Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million  (Read 8724 times)

Ed B

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
    • Light Conspiracy
Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« on: December 10, 2014, 01:48:52 pm »

I probably should post this in the "8 Easy Ways to Know if an Image is Fine Art" thread but.....

http://petapixel.com/2014/12/10/peter-lik-print-sells-6-5-million-shattering-record-expensive-photo/
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2014, 01:54:54 pm »

That's really sad. At least Gursky and Sherman are trying to say something, they're making a stab at Art with a capital A.

Lik appears to be entirely about decor. There's nothing wrong with decor, I've shot lots of it. But it's not at all clear to me that decor should enjoy the same open-ended pricing that Art with a capital A does.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17953
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2014, 01:56:51 pm »

There is a thread on the subject, with about 20 replies already:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95855.msg783223#msg783223

Ed B

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
    • Light Conspiracy
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2014, 01:11:40 pm »

I rarely venture into that forum which is why I missed it. Seems a strange forum for a subject like this.
Logged

Gulag

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2014, 07:04:45 pm »

Welcome to the contemporary age,  in which everything has only exchange value. Even artist's own excrement has been marketed as art since 1960s.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2014, 08:22:29 pm by Gulag »
Logged
"Photography is our exorcism. Primitive society had its masks, bourgeois society its mirrors. We have our images."

Jean Baudrillard

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2490
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2014, 10:01:59 pm »

That's really sad. At least Gursky and Sherman are trying to say something, they're making a stab at Art with a capital A.

Lik appears to be entirely about decor. There's nothing wrong with decor, I've shot lots of it. But it's not at all clear to me that decor should enjoy the same open-ended pricing that Art with a capital A does.


Unless you have millions of dollars of disposable income...I don't think Lik considers you as a potential customer so I'm sure he does not give a damn what you think about art.
Logged

Gulag

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 336
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2014, 10:12:28 pm »

There is art market for proletarians,  there is art market for capital holders. Which market you target at is a business decision if you call yourself a businessman.
Logged
"Photography is our exorcism. Primitive society had its masks, bourgeois society its mirrors. We have our images."

Jean Baudrillard

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2014, 10:24:14 pm »

You can buy a Lik for a few thousand. I'm totally in his target market.
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2259
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2014, 11:20:04 pm »

Lik's press release does give the name of a lawyer you can contact for evidence of the sale.

This doesn't mean that it's not just a $10m cash infusion from an investor in Peter Lik Incorporated who has chosen to structure his investment in the business as involving some unique prints in order to do some marketing.

That's idle speculation from me. But it both fits the skimpy known facts, and illustrates that middle ground could in theory exist. A real buyer, real money, and yet still a marketing gimmick.

For example.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2490
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2014, 12:03:10 am »

Lik's press release does give the name of a lawyer you can contact for evidence of the sale.

This doesn't mean that it's not just a $10m cash infusion from an investor in Peter Lik Incorporated who has chosen to structure his investment in the business as involving some unique prints in order to do some marketing.

That's idle speculation from me. But it both fits the skimpy known facts, and illustrates that middle ground could in theory exist. A real buyer, real money, and yet still a marketing gimmick.

For example.


The tax that would need to be paid in the 6.5 million dollar phony transaction would make it one hell of an expensive marketing gig.

Maybe, just maybe Peter actually sold $10 million worth of photos to someone who has money to burn. People buy other art for much more obscene prices...why is it so hard to swallow a photograph could be sold for that much?
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2014, 12:15:54 am »

Because photos don't cost that much.

If I claimed to have sold an egg for $700 dollars people would be justified in wondering just what the details of this transaction were.

Just because it's art doesn't mean prices are arbitrary.

Also, what tax are you referring to?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2014, 12:17:29 am by amolitor »
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5309
    • advantica blog
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2014, 09:23:15 am »

Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2014, 11:23:29 am »

Quote
"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? by Donald Kuspit 2007
Logged

Ed B

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 178
    • Light Conspiracy
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2014, 11:31:28 am »



Also, what tax are you referring to?


I think he is referring to the income/sales tax Lik would have to pay on the sale.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2490
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2014, 03:38:31 pm »

Because photos don't cost that much.

If I claimed to have sold an egg for $700 dollars people would be justified in wondering just what the details of this transaction were.

Just because it's art doesn't mean prices are arbitrary.

Also, what tax are you referring to?


So what should photos cost? I've seen photos go from $20 to $35,000. Why should art go for over $100,000,000 and photos not command this type of money. Where is it stipulated how much a photo can be sold for? Did paintings always go for say $10,000? Someone had to break the barrier.

Being a photographer myself, I am rejoicing with this news rather than being skeptical about it. Finally photography is being viewed in the same light as other art, which in my opinion, it should.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17953
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2014, 03:49:00 pm »

... Finally photography is being viewed in the same light as other art, which in my opinion, it should.

Paintings are still an order of magnitude more expensive (valuable?), as they sell for between tens and hundreds millions. The reason photographs are not there, and probably never will, is simple: uniqueness. Paintings are original, photographs are infinitely printable.

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2490
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2014, 05:37:34 pm »

Paintings are still an order of magnitude more expensive (valuable?), as they sell for between tens and hundreds millions. The reason photographs are not there, and probably never will, is simple: uniqueness. Paintings are original, photographs are infinitely printable.


Unless you purchase the one and only print made and rights to have no more made.
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2014, 06:15:21 pm »

So what should photos cost? I've seen photos go from $20 to $35,000. Why should art go for over $100,000,000 and photos not command this type of money. Where is it stipulated how much a photo can be sold for? Did paintings always go for say $10,000? Someone had to break the barrier.

I have no opinion on what they *should* cost. I'm not sure that's a meaningful question.

The point is that I know what they *do* cost, and Lik's sale is completely out of line, and therefore suspicious.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17953
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2014, 06:44:33 pm »


Unless you purchase the one and only print made and rights to have no more made.

And you know it is "one and only" how?
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up