Can Peter Lik share his client list?

[Wayne Fox]

I’ve stayed out of these discussions, not that I don’t have an opinion because I definitely do.

but just read more detail on the sale, and one thing that seems fishy to me is the “pricing” seems arbitrary.  It seems a buyer purchased 3 Lik prints for a total of $10 million ... about 3.33 million per image.  So the “value” and “price”  of each individual print seems to be adjusted specifically about holding a record.

[ndevlin]

This whole situation fails to meet what we criminal lawyers refer to as the "air of reality" test.   

[knickerhawk]

I’ve stayed out of these discussions, not that I don’t have an opinion because I definitely do.

but just read more detail on the sale, and one thing that seems fishy to me is the “pricing” seems arbitrary.  It seems a buyer purchased 3 Lik prints for a total of $10 million ... about 3.33 million per image.  So the “value” and “price”  of each individual print seems to be adjusted specifically about holding a record.

Very good point.  Some more questions: why the need for high-end legal representation on both sides if this was just a straightforward purchase of three pieces of art from a well known dealer (who in this case is directly related to the "artist" so that provenance is unquestionable)?  The purchaser supposedly wanted to remain anonymous.  The law firms involved are legit and wouldn't likely allow themselves to be tied to misleading press releases claiming a bona fide transaction if that's not the case.  On the other hand, it seems very very odd to me that a private purchaser represented by competent legal counsel and wanting to remain anonymous would have permitted ANY release of information about the terms of the sale.  It simply makes no sense unless the plan is to stash the works in a vault in Switzerland or in a private bathroom.  As soon as the work goes up in a house or an office, the world will find out and connect the dots because these are relatively unique versions of the works and the PR about the record-breaking sale would already be known to all.  In short, competent legal counsel would have informed the purchaser that agreeing to a press release virtually guarantees a loss of anonymity. So why allow it?  At the price paid, the purchaser was certainly in the deal-negotiating driver's seat and could have easily insisted on no PR.  If the answer is that the purchase was purely an investment and, thus, release of the price was beneficial to the purchaser, then we're talking about a very different kind of transaction, the kind that ALWAYS involves consultants on valuations (and not just lawyers drawing up the documents).  I don't run in those consultant/gallerist circles, but it seems highly implausible to me that ANY experts would advise a client on the need to pay that sum for Lik's work.  As has been noted previously in the thread, his work has never sold for anywhere near that level in the SECONDARY/RESALE market.  We're talking a factor of 10 here, so it's just unfathomable that this was done purely as an investment.

Hmmmmm...

[jjj]

So which should we respect more: diligence (work), or talent (an innate quality, based perhaps on one's genetics?)?

Should we celebrate the supermodel, or instead the super saleswoman? One owes success to having been born with a particular set of genes, while the other may have worked and sacrificed for a lifetime.

I think being able/willing to work hard enough to achieve success is a innate talent in itself.  Success usually=specific skill+very hard work. So I respect both equally.
However hard work will never make you good at anything without something else to build on. I certainly do not believe in the 10,000 hour theory of genius that Gladwell likes to champion.

A mountain biker I know once said, if it was simply a matter of practice anyone could be as good as me. He's won the World Champion as a downhill racer, so rather good indeed. Also of note is that he had a reputation for being a party lad and some folk thought what he does was not even that athletic as 'gravity did all the work for him'. Behind the facade of party animal was someone who worked his arse off and took his fitness very, very seriously. Having done downhill racing myself I can vouch for how physically taxing it can be, 5 mins downhill can be tougher on you than 2 hours cross country as the ride is far more intense.

[Robert Roaldi]

Very good point.  Some more questions: why the need for high-end legal representation on both sides if this was just a straightforward purchase of three pieces of art from a well known dealer (who in this case is directly related to the "artist" so that provenance is unquestionable)?  The purchaser supposedly wanted to remain anonymous.  The law firms involved are legit and wouldn't likely allow themselves to be tied to misleading press releases claiming a bona fide transaction if that's not the case.  On the other hand, it seems very very odd to me that a private purchaser represented by competent legal counsel and wanting to remain anonymous would have permitted ANY release of information about the terms of the sale.  It simply makes no sense unless the plan is to stash the works in a vault in Switzerland or in a private bathroom.  As soon as the work goes up in a house or an office, the world will find out and connect the dots because these are relatively unique versions of the works and the PR about the record-breaking sale would already be known to all.  In short, competent legal counsel would have informed the purchaser that agreeing to a press release virtually guarantees a loss of anonymity. So why allow it?  At the price paid, the purchaser was certainly in the deal-negotiating driver's seat and could have easily insisted on no PR.  If the answer is that the purchase was purely an investment and, thus, release of the price was beneficial to the purchaser, then we're talking about a very different kind of transaction, the kind that ALWAYS involves consultants on valuations (and not just lawyers drawing up the documents).  I don't run in those consultant/gallerist circles, but it seems highly implausible to me that ANY experts would advise a client on the need to pay that sum for Lik's work.  As has been noted previously in the thread, his work has never sold for anywhere near that level in the SECONDARY/RESALE market.  We're talking a factor of 10 here, so it's just unfathomable that this was done purely as an investment.

I know nothing about these circles at all, but I can see why the value of the purchase would be made public. If I were the photographer in question, I might even insist on that. It wouldn't bother me that the buyer(s) remain anonymous, for whatever reasons of their own. I gather that it's a common enough thing in the high-end art buying world, so nothing new about that. But there would be a tremendous advantage to the artist for the sale price to be made public, it would only do him/her good in the future (forum complaint threads notwithstanding).

[knickerhawk]

I know nothing about these circles at all, but I can see why the value of the purchase would be made public. If I were the photographer in question, I might even insist on that. It wouldn't bother me that the buyer(s) remain anonymous, for whatever reasons of their own. I gather that it's a common enough thing in the high-end art buying world, so nothing new about that. But there would be a tremendous advantage to the artist for the sale price to be made public, it would only do him/her good in the future (forum complaint threads notwithstanding).

I doubt that I know much more than you do about private art sales of this magnitude, but this much I can assure you: disclosure of the terms of a private transaction is virtually always a negotiated element of the deal when lawyers are involved.  Now let's put ourselves in the place of the purchaser here.  He/she/it wishes to remain anonymous (that much is apparent from the press release).  OK.  How's the best way to ensure absolute anonymity of the transaction?  No publicity!  Period.  What's the worst way to ensure absolute anonymity? A press release announcing that it's the largest price paid for a photograph ever - and by a large margin - and moreover it involves a controversial photographer whose work has never sold for anywhere near the price being paid.  See what I mean?  Everyone involved had to know that the press release would bring a lot of attention to the transaction...a lot!  Now, from the seller's perspective that's great, but what's in it for the purchaser (who, remember wants to remain anonymous)? Why would the purchaser agree not only to specifics about the identity of the individual works involved but also exact amounts paid for each work?  It's really quite unimaginable that Lik Galleries would have refused to sell the works at such an inflated value unless the purchaser agreed to the PR.  No WAY does Lik refuse a $10 million transaction for three of his images simply because the purchaser wants to keep it quiet.  Thus, the only explanation that makes any sense here is that the purchaser felt there was something of useful in the disclosure.  Let's consider some options:

• The purchaser is a wealthy individual who likes to show his/her wealth - i.e., this was a "bragging rights" thing.  But then why the need for anonymity?  Why the need to purchase three works at inflated prices instead of just the one recordbreaker?  Why the need to disclose the specifics instead of a generality about a record-breaking price paid?  (As a side note, this scenario will result in the purchaser's identity becoming known sooner or later, just as is the case for most notable auctions of significant works of art.  Word gets around, and any competent lawyer would have explained that risk to the client who agrees to this kind of disclosure in an otherwise private transaction.)
• The purchaser sees this as an investment and wants to set the market for Lik works to support the eventual resale of the works (or perhaps other Lik works already owned by the purchaser). Where I have trouble with this explanation is the magnitude of the price paid.  An art investor willing to spend $10 million is going to consult with experts who know the market and the valuations supported by the market. Everything I've read about this transaction (including direct quotes from gallery owners and proclaimed experts in the art photo market) indicates that the price paid was grossly inflated if resale value was the motivation.  Apparently, Lik's work just hasn't done very well in the secondary market, so this would have been an absolutely insane price to be paid for investment purposes, even for the shock value it might generate.
• Something else is going on to align the seller's and purchaser's interest in disclosing the deal.  But what?  The law firms involved are well enough known that they wouldn't want to risk association with a bogus insider transaction.

It's a mystery, but because of all of the red flags and anomalies from the norms of the market, I personally do not take the publicized valuation seriously. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Well, the buyer is still anonymous, in spite of all the publicity, isn't he? And if that ends, sooner or later, as you claim it inevitably does, the buyer might prefer later than sooner, no?

[amolitor]

Lik sold a print for something like a million something like four years ago. Under pretty similar terms. I think that buyer (possibly the same one) remains anonymous.

[leeonmaui]

Aloha,

Google; Peter Lik Bella Luna, view image.
Consider the source...

[John Koerner]

Not that Wikipedia is gospel or anything, but of all the 22 "most expensive" photographs ever sold, 4 are Peter Lik's, and all 4 are listed as "dubious" ... unlike anyone else's.

There were previous complaints that Lik's Phantom wasn't much of a photo, but really hardly of these record-holding photos are that technically difficult.

Quite frankly, the verified #2 is really nothing IMO.

Of those 27 photographs, only 7 and 9 really anything for me, though I enjoyed quite a few.

7 is truly haunting ... if you look at it up close in another view ... and of course the only photo ever of Billy the Kid has significant historical value.

But the rest, I honestly can't see it (except for maybe 3 and 4).

There are 5 other photographers who each got 2 of their images in there (Jeff Wall, Andreas Gursky, Cindy Sherman, Edward Weston, and Alfred Stieglitz)  ... and, of these, I think Gursky's are undeserving, while Wall's and Sherman's really do stop you in your tracks.

Again, interesting how Peter Lik has 4 in there, and all are deemed "dubious" ... that's not a very good sign.

Jack

[amolitor]

Wikipedia is big on verifiability. You can click the discuss link for details but I bet it's pretty much exactly what's been said on these forums.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Now, Jack, you'r just being jealous

[wildstork]

Nice that you’ve apologized to all of the doubters on this forum thread for your insults early on in the thread, Jack.

Do you need a reminder of what you wrote?  Here’s a start:

On the first page of the thread, in post #4, you wrote:
“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.”

“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.”

“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

Two posts later you wrote:
“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

Seven posts later you write:
“Jealousy is an ugly thing.”
Jack

On page two of the same thread you wrote:
“The fact Lik has sold other pieces in the top 10 means he's always a contender to do what he did.

So yes, I think it's jealousy. Plain and simple.”
Jack

A few posts later, still on page two:


“But instead admiring the man for the success wrought from his hard work, you're trying to put yourself on some sort of "higher moral ground" because you don't want to work as hard …”


“Rats feed their families, so what? Anyone can do that.

And anyone can take pictures for fun.

As I said in my opening post here, what Lik has accomplished takes technical skill + artistic vision + marketing genius (hard work constantly getting your stuff in front of "the right eyes" …)”

“But instead admiring the man for the success wrought from his hard work, you're trying to put yourself on some sort of "higher moral ground" because you don't want to work as hard …”

“I could swear I never even addressed you, originally, but that it was you who first became that way toward me.

A quick review of the progression of this thread ought to clear the air of that too.”
Jack

Welcome to the whiners, Jack!  Nice of you to come to your senses.  

Do you think an apology to those you insulted on this thread for coming to your senses a full week after heaping insults on those who felt as you do now might be in order?

"Point blank, plain and simple."

[amolitor]

This sort of dredging up of past sins is rarely helpful. I do it a bit myself, which lessens me. I try to stick to addressing direct attacks, when I'm getting snarly.

A guy can change his mind. This is an internet forum, not the politburo. We can let afford to let things go.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I am sure Jack is going to explain it better than me, but I do not see any contradiction in what he wrote now and then, nor the reason to apologize. In the earlier post he wrote about Lik's success side, in the latest one about artistic side. Even in the first post Jack said if true, false sale is not cool.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...This is an internet forum, not the politburo...

Amen, brother!

Besides, Jack is one of the few members that I recall being able to cede a point in a gentlemanly fashion. This is not to say that he is in this case, as I happen to agree with him 100% that a lot of comments about Lik stem from simple jealousy and whining. Again, this is not to say that there are no (or should't be) negative comments about Lik that seem well reasoned and justified.

[wildstork]

I fully agree with you, Andrew.  Anyone can change their mind.  That's not the issue.  
The anonymity of forums allows some to hurl insults whenever their sense of self righteousness is offended.  I just cited John's posts as examples.  
Many of his earlier forum posts are replete with insults to Bernard, Trevarthan, powerslave 12r, jjj, Torbjorn, yourself and others... whenever they express an opinion that is contrary to his own.  This goes to the issue of decorum: "behavior in keeping with good taste and propriety."  
There's no need to insult someone you disagree with on a public forum.  That is the point of my last post.  
I fail to see any relationship with your term "politburo"... unless you feel that accountability is pedestrian.
And for someone who often asks for "evidence"... I simply quoted his own words to preempt any request for examples.
Lawrence

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...   Many of his earlier forum posts are replete with insults...

Whether they are seen as "insults" or simply rhetorical tools depends on the thickness of your ego's shield (or is it thinness?).

[wildstork]

I love your sense of humor, Slobodan!

[John Koerner]

Nice that you’ve apologized to all of the doubters on this forum thread for your insults early on in the thread, Jack.

I never apologized to anyone, actually.

Nor will I.

I'm pretty sure I simply said, "Interesting," in my last post.

(Glad you got all that off your chest though.)

My last post did reveal I am more sympathetic to the doubters now, but the sum and substance of my previous debate was with Amolitor's vituperations about "skill" (not credibility). The idea that technical skill is what sells photos, and that "anyone" can sell high $$ prints if (in his words) they "sell their soul" ...

This was the laughable jackassery with which I took issue.

As can be seen by my posting a link to all the high $$ photos historically, Amolitor's hooplah over Lik's skill being mediocre really is laughable, since most of these top $$$ shots are not technically-difficult in the least either.

Some are "artsy," and some are evocative, but none of the top $$ images is really technically-difficult. So what do I own an apology for?

Because, as far as the argument for true value goes, for the money spent, only the image of Billy The Kid was historically-significant (and possibly Wall's war/death image), which means (for investment purposes) most of the images do not actually justify the expenditure.

I remain staunch in my position that all the drama surrounding Lik is good for photographers, because it draws the public's imagination toward high $$ images. As I also clearly said, "Even Lik selling multiple single images in the $20,000-$40,000 range is great. How many of you do this? Other record-breakers don't always make record-breaking sales either."

In the end, I don't know the truth about who bought Lik's work (nor why), nor do any of you.
But even with all the doubt, two things I said remain true: (1) the highest-$$ images in history have almost nothing to do with "technical skill," at all. (2) These images either have to do with some kind of artsy "vision" that was evocative to someone with money, or capturing a graphic moment that resonated with someone with money, or (in only one case) it was an historically-significant photo (the only known image of Billy The Kid.)

High $$ photography is not about "technical skill"; it's about capturing someone's imagination ... or by being being somewhere to capture a great moment.

So yall can pretty much sit down. The "skill" issue can be put to bed.

In fact, go re-read everything I said with my statement giving the musician's quote: there are many "extremely talented" musicians who don't know what a hit song is. Being able to create hit songs is not about technical skill either; it's about being able to capture "something" (some beat/rhythm) that the public wants to buy.

The same principle translates to photography.
Gursky, Sherman, and Stieglitz were not geniuses "technically," but artistically.

And I am pretty sure they also put the work in to make sure they were at the right place at the right time.

Jack