Andreas Gursky - take a hike !

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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

[amolitor]

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.

[amolitor]

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.

[amolitor]

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?)

[Theodoros]

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!

[amolitor]

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.

[Theodoros]

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...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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? 

[Theodoros]

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...

[Theodoros]

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...  

[Theodoros]

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"....

[synn]

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.

[Theodoros]

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...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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.

[synn]

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.

[Theodoros]

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.

[Theodoros]

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?

[synn]

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.