Andreas Gursky - take a hike !

[Rajan Parrikar]

It is a good image, infinitely more evocative (to me) than the slightly less expensive snapshot of Gursky.  Lik's gallery in the desert is quite a sight, especially during the twilight hour.

[David Anderson]

Legend.
This is what photography needs in a time when big business like Getty's is doing everything they can to make photography worthless...

[sbernthal]

One needs to read the press release. 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.

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 lot 7, sold,
crewdson, lot sold, #1 from an edition of 6 plus 2 artists proofs
sugimoto, 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.

[Alan Klein]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

This is great news for all of us, in particular for stitchers.

Cheers,
Bernard

[tjv]

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?

[Streetshooter]

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

[BrianWJH]

"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

[LesPalenik]

+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.

[Peter McLennan]

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.

[D!RK]

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.

[Hulyss]

+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.

[ondebanks]

Oooookay then.

That was the perfect response. Gave me a real LOL moment, thanks!

Ray

[ondebanks]

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

[Theodoros]

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.

[amolitor]

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).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... This are pieces meant to go with the couch.

Most art is meant to go with the couch. So?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

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... 

[amolitor]

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?

[amolitor]

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"?