Can Peter Lik share his client list?

[Piboy]

I am trying to grasp a photo sale for $6.5 million. Does this legitimize or deligitimize photography as fine  art? Interesting points made in this article
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless

Cheers
Sam

[LesPalenik]

already being discussed:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95855.0

[Piboy]

Thanks will jump on that string.

[John Koerner]

Since the referenced thread topic is now closed, I will post my thoughts here, but first a great article:


Photography is art and always will be

Sean O'Hagan


Now, with respect to whether or not Peter Lik is "an artist," or a marketing genius, or whatever, I don't think it can be denied that he is successful at what he's doing. So, if "The American Dream" is to come to this country, pursue your passion, and have a chance at success, then Peter Lik has embodied that dream and should be respected for that.

Every single whiner about his work is just a jealous "wish they were," point blank, plain and simple.
Every single whiner would be tickled to receive $6.5M for one of their photographs, $10M total for a set, plain and simple.

It doesn't matter if the sale was through self-promotion, marketing, as well as photography ... it sold for that price.

That some of the critics may be able to take the same- (or better-) quality photos is irrelevant.
Because if they lack the savvy, the drive, or the roundedness in their marketing skills ... and so have UNsold photos on their wall (or photos that can't command anywhere near that price), then what "they" are doing is what should be scoffed at, not what the man who made millions is doing.

Success is as success does.

If any whiner's "opinion" can command more than $6.5M, then the reader should listen.
But if not, then the reader should "flush" that opinion down the pipes, to where it belongs.

It has been rightfully-said that, "Success is when opportunity meets preparedness."

Technical savvy alone isn't being prepared.
Artistic vision alone isn't being prepared.
The two of these together aren't even being prepared.

Technical savvy + artistic vision + marketing genius are all required to get beautiful photos in front of the right viewing eyes, so that they can be bought for that price.

I think it would be wiser for people to emulate "whatever it is" Peter Lik is doing than to criticize it.

Just my $0.02,

Jack

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... it sold for that price[/b]...

Jack, I agree with the rest of your post.

The real question, however, remains if it sold for that price, i.e., was it a bona fide, arms-length transaction or just a marketing stunt arranged between Lik and the "anonymous" buyer.

[John Koerner]

Jack, I agree with the rest of your post.

The real question, however, remains if it sold for that price, i.e., was it a bona fide, arms-length transaction or just a marketing stunt arranged between Lik and the "anonymous" buyer.

I have seen the doubts raised, Slobodan, but I personally "doubt the doubts."

Fraud, in any form, is not cool. Of course.
I think if the purchase was fraudulent, then that would deserve castigation.

However, I see no actual basis to believe the purchase itself was a hoax.
Rather, the idea smacks more of whiners "thinking out loud" for "some way" to bring down a guy who causes their necks to stiffen when they look up at his achievements ...

So, unless proven otherwise, I take the "he bought it himself" idea as just another angle on a whine.

Jack

[stamper]

The dead horse getting flogged even more.

[John Koerner]

Just making sure

[MHMG]

Taking the sale at face value, namely that the buyer was not planted as a marketing stunt and genuinely liked the photograph and thought it worth 6.5 million dollars, the sale price leads me to believe that $6.5M to that buyer is probably not even a month's income. Hence, the price is relative to the earned value of the money.  It would be like most of us purchasing a nice print for a few hundred dollars.  I do question whether the buyer should have stopped to consider that many important charities in the world would do much more good for mankind with this incredible sum than Peter Lik is going to do for the rest of his life.  But that thought aside, all the power to Peter for finding such a buyer.

I would also add that the lines between photography and art do seem to be blurring a lot, and that painters can use photography as a means to an end, and photographers can transform a "straight photograph" to resemble a painting or drawing will relative ease in this digital age, but I remain steadfast in my view that great photographs capture a moment in time that is hard to repeat. In this sense, I'm pretty sure many competent photographers could go to Antelope Canyon and capture a very similar shot as the one being discussed here.  But camp outside the San Xavier del Bac mission along route 84, and I would wager that you will be there a long long time before the moon, clouds, and light on the crosses in the graveyard align in a way to meet or exceed the Iconic mage captured by Ansel Adams in 1941 (or 1942, or 1943 depending on various account of the making of this photograph). That's where the power of photography lies for me, and that's what I'd pay 6.5 million for at auction if I was in the billionaire category...assuming my conscience didn't lead me to more noble purposes for such extravagant sums .

[Manoli]

Taking the sale at face value ...  leads me to believe that $6.5M to that buyer is probably not even a month's income ... It would be like most of us purchasing a nice print for a few hundred dollars. But that thought aside, all the power to Peter for finding such a buyer.

I have often heard the idiom 'There's no fool like an old fool'  but rarely heard that paraphrased into 'There's no fool like a rich fool'.  In all probability because in the majority of cases, those who have a disposable income in excess of, say, $1,000,000 to 'invest' in art didn't amass their wealth by wasting money on worthless investments.

But, yes, I would certainly agree with the second paragraph of your post.

[Manoli]

I think if the purchase was fraudulent, then that would deserve castigation.

IF fraud (as in a 'fraudulent transaction') is involved then that would eventually be subject to criminal proceedings, not castigation, as you so quaintly put it.

I personally "doubt the doubts." ...
However, I see no actual basis to believe the purchase itself was a hoax.

From what is currently known, no, none. It's precisely what is NOT known, that raises suspicions.

• Identity of the buyer ?
• Of what, a single print or a buyout ?
• If a single print, a limited edition of how many ?
• Is there any other consideration attached to the sale - stock, bond or promissory note ?
• Is there any brokerage commission involved ? If so how much and to whom ?
• Likewise, is there a deduction of any address commission (a form of in-house rebate) ?
• If there is a sizeable commission – in which tax jurisdiction is it payable ?

In an auction house sale the reported price is the 'hammer price' plus the buyer's commission.  Without answers to the above, in a sale by private treaty, it's not possible to come to any definitive conclusion as to  either the final net cost nor, as in this case, the plausibility of the reported sale. And I haven't yet  touched upon the many possible corporate permutations that could give rise to a market distortion.

On a circumstantial basis there's even more reason to be sceptical:

• Notable that none of the major reputable news agencies deemed it worthy of reporting ...
• Unlike the other recent record sale of a Giacometti for $100 mill - [post]
• Or any other number of questionable 'inconsistencies ' - [post]
• A number of 'peer' rejections.

Finally there are 759 Lik works for sale on ArtBrokerage.com. Half (50%) are in the $2,000 - $10,000 range, 41 in the $25,000 - $36,000 range and 2 asking $40,000. All of them have OBO after the asking price (or-best-offer) – not a great indication of an indefatigable demand . It's a big leap from $40,000 to $6,500,000. In statistical terms it would be called an 'outlier' - to put it politely.

I think it would be wiser for people to emulate "whatever it is" Peter Lik is doing than to criticize it.

You are, of course, free to think and believe what you wish.

[John Koerner]

Taking the sale at face value, namely that the buyer was not planted as a marketing stunt and genuinely liked the photograph and thought it worth 6.5 million dollars, the sale price leads me to believe that $6.5M to that buyer is probably not even a month's income. Hence, the price is relative to the earned value of the money.  It would be like most of us purchasing a nice print for a few hundred dollars.  I do question whether the buyer should have stopped to consider that many important charities in the world would do much more good for mankind with this incredible sum than Peter Lik is going to do for the rest of his life.  But that thought aside, all the power to Peter for finding such a buyer.

I would also add that the lines between photography and art do seem to be blurring a lot, and that painters can use photography as a means to an end, and photographers can transform a "straight photograph" to resemble a painting or drawing will relative ease in this digital age, but I remain steadfast in my view that great photographs capture a moment in time that is hard to repeat. In this sense, I'm pretty sure many competent photographers could go to Antelope Canyon and capture a very similar shot as the one being discussed here.  But camp outside the San Xavier del Bac mission along route 84, and I would wager that you will be there a long long time before the moon, clouds, and light on the crosses in the graveyard align in a way to meet or exceed the Iconic mage captured by Ansel Adams in 1941 (or 1942, or 1943 depending on various account of the making of this photograph). That's where the power of photography lies for me, and that's what I'd pay 6.5 million for at auction if I was in the billionaire category...assuming my conscience didn't lead me to more noble purposes for such extravagant sums .

Great post.

[John Koerner]

IF fraud (as in a 'fraudulent transaction') is involved then that would eventually be subject to criminal proceedings, not castigation, as you so quaintly put it.

From what is currently known, no, none. It's precisely what is NOT known, that raises suspicions.

• Identity of the buyer ?
• Of what, a single print or a buyout ?
• If a single print, a limited edition of how many ?
• Is there any other consideration attached to the sale - stock, bond or promissory note ?
• Is there any brokerage commission involved ? If so how much and to whom ?
• Likewise, is there a deduction of any address commission (a form of in-house rebate) ?
• If there is a sizeable commission – in which tax jurisdiction is it payable ?

In an auction house sale the reported price is the 'hammer price' plus the buyer's commission.  Without answers to the above, in a sale by private treaty, it's not possible to come to any definitive conclusion as to  either the final net cost nor, as in this case, the plausibility of the reported sale. And I haven't yet  touched upon the many possible corporate permutations that could give rise to a market distortion.

On a circumstantial basis there's even more reason to be sceptical:

• Notable that none of the major reputable news agencies deemed it worthy of reporting ...
• Unlike the other recent record sale of a Giacometti for $100 mill - [post]
• Or any other number of questionable 'inconsistencies ' - [post]
• A number of 'peer' rejections.

Finally there are 759 Lik works for sale on ArtBrokerage.com. Half (50%) are in the $2,000 - $10,000 range, 41 in the $25,000 - $36,000 range and 2 asking $40,000. All of them have OBO after the asking price (or-best-offer) – not a great indication of an indefatigable demand . It's a big leap from $40,000 to $6,500,000. In statistical terms it would be called an 'outlier' - to put it politely.

Jealousy is an ugly thing.

Loosen-up and be glad there's this much interest, gossip, and potential $$ surrounding the sale of photographic images being seeded within the public's imagination

You are, of course, free to think and believe what you wish.

I appreciate you granting me this freedom; it means a lot.

Jack

[amolitor]

I doubt that it's fraud.

There are a lot of ways this could be a completely legal transaction and still not a fully "legitimate" sale of art to a collector. As I've stated in another thread, it could (for instance) be a planned cash infusion to the business from a silent partner, structured as an Art Sale to generate some publicity and prop up the secondary market (and, I suppose, the primary).

It's extremely unlikely to be a completely legitimate Art Sale from an Artist to a Collector. There are just too many strange pieces in the puzzle, well documented strange pieces.

Extremely unlikely isn't the same thing as certainty. You may doubt the doubters if you like, but it's redundant. Doubt has self-doubt built-in, otherwise it would be called certainty.

[amolitor]

Also, my god, drop the "UR JUST JELUS" schtick. Are we all six years old?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... There are a lot of ways this could be a completely legal transaction and still not a fully "legitimate" sale of art to a collector. As I've stated in another thread, it could (for instance) be a planned cash infusion to the business from a silent partner, structured as an Art Sale to generate some publicity and prop up the secondary market (and, I suppose, the primary)...

I think it is time to remind us all of all the creative ways you can structure a deal (note, in particular, the American Capitalism way - sounds  pretty much like Lik):

[wildstork]

"Finally there are 759 Lik works for sale on ArtBrokerage.com. Half (50%) are in the $2,000 - $10,000 range, 41 in the $25,000 - $36,000 range and 2 asking $40,000. All of them have OBO after the asking price (or-best-offer) – not a great indication of an indefatigable demand . It's a big leap from $40,000 to $6,500,000. In statistical terms it would be called an 'outlier' - to put it politely."

This sums it up perfectly, Manoli.  Why would anyone offer 6.5 million when the going rate for Lik's work is as posted above?

So the anonymous buyer pays 162X the most expensive works currently for sale. 

Yeah... right.  I've never heard of anyone offering over 100X the going rate for anything and requesting anonymity.  Especially when the artist is still alive.

A friend went to one of the Lik galleries in LV last year... invited by her best friend to attend a Santana concert.  They walked around and found themselves in the Lik Gallery.   My friend's friend desperately wanted to buy one of the prints on display and asked what the price was? 

She was told "We need to check with all of the other Lik Galleries as these are Limited Editions and the price goes up as the Edition nears it's end."

This woman would have paid the sun, moon and stars for the print as she is impulsive and loaded.

For over 1/2 hour they jerked her around, refusing to give her a price and driving her to the point of desperation.
 
My friend dragged her out... explaining "you're being had, sister.  Stick around long enough and the price will be 100K!"

I find this sales "technique" highly suspicious... having visited several Lik Galleries and seen a similar sales technique employed. 

Then again... I'm one of those types who doesn't think the world is flat.  And it is a free world... so we're all free to think as we wish.

Just another conspiracy theorist... I guess.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

"... It's a big leap from $40,000 to $6,500,000..."

Well, not exactly apples to apples. Lik already sold one image for one million, so that would be a more valid comparison for the "leap." How much that one million sale was a real one is another matter, however.

As for "prices going up toward the end of edition," that is a legitimate editioning technique, employed by many others. Whether it was used frivolously in your cited example is another matter again.

[dseelig]

It would not matter if he shared his client list. What saddens about all this and I am not a nature photographer is all the great work that is done by guys who stay unknown  but this guys work sells big because of his name. Liks work and yes I have some some in person is boring. In the fine art world it is not about the work all too often but who you know.

[wildstork]

"but who you know."     
I might also add "and how effective your sales technique is."
Whatever the case... it's good news for all photographers as it shows what a photograph's potential value can be.
Photography was supposed to experience a rebirth (in terms of sales) in the late 80’s after Van Gogh’s Irises sold to a collector for 53.9 million.  The talk was that vintage paintings were becoming too expensive for all but the wealthiest… and this heralded a rebirth for other plastic arts such as Photography.  Then came digital and the cell phone... and we've all seen a certain stagnation in photo sales. 
Let's hope this sale heralds a shot in the arm for photo sales.  That would be welcome by all of us.