MicrostockGroup

Peter Lik sold a print for a million dollars

http://www.peterlikexposed.com/archives/237

It's art and all that stuff. Its usually one very rich individual outbidding another very rich individual. But it's nice to see photography attain such a high value, makes you wonder about the 25 cent downloads for at least a second.

I had one like that rejected for limited commercial value

longer than second

They do say of an image "if it looks good enough to hang on a wall then it ain't good stock". Totally different markets and totally different values both aesthetically and financially.

wow just one picture could win the most earning and working hard in the microstock of the year!!

I guess if it could get the rejection by some agency cause of lighting or what??LOL

Mmmm - Probably better value than the  £60m Chelsea payed for Fernando Torres last week.

Seriously though, has the world gone totally mad or am I just out of sync with reality?

Oldhand the confused

I'm not very good at talking myself up.  These successful photo artists are great at selling themselves and their photos.  It definitely makes me wonder if I'm in the wrong job when I see this though.  There's really nothing special about most of the photos I have seen selling for small fortunes.  I need to go to BS school   I also think it would be hard for a microstocker to sell photos for huge amounts of money but perhaps that could be used as a rags to riches story?  Some artists sell prints for tiny amounts and they sell their originals for big fees, so perhaps it can be done.

Would be interesting to know what's the most a microsotock contributor has made selling an art photography print.

I don't believe this story, sounds like a hash up to get some free advertising and to drive up the value of the photos he is selling.

Conviently the buyer wants to remain secret.

Maybe its true but I have my doubts.

Good point. The stratospheric prices at the very top of any market are built almost entirely on illusion and artificially restricted supply. That's all that's happened here.

A century ago emeralds commanded a far higher price than diamonds; it was only De Beers brilliant marketing strategy, using Hollywood film stars to promote desirability and restricting the supply of diamonds available (they owned over 90% of the world's diamond mines) that created the illusion of 'value' most people just accept today. I've never really understood why people are prepared to spend so much on ... er ... shiny things. As far as I'm concerned a diamond's primary use and value is for industrial cutting devices.

Probably for most of microstock agencies this pic would be rejected  because "Oversaturated category" or "Low commercial value"....

Me too. Even when stock was sold out of catalogues it was often worthwhile to spend days if not weeks on a single image, perfecting it.

This attitude is the reason photography isn't considered worthy of art purchases by many art collectors. There is a distinction between photography collectors (people who only collect photography) and art collectors who mostly collect oil paintings and perhaps drawings.  The gap needs to be bridged so collectors start considering fine art photography worthy of addition to their collections.

This price point is completely normal for rare works especially oil paintings....with paintings there are only ever one original.  When I worked at a high-end art gallery the biggest reason clients gave that they didn't buy photography was that most photographers didn't limit the editions or the editions were very large like 250.  When you are printing 250 of the same image you can not expect art buyers to be attracted to it.  I think it is wonderful that photography is slowly getting the clout and the money it has long deserved.  From my art sales experience I can tell you photography as art is a very hard sell. When someone wants to buy art for over the fireplace they usually consider oil paintings...it is only the rare and sophisticated buyer who will even consider photography for the coveted over-the-mantel position. I think the idea of high priced editions of one single image never to be reprinted again is the way photography needs to go if art buyers are going to take it seriously.  Most of the best selling photographer's works are limited to editions of 1 up to 40 but many stick around the 10 area.  Much of the fun of collecting anything is knowing that is is unique, that there aren't thousands of other people with the same thing. There has been much analysis of the psychology of collecting fine things. When something is rare enough and strikes a connection with the person who wants it money is no object. We have all made purchases of things we've wanted which are difficult to justify to others but have made us so happy.  I don't think we need to be questioning weather or not a photograph is worth a million dollars because obviously it is to some people, we need to be asking how can we learn from this sale and what types of circumstances lends itself to such a high price tag.  Looking on the website I see mostly very commercial landscapes of places that have been shot to death in the stock world...antelope canyon, arches national park, the Brooklyn bridge, etc etc. what is different is the limited edition and that he makes it fun for the buyer.  Psychologists have compared collecting art to the equivalent of playing for adults. Many wealthy people don't have the outlet or time to let go and play like a child but they can find that fun and joy through the process of purchasing art, this guy creates a unique and fun environment for adults to play before they make their purchase. that is a big part of what they are paying for. Many collectors chose to remain anonymous, once you buy a work like this, museums are all over you trying to get you to lend it to them for a year or the calls start coming in to get you to donate to this or that museum..they really can be like vultures once a purchase is considered "important" they all want to be the first to display it.