with a lifetime achievement award! I'm done. I'm checking out of this industry. Is there no shame to which this person or his business will go?
If this is truly what the world wants, then let them have it. But I’m done. I’m done being silent. I’m done putting up with it for sensitivities sake. And I’m done watching an industry that I have dedicated my life protecting get destroyed because the silent majority just sits back and says nothing for fear they might be thought of as being insensitive and labelled a bully.
Fake is fake.
Everything about this smells of fake.
The only lifetime achievement award that should be given ought to be based on the movie How to Get Ahead in Advertising.
Period."
Wow. Strong words from a man who knows the business first hand.
-
Wow. Strong words from a man who knows the business first hand.
Yes, this is pretty sad. At his level, this reaction is perfectly understandable. Let's support Rodney and his work.
-
I think that's the kind of post you should have done at the first place Manoli...
IMO, what makes Gursky's work so special, is the fact that he makes so obvious the visualisation path until the final print... Gursky doesn't look at a scene and says "Hey, that's nice, lets shoot it" as most "photographers" do... Instead, he works the same way as any other artist (a painter. an author...), he visualises the print first and then designed the path to achieve it, exactly like he visualised it... The size, the subject, the lighting, the coding of the message involved (i.e the presentation of the subject) has all been pre-decided and the technical path has been pre designed and pre decided... and this all he makes obvious on the final result.
Now, one can't imagine a painter that grabs his brush and starts painting without first having visualised the final painting... can it be otherwise? Neither an author can start writing a novel, unless he first has visualised the scenario, the characters, their looks, the lighting, the environment that will be in the novel...
Visualisation is the fundamental behind art, photographs without visualisation behind them cannot be art (by definition of art)... After all, Adams has spend the whole chapter in his very first book on the mater... but let's hear him on video speaking on the subject... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT-G42cskH4
The video does not show Adam's explaining visualization as Gursky does it or how you explained it. Gursky plans his work weeks maybe months in advance, pulling together all the elements to match what he plans as a final print. Adam's in the video does not directly say how he does it. Rather, he quotes (Alfred) Stieglitz saying that he wopuld be outside and see something that excites him and then visualizing how the final print would look and then going about to capture the shot that way. In effect, Steiglitz did not see the print in advance of his actually visualizing it right before he took the picture.
I think many photographers do that knowing that nature will help them visualize a final print that is captivating by planning their photo trips around magic hour, selecting filters that modify the scene into their visualized view of the moment as how they would like to see it in the print. It just that they are not planning it in the same way as Gursky. Rather, they are visualizing it in real-time.
But I do appreciate your post. It helped me think of what I do and should do in a more enlightened way.
-
Wow. Strong words from a man who knows the business first hand.
At his level, this reaction is perfectly understandable.
At any level, the reaction is understandable - in fact far more than just 'understandable'. Let's hope that it finally awakens the silent majority from a quasi universal stupor. A 'general (unknowing) public' is hardly an excuse for the gullibility, let alone complicity of many. Hopefully this could be the catalyst for some form of fiscal and/or judicial investigation.
-
The video does not show Adam's explaining visualization as Gursky does it or how you explained it. Gursky plans his work weeks maybe months in advance, pulling together all the elements to match what he plans as a final print. Adam's in the video does not directly say how he does it. Rather, he quotes (Alfred) Stieglitz saying that he wopuld be outside and see something that excites him and then visualizing how the final print would look and then going about to capture the shot that way. In effect, Steiglitz did not see the print in advance of his actually visualizing it right before he took the picture.
I think many photographers do that knowing that nature will help them visualize a final print that is captivating by planning their photo trips around magic hour, selecting filters that modify the scene into their visualized view of the moment as how they would like to see it in the print. It just that they are not planning it in the same way as Gursky. Rather, they are visualizing it in real-time.
But I do appreciate your post. It helped me think of what I do and should do in a more enlightened way.
Good base for discussion... I don't think that time spend on preparing the capture is relevant to visualisation... Adams, did have many of his shots prepared for weeks before he made them (like the shot of the moon I mentioned earlier) and other shots that inspired him just before he made them... But still, both Adams and Gursky's visualisation procedure is worlds apart from those that believe they are "visualising" just because they "saw" a shot and spended some time as to frame it, set the exposure on it and decided on the perspective of it... Adams and Gursky and other artists are visualising the photo-graph... the final print! ...See? ...they have developed the ability to "see" with their minds the print finished before they ever make the capture... This is worlds apart from people that set up their equipment and shoot a scene, check it in their screens and then decide later on their monitors if it looks good or how they can "improve" on its look...
These people (the real artists), know that a photo-graph is only the printed thing on paper... So, they are visualising the print... the finished thing! (just like Pollock or other great painter is visualising his painting finished... or a writher visualises the novel finished... done! See the difference? Now after one develops the talent to work that way... he then has to put some reasoning behind his creations... ...A piece of art is not a bold statement, it includes a message in it, this means that the artist includes the coding of the message in his visualisation for the recipient to de-code... It doesn't sound very easy... does it?
-
I started this thread in the hope that it would be a rallying point, an outlet for members to both comment on and raise awareness on an issue so flagrant in it's deceptive intent that it beggars belief.
To Theodoros, I've explained it, not that it needed explaining, twice. For you to continue posting completely off-topic indicates an oblivion I don't wish to be party to. You want to discuss art, visualisation and the semantics of photo-graphy - do it in the appropriate sub-forum , in an appropriate thread.
Thanks to KenR, amolitor and the others who've contributed both on-topic and light relief.
Now, f-it, topic locked.