Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million  (Read 8796 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15851
    • Flicker photos
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2014, 11:20:46 pm »

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?

Taxes would be owed only if his company is making a profit.  The money might be supporting the high cost to run so many galleries. 

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2496
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2014, 11:37:38 pm »

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.


There have been over 20 photos sold for more than 1/2 million...in fact most for over a million. In that context, Lik's price is not really out of line. It just raised the bar for highest priced photo to be broken one day.

Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5322
    • advantica blog
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2014, 03:24:31 pm »

Taxes would be owed only if his company is making a profit.  The money might be supporting the high cost to run so many galleries. 

Alan, I think the poster meant the retail (sales) tax, payable by the purchaser for that specific transaction.
I don't know how it works in USA.  I guess it depends on the particular state and collector's status (individual, corporation, gallery).
In Canada, the seller is obliged to collect retail sales taxes from the purchasers and submit them to the tax collecting agency.

Income tax payable by the maker / seller is an entirely different matter. As you say, such a tax would be due only if the company shows profit.
 
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #23 on: December 13, 2014, 04:06:42 pm »

Lik's price is, what, 1.5x the next highest? Looking at the gaps between 2&3, 3&4, and so on down, we find nothing like this kind of a gap. Prices tend to rise in small increments.

It's also a primary market sale. This isn't a piece that's been out there, growing in stature. This is, as far as I can tell, a new piece (albeit based on an old one, one that I can buy any of a dozen copies of right now on artbrokerage.com) sold directly by the artist to a client. It has no stature whatsoever in the world of high end Art.

It's also trite decor. As Slobodan is quick to point out, decor is a fine thing, and I mostly agree (except when I'm in a bad mood). As of today, however, trite decor does not price out as high as Art pieces do.

So, there's three reasons the quoted price is way out of line with any reasonable expectation of what such a thing sells for in today's market.
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #24 on: December 13, 2014, 04:07:08 pm »

Sales tax is extremely easy to avoid on a multi-million dollar purchase.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 17970
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #25 on: December 13, 2014, 04:16:53 pm »

Sales tax is extremely easy to avoid on a multi-million dollar purchase.


Do tell! I might need it for my next art fair show  ;)

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #26 on: December 13, 2014, 04:38:15 pm »

Move the site of the sale offshore, or really to any sales-tax-free venue. You may have to hold the goods themselves offshore for a period of time. There are typically hoops to jump through of various sorts that depend on the locations involved, and the type of goods involved. Sometimes it is helpful to form an LLC to do the purchasing, and so on.

You wouldn't do it for a candy bar, but to save a couple percent of several million dollars it's obvious.

People do this all the time with boats.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15851
    • Flicker photos
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2014, 09:20:40 pm »

If the buyer has a house in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire or Oregon, and the picture was shipped there, there would be no sales taxes as these states do not have one.

Here's an interesting way to avoid them if you don;t live in one of these states. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/business/buyers-find-tax-break-on-art-let-it-hang-awhile-in-portland.html

BHoll

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2014, 07:16:56 pm »

Serious question (i.e. no "Lik bashing"):
If you look at the "Awards" section on his website, half of his awards from 2014 are "Acceptances". So basically (correct me if I'm wrong): pay entrance fee & upload photograph. I understand his marketing is fairly 'loud' and full on, but all these "Acceptances" sound as if he's needy of awards. Yet I think this is actually damaging his profile & potentially undermining his 'status'.
(Besides, this over-the-top marketing-BS could be seen as questioning his audience's common sense).

Anyway. Even IF I was interested in buying one of his prints, this would seriously put me off.
So what's the benefit in writing "Acceptance" underneath all these "awards" ? I don't get it...
Logged

MoreOrLess

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2014, 11:47:19 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

Strange that the post in the technical forum was all about art and the one in the art forum is all about finance.

When it comes to art honestly I don't see Lik really making much of an example to argue from, he's a good landscape photographer no doubt but nowhere near the top of the pile in my opinion.

I would actually turn around the "pre visualisation" argument in that thread and suggest that what seems to limit Lik is that seems to depend too much on having planned out a work in advance. Gursky's subject and the message he's trying to convey might benefit from this kind of pre planning but if you talking Landscape shooting where the "message" will be conveying the atmosphere/feeling of the scene in a hopefully original fashion I do not think that long term planning alone is likely to give the best results. A certain degree of planning and some potential longer term pre visualisation is helpful but much of the originality of such landscape shooting is a reaction to changing weather/lighting conditions, the search for new positions from which to view a location in this lighting/weather and you own reaction to the scene itself.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10348
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #30 on: December 20, 2014, 12:50:13 am »

Isn't the purchase of an expensive work of art merely one way to 'park' some excess money which is perceived as a better way than parking it in the bank, or some other investment?

The fact that the purchaser is anonymous in this instance, and that the price is not only a record-breaker in the photographic world but a very excessive price for a mere photograph, raises the speculation of all sorts of collusion that might have taken place.

Most people, including myself, would struggle to understand how anyone could genuinely fork out $6.5 million for something that can be reproduced countless times. A photograph of a painting is not a painting. But a photograph of a photograph is still a photograph.

Nevertheless, when people own far more wealth than they can practically use, a sum of $6.5 million might be spent with the same concern that a less wealthy person might spend 650 dollars, and the photograph is certainly interesting, perhaps even fascinating for some.

One piece of information about this photograph, Phantom, that I've been unable to find, is its size. Andreas Gursky's Rhein II, which sold for $4.3 million, was huge, 73" x 143" (approx. 6ft x 12ft).

What's the size of this $6.5 million phantom from Lik? Is size irrelevant?
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #31 on: December 20, 2014, 02:43:20 am »

Is size irrelevant?

ďOf course, you know the adage, if you canít make it good, make it big. If you canít make it big, make it red. So we do like big red photographs.Ē
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10348
Re: Peter Lik Print Sells for $6.5 Million
« Reply #32 on: December 20, 2014, 09:27:17 am »

ďOf course, you know the adage, if you canít make it good, make it big. If you canít make it big, make it red. So we do like big red photographs.Ē

No, I don't know that adage. This is the first I've heard of it. I like photos that are both big and beautiful (good).

When Epson first released an affordable 24" wide professional printer, the Stylus Pro 7600, I was delighted, and bought it. Printer sizes of A4 to A2 are very restrictive. Also the ink and paper, per unit of measurement, are more expensive than the 200 ml cartridges and 30 metre rolls of paper used by the larger printers.

If you're serious about photography, get a big printer. These pissy little A4 size prints are generally not impressive.  ;D
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up