MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Peter Lik, master salesman, does it again  (Read 11691 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 10, 2014, 09:11 »
+1
I can't quite imagine how he manages to get people to pay so much for his images, nice as they are, but fair play to the guy.

http://www.lik.com

A rather more bitter take on it here:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless



PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2014, 09:25 »
+6
Why? He has managed to brand himself so that buyers have a high perceived value of him and his work.

I'd love to be my own brand where I could command that kind of money.

I also think it's a good example that images still have plenty of value to the right buyers and not every photo should be free or $1.

Maybe Peter looks at people like us and thinks "I can't quite imagine how he manages to get people to pay so little for his images"


« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2014, 09:27 »
+2
Maybe Peter looks at people like us and thinks "I can't quite imagine how he manages to get people to pay so little for his images"

Ha! You're probably right.

« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2014, 09:34 »
+3
Nice shot, but the article is correct.  In the underwater photography world I could never figure out how this one dude was getting so much traction because his photography was really not very good (I am not saying Peter Lik's image is crummy, just going to make a point). In fact I used to kick his a-s-s in international competitions, but what I learned was that he was a much better marketer than me. Marketing expertise, in my example, far outweighed the quality and uniqueness of his images. He was a master at that and it got him fame and some fortune.


Just an aside: He died, though, in a diving accident on a deep wreck with his 14 year old son. Photography distracted him in 140 feet, his son, not well trained for technical diving, panicked and caused three deaths, including his father. Some publishing house wanted to use his images from that dive to market them (no matter how bad the image might be) simply because of what happened on that dive and the person's fame.  His wife refused, but the point is that this company would have marketed those images, no matter how mediocre they were, and made a lot of doe. It's all about marketing.

I went to the funeral and it was really sad seeing a small and large coffin next to each other. It changed my life.

« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2014, 10:47 »
+2
Thanks for sharing Mantis.

Back to Peter Lik.... I don't think it's worth $6.5 M, but to be able to understand in any way you really have to see his work displayed.  He prints on silver paper and mounts underneath a 1/2" sheet of plexi.  They will take you into a viewing room and display a piece you may want, lowering and raising the lights - and just something about the way they are mounted that the photo appears to be going from sunrise to midday.  We actually considered buying an aspen pine forest in fall (but then had a reality check).

Have to admit... I did catch myself walking around the gallery uttering... purple fringing... perspective distortion...  grain....

« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2014, 10:58 »
+2
Having occasionally dabbled in the antiques business it doesn't surprise me in the least. The jaded auctioneer's answer to the eternal question - "how much is this chipped old plate worth?" is always "as much as the highest bidder is prepared to pay for it". 

« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2014, 11:25 »
+2
Back to Peter Lik.... I don't think it's worth $6.5 M, but to be able to understand in any way you really have to see his work displayed.  He prints on silver paper and mounts underneath a 1/2" sheet of plexi.  They will take you into a viewing room and display a piece you may want, lowering and raising the lights - and just something about the way they are mounted that the photo appears to be going from sunrise to midday.  We actually considered buying an aspen pine forest in fall (but then had a reality check).

That's true - I've seen his galleries in Key West and Las Vegas (I think) and the images do look absolutely fantastic the way they're displayed. It's a large part of the selling technique I imagine.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2014, 11:49 »
+1
wow, for the first time i'm in agreement with a Guardia article.

i would even go further and point out that there are actually better pictures of that canyon available in high res as public domain or CC licence or for a pittance on micros !

but the guy who bought the photo is not a fool as the Guardian claims, he's a wise expert collector and he expect to make a fat profit on his investment, he won't give two sh-its about what this photo is all about, he bought it only because it's a LIK and because he expects the LIK brand to be worth a lot more in the future and especially after Lik's death.

art is never defined by the market !

« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2014, 14:17 »
0
I think someone is laughing at us. If I had to guess I would say it's military intelligence. Read the art papers by Miles Mathis if you want to get a clue about the "high-end art market".

http://www.lik.com/news/newsarticle24/ [nofollow]

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2014, 20:53 »
+2
I think someone is laughing at us. If I had to guess I would say it's military intelligence. Read the art papers by Miles Mathis if you want to get a clue about the "high-end art market".

http://www.lik.com/news/newsarticle24/


modern art has been as a scam since the beginning, as in every classic Ponzi scheme the idea is to give enormous value to a worthless thing and keep perpetuating the system over and over making it so complex and hard to grasp that nobody will understand it's nothing but a scam.

the intelligence community has never drank the kool aid about modernism, they're the only ones who know what's really going on.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2014, 21:00 »
-1
by the way, can't find a SINGLE photo of Peter Lik where he's not wearing a hat, his head is always covered even indoors ? he must be bald but having a hard time getting to grips with it.


« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2014, 21:45 »
+4
Some of the most successful photographers I know are mediocre or competent photographers at best but are incredibly good marketers. They all share one thing: An unshakable confidence that they are the best,  reasonable or not. When you are selling from that belief, others will often buy into it. A star is born.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2014, 22:03 »
0
Some of the most successful photographers I know are mediocre or competent photographers at best but are incredibly good marketers. They all share one thing: An unshakable confidence that they are the best,  reasonable or not.

yeah, and probably also suffering from Narcissistic personality disorder, megalomania, and believing their own BS ?

the simple fact there's such a heated debate about Peter Lik among pro photographers should be a major red flag !

however, this kind of large format fine art can only be appreciated inside a huge art gallery where they're printed as big as a wall, watching thumbnails on the web won't give you any feeling, Lik's works are gorgeous but totally overpriced and overestimated, that's all, but how's that any different from the works of any famous primadonna doing music or movies ? we're shocked about Lik's being worth a few dozen millions and nobody complains about Lady Gaga or DJ Tiesto ?

i mean, thinking about it's hair raising to think DJ Tiesto is actually making more money than Peter Lik and by a huge margin ! at least Lik is a real artist.



Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2014, 22:08 »
0
When you are selling from that belief, others will often buy into it. A star is born.

They're all selling emotions.

And i'm ok with that, but how much an emotion is worth ?

What these buyers are doing is basically setting a precedent and setting the value of a product, once the value is set in stone the product magically becomes valuable and the sky is the limit but in fact it's still a scam no matter the whole art mumbo jumbo, anyone could get better photos paying some professional landscape photographer on assignment, it will not be cheap but centainly not a 6 figures affair !

now that's the real cost with no BS involved, anything else is hot air and marketing and Ponzi schemes.

Lik got the foot in the door in the art market and after 30 yrs finally hit a goldmine, that's the only moral of this story.



Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2014, 22:14 »
-1
there's an article in his blog where's he boasting about a Sony event in australia earning almost 1 million AUS$, his photo at the entrance of the show is made of a boat on the sea !

now the irony, i was just editing a very similar set of photos yesterday morning and i ended up deleting the whole batch because i felt it was rubbish ! hahaha ... i should really get the foot in the art market too, guess i'm wasting my time with stock ....


« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2014, 06:54 »
+2
The article is troll. The fact that this is not convincing art does not mean that photography is not / cannot be art - or that it does not belong in a world of art. Which is what the article is arguing.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2014, 07:06 »
+1
The article is troll. The fact that this is not convincing art does not mean that photography is not / cannot be art - or that it does not belong in a world of art. Which is what the article is arguing.

photography can be art, indeed, but only a small part of the photo industry is artistic and giving any meaning or emotion or feelings, most of the pics we see around are just meant for illustration, ediorial, news, real estate etc .. ths is not art at all, but fine art photography is art 100% or at least they try.

the problem i see with Lik and landscape photography in general is that maybe it's me but i don't get much feeling or emotions looking at these photos, maybe i should look at them printed as big as a wall, maybe, but to me they're no match to serious stuff like you see from the top travel and war photographers.

the best war photos are a punch on your face, the best travel photos will make you dream about far away destinations, landscape doesn't do that to me but again maybe it's me ...

moreover, there can't be any political/ideological message inside a landscape, it's merely about the watered down concept of "beauty" which can be all and nothing depending on the viewer.





« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2014, 14:00 »
+1
Did you see this: http://www.lik.com/thework/aviator.html ?

I wouldn't hang this anywhere in my home even if he paid me. And people actually give money for this, and good money.

L to the f*cking ol.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2014, 16:15 »
+1
Ansel Adams must be turning in his grave

« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2014, 17:33 »
0
Peter Lik likely bought it himself, to generate publicity and get the record.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2014, 21:46 »
+2
while it's impossible to please everybody Lik's bullsh-its can only fly in the US in my opinion and this is shockingly obvious if you watch a dozen of his videos on youtube where he plays the macho/adventurer role !

said that, he really knows how to sell his sh-it.

jareso

  • Boris Jaroscak
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2014, 05:33 »
+2
It's a proof that photography is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it, just like anything else. You just need to find the right type of buyers! ;)

« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2014, 05:49 »
0
Mantis, from your post I can not quite understand who died in that diving accident?

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2014, 06:25 »
0
That's true - I've seen his galleries in Key West and Las Vegas (I think) and the images do look absolutely fantastic the way they're displayed. It's a large part of the selling technique I imagine.

it seems he's printing on Fuji Supergloss, he must use top notch lighting in his stores to bring the maximum out of his photos but it won't look the same in your home unless you redesign the lighting of your room which can probably cost an arm and a leg ...


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2014, 06:28 »
-1
You just need to find the right type of buyers! ;)

he's validated by some of the top photographic authorities and for the gullible buyer that's all there is to know.

in Europe presenting himself as "master photographer" would never ever fly ! same for his cowboy hat and all the mumbo jumbo he did on TV.

but hey, at least his photos are great, he's not a total scam like Gursky & friends.


« Last Edit: December 12, 2014, 06:31 by Hobostocker »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2014, 06:40 »
-1
Marketing expertise, in my example, far outweighed the quality and uniqueness of his images. He was a master at that and it got him fame and some fortune.

it's a gray area.

as much as many will agree that the top photographers aren't doing anything exceptional to justify their market value in the end it's all a matter of giving buyers an emotion and a feeling strong enough to justify the sale of an overpriced product and this is very hard, god knows what goes on in the head of a buyer when he looks at a LIK photo compared to when he looks at a 1$ micro image ... ?

i think 99% of his marketing is because of the way the product is presented, just as Apple and anybody else is doing with boutique stores, pricing their products at sky high levels and attracting like a magnet the kind of buyer with deep pockets and a big ego, i mean we should not forget that there are even buyers who love to spend more just to show off they can afford it, or for vanity, or out of boredom, or because whatever other silly reason that we poor devils can't even imagine .. a billionaire won't even think twice about spending a few millions on art pieces and to give a sh-it about what we're discussing here.




« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2014, 07:15 »
0
Mantis, from your post I can not quite understand who died in that diving accident?

The guy who was not a great photographer but a great marketer and his son.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #27 on: December 12, 2014, 10:20 »
0
it seems Lik is being bashed also in a large-format photography forum by other pros :

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?118502-6-5-Million-for-a-Peter-Lik

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2014, 11:19 »
+5
it seems Lik is being bashed also in a large-format photography forum by other pros :

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?118502-6-5-Million-for-a-Peter-Lik


For $ 6.5 millions I think that I could accept to be bashed all the rest of my life :D

« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2014, 11:48 »
+3
The Guardian article is pretty nasty - I can sense the bitterness and jealousy of the author. You can have an opinion but why get so emotional about it?
As to the outrageous price for the pic - well good for him, but it's all about who you know and who you ... you know:) His biggest sales are to the same "art collector".
Looking at his photos, some of them are nice enough, some of them are the most mediocre sh*t. Nothing blows my mind though. Which brings me back to the "who you know" comment;-)

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #30 on: December 12, 2014, 21:45 »
+1
For $ 6.5 millions I think that I could accept to be bashed all the rest of my life :D

but their theory is that it's a money laundering operation or a PR stunt to raise the value of his works since none of his photos has even been sold for a high price in auctions like Sotheby's etc

and they rightfully point out that his 4000$ prints can hardly be sold on art brokerage sites for more than 1500$ ...

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #31 on: December 12, 2014, 21:56 »
-1
The Guardian article is pretty nasty - I can sense the bitterness and jealousy of the author. You can have an opinion but why get so emotional about it?

i think it's all about money, unlike the other top photographers LIK is selling his stuff primarily by himself with his own gallery, he's not dependent on the art critic and art gallery mafias and that's why they're mad at him.

the art mafia is pushing obscure stuff like Gursky or even selfies like Cindy Sherman, Lik instead is selling images that are easy and commercial for everybody especially those outside the art world.

while we all agree his stuff is overphotoshopped and overhyped how can they justify paying millions for a Gursky ? Gursky is shooting food in supermarkets and a river in the countryside, Sherman is shooting selfies with a Polaroid, Jeff Wall shoots random people on the street with bad framing and bad focus .. the list goes on.

modern art is 99% mumbo jumbo and they know it.

this sh-it will never fly outside of the West and only recently this virus found fertile ground in Asia but just because of the big money involved in the industry.



« Last Edit: December 12, 2014, 22:02 by Hobostocker »

« Reply #32 on: December 12, 2014, 23:06 »
0


the art mafia is pushing obscure stuff like Gursky or even selfies like Cindy Sherman, Lik instead is selling images that are easy and commercial for everybody especially those outside the art world.

while we all agree his stuff is overphotoshopped and overhyped how can they justify paying millions for a Gursky ? Gursky is shooting food in supermarkets and a river in the countryside, Sherman is shooting selfies with a Polaroid, Jeff Wall shoots random people on the street with bad framing and bad focus .. the list goes on.


Lik should join FineArtAmerica - his stuff would actually do well there;) But instead all these photographers are providing an important and essential service to really rich people (with or without the help of art mafia) - giving them yet another opportunity to brag how much money they can throw away... someone has to do it, right? Otherwise all these obscenely rich people may just go suicidal since they wouldn't know what to do with their lives... :P

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #33 on: December 13, 2014, 03:46 »
+3
^ do you really think that when you sale a photo $ 6.5 millions you need to be on FAA ?

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #34 on: December 13, 2014, 04:34 »
+1
Otherwise all these obscenely rich people may just go suicidal since they wouldn't know what to do with their lives... :P

art is a luxury and in part an investment so they get an artwork they like and the option to make some profit after a few years, i can't blame rich people for diversifying their investments i would do the same.

i don't think they go suicidal, i've met a few rich people so far and eventually they get bored easily but they all live a nice life in general, what is killing them is that sooner or later they tried every possible pleasurable thing, eaten the best foods, traveled in the best places all over the world, attended the most exclusive events, dated beautiful models, tried any drugs and any kind of entertainment, they reach the point where they ask themselves what's next and what's the meaning of their life.

it can be shocking for us to read about people paying crazy money for a Ferrari or for a painting but these things become more valueable over time, they're not like a toyota camry or a 10$ stock image.

anyone becoming a millionaire is not a fool and you can bet he spends his money wisely, if someone really paid 6 millions for a Lik there must be something dodgy going on behind the scenes.

« Last Edit: December 13, 2014, 04:37 by Hobostocker »

« Reply #35 on: December 13, 2014, 11:39 »
+2
^ do you really think that when you sale a photo $ 6.5 millions you need to be on FAA ?

Sigh.... was a joke...

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #36 on: December 13, 2014, 12:35 »
+1
^ I have been fooled! :D :D

+1
« Last Edit: December 13, 2014, 12:38 by Beppe Grillo »

« Reply #37 on: December 13, 2014, 12:47 »
0
Why? He has managed to brand himself so that buyers have a high perceived value of him and his work.

I'd love to be my own brand where I could command that kind of money.

I also think it's a good example that images still have plenty of value to the right buyers and not every photo should be free or $1.

Maybe Peter looks at people like us and thinks "I can't quite imagine how he manages to get people to pay so little for his images"

They buy the name and for investing, not the art that hangs on a wall. Mounting or print on metal makes some buy. Man with pinhole truck makes albumin printsinside. Novilty status or saying I have a Lik on my wall.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2014, 23:48 »
+1
interesting story from a famous landscape photographer who worked in a Lik gallery years ago :

http://scottreither.com/blogwp/2012/06/11/peter-lik-gallery-photographer-my-story/


he confirms all the criticism against Lik and in the comments section he warns readers that private sales for crazy prices are usually BS.

he also fully agrees that Lik's 4000$ prints will never be worth more than 1500$ in the secondary market, let alone his prints sold for almost 30K $ and that calling a 950 batch of prints "limited edition" is a joke.

so, is this 6 millions $ sale a total scam ? is Lik a con artist ? i say yes because that's the way it is in our society, scams and ripoffs are the norm and not the exception.





« Reply #39 on: December 14, 2014, 02:26 »
+2
Few days ago I heard about Lik and told the story (big sale) to my husband. All he said: "why wouldn't he (Lik) buy this picture from himself or ask some friend to do so and give him money back, just to make the internet storm on his name, to get more fame, popularity?"

Next day whole internet started to think the same way... So, looks like he was not the only one who doesn't believe this amazing value and huge sale? ;) To be serious... This sale just doesn't make any sense... What kind of sale was that? What did buyer get? One and the only one print in the world? License, rights? Did he buy it from Lik or from another colector? Etc...

About images, they are ok... Many are fine or very nice but I've seen much more amazing images in galeries of photographers that are unknown and full of modesty...
Lik is good actor as well as photographer ;)

Dook

« Reply #40 on: December 14, 2014, 06:01 »
0
That theory can't work, because in US you have to pay taxes, which are huge on $ 6.5 millions.
Anyway, I'm more and more disgust towards human beings behaviour and humans in general. Nothing is good for us. Nobody is good for us. We critic and spit on the best among us. I'm just recalling all the crap we said about Yuri Arcus here. And now Lik. Can't we just respect somoones success, qualities and skills?

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #41 on: December 14, 2014, 08:35 »
+1
That theory can't work, because in US you have to pay taxes, which are huge on $ 6.5 millions.
Anyway, I'm more and more disgust towards human beings behaviour and humans in general. Nothing is good for us. Nobody is good for us. We critic and spit on the best among us. I'm just recalling all the crap we said about Yuri Arcus here. And now Lik. Can't we just respect somoones success, qualities and skills?

but Lik is asking for it.

Claiming to be "master photographer" and writing in cubital letters in his blog "Lik makes art history", hiring pushy salesmen in his stores, selling 4000$ "limited editions" of almost 1000 copies that cost him a pittance ...

as for Yuri i've nothing against him and i like his works, no idea why he's been the target of so many debates here.


« Reply #42 on: December 14, 2014, 08:54 »
+1
That theory can't work, because in US you have to pay taxes, which are huge on $ 6.5 millions.
Anyway, I'm more and more disgust towards human beings behaviour and humans in general. Nothing is good for us. Nobody is good for us. We critic and spit on the best among us. I'm just recalling all the crap we said about Yuri Arcus here. And now Lik. Can't we just respect somoones success, qualities and skills?

I think you could probably write it off as a business expense if you bought your own work...

Dook

« Reply #43 on: December 14, 2014, 11:10 »
0
I agree with both of you. I just was in a bad mood, had to write it down.  :)

« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2014, 13:29 »
0
Did you see this: http://www.lik.com/thework/aviator.html ?

I wouldn't hang this anywhere in my home even if he paid me. And people actually give money for this, and good money.

L to the f*cking ol.


I just wonder where that air museum/boneyard is - looks like you can get some nice angles on that F-16 there.    (Most air museums have all the planes too close or with crap in the backgrounds that makes them too hard to shoot nice images at).   

As far as Peter himself goes - he is the photography world's equivalent to Thomas Kincaid.    More power to him in my opinion.   Just goes to show its all about the marketing.   I expect he will eventually have franchise galleries in every nice mall in the US just like Mr. Kincaid did.

« Reply #45 on: December 14, 2014, 18:10 »
0
 art  -  in all areas: movies, music,  novels, poetry, photography... etc. - is at very low level - in recent decades... nothing new...


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #47 on: December 14, 2014, 22:15 »
0
art  -  in all areas: movies, music,  novels, poetry, photography... etc. - is at very low level - in recent decades... nothing new...

because they made an industry on it and rejected anything truely artistic.

true art is not even produced any more in many cases, music for instance, as there's not enough critical mass of potential buyers or consumers or monetization ways to justify the production costs.

who's going to invest 5-10 yrs of his life to master a skill that can NOT be monetized in any way ?


« Reply #48 on: December 14, 2014, 23:40 »
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

Andreas Gursky sold this photoshopped crap for $4.3 million in 2011.

Perhaps this was a publicity stunt and Lik is just keeping the scam rolling forward. He is greedy and narcissistic enough to go there -- kinda like Lance Armstrong -- the money and fame gets so addictive that you lose contact with reason and reality.


« Reply #49 on: December 15, 2014, 02:49 »
0
art  -  in all areas: movies, music,  novels, poetry, photography... etc. - is at very low level - in recent decades... nothing new...

because they made an industry on it and rejected anything truely artistic.

true art is not even produced any more in many cases, music for instance, as there's not enough critical mass of potential buyers or consumers or monetization ways to justify the production costs.

who's going to invest 5-10 yrs of his life to master a skill that can NOT be monetized in any way ?

yes -of course - art is a mirror of society, if this today could be called  a society at all - no moral (aesthetics) - just greedy run for MORE MORE MORE money - but something will change sooner or later - this is unsustainable - so much people become very very poor and very few get richer and richer - it can t last forever


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #50 on: December 15, 2014, 03:22 »
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

Andreas Gursky sold this photoshopped crap for $4.3 million in 2011.

Perhaps this was a publicity stunt and Lik is just keeping the scam rolling forward. He is greedy and narcissistic enough to go there -- kinda like Lance Armstrong -- the money and fame gets so addictive that you lose contact with reason and reality.


but Gursky's sale is for real because he sold his photo in a public auction, not via private deals like Lik.

on the other side when selling in auctions the artist will only get a small slice of the pie.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #51 on: December 15, 2014, 03:27 »
+2
talking about Gursky, just look at this set of 5 images of a stock exchange.

really, even a beginning amateur with a 15mm FX lens would shot the same identical composition and probably better colors.

where's the art in this, where's the single factor making it worth millions of $ ?
visually, it's not even artistic to me, it's just lame editorial photography that could be used in a blog to illustrate an article !

if Lik is a total scam, what about Gursky, or even worse Cindy Sherman ?

https://artsy.net/post/sothebys-andreas-gursky-stock-exchanges


« Reply #52 on: December 15, 2014, 05:19 »
0
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/10/expensive-photo-world-best-marketing-stunt/

... "But all that aside, the lack of transparency in the sale raises nothing but questions about the validity of the claim. It feels like a marketing stunt to get Liks name in the news, and a few more feet into the galleries. On that account, the sale is a success. But youd be hard pressed to find support for his artistry.

If you want to be inspired by a master marketer, look no further than Lik. If you want to see great photography, head over to the ICP and see the Salgado exhibit."

Comparison Sebastio Salgado: http://www.icp.org/museum/exhibitions/sebastiao-salgado-genesis

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #53 on: December 15, 2014, 08:05 »
0
Comparison Sebastio Salgado: http://www.icp.org/museum/exhibitions/sebastiao-salgado-genesis


Salgado is in my all-time top 10 of photography, his photos have just everything, technical skills, emotions, a message, composition, and he's still underrated because the Leica freaks keep foaming from their mouth for Ansel Adams and Frank Capa and Cartier Bresson while Salgado couldn't give a sh-it and had the guts to quit Magnum and going back to freelancing !


« Reply #54 on: December 15, 2014, 08:27 »
-1

Salgado is in my all-time top 10 of photography, his photos have just everything, technical skills, emotions, a message, composition, and he's still underrated because the Leica freaks keep foaming from their mouth for Ansel Adams and Frank Capa and Cartier Bresson while Salgado couldn't give a sh-it and had the guts to quit Magnum and going back to freelancing !



Yeah, Ansel Adams, that ole Leica freak...

And Frank Capa is Robert's not-so-well-known brother?

*SCNR*

« Reply #55 on: December 15, 2014, 15:41 »
+1

Salgado is in my all-time top 10 of photography, his photos have just everything, technical skills, emotions, a message, composition, and he's still underrated

I agree. If you want a real investment in high art photography Salgado certainly has potential. Good luck to Lik, why shouldn't he make what he can? and I think the Guardian comment about it "proving" that photography is not art is ridiculous, it just proves that the people who pay telephone numbers for pictures aren't necessarily good judges of art.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #56 on: December 15, 2014, 21:37 »
0
Ansel Adams shot medium format as far as i know ... Capa used whatever got the job done, but that's not the point .. the point is that gearheads should stop ranting and raving about their gear and focus on their photos !

and what's the point anyway ? for landscape photography even the best DSLR on the market (D810) is absolutely no match compared with any entry level Hasselblad or Phase One.

Leica has become a cult and there's nothing i can do but it's unacceptable to be looked down by these freaks because i use a Nikon while they shoot Leica or ancient rangefinders, again shouldn't photography be about the photo or it's now a high-tech club where we only discuss scientific papers about lens design, diffraction and color correction ? should i go out and shoot or get a job at DxO as a lab rat ?

photography is about emotions, and only in minimal part about Tech, unless we're talking about scientific photography, industrial photography, astronomy, etc

in the age of Photoshop the sensor or lens you're using is becoming totally irrilevant if you're a PS power user and if you start from a good image, sticking with Leica won't make your image any better apart for some specialist purposes and using the most expensive lenses.

nowadays Ansel Adams would shoot with Hasselblad or Phase One like everybody else and he would never look back !






Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #57 on: December 15, 2014, 21:46 »
-1
I think the Guardian comment about it "proving" that photography is not art is ridiculous

the entire Guardian newspaper is toilet paper actually, just as bad as the Daily Mail but left-wing and with some snobbery thrown in the mix, their Comment Is Free section is such a joke and 30-40% of the comments are censored or banned.

and now they say "winner of the Pulitzer prize" in the top of their homepage due to the Snowden scandal but the irony is they never wanted to publish anything about Snowden, it was the Washington Post breaking the news about Prism so the Guardian was "forced" to follow half an hour later, Glenn Greenwald was not even one of their journos, he knocked at their door just out of desperation in fact as he got rejected by other newspapers.

and this is the background of their cream of the crop journalism, it's laughable to imagine what's their standard about art commentary and editorials on photography, the guy accusing Lik must be a former blogger paid to write "click-baits" in the hope they get viral.




« Reply #58 on: December 15, 2014, 21:48 »
0
One thing for sure - Lik's getting a lot of traffic to his site because of all this publicity, and probably selling a lot of his "cheaper" stuff too... good marketing move... regardless of the sale being fake or real, he got the clicks... I should do something like that for my FAA portfolio  ;)

« Reply #59 on: December 16, 2014, 02:54 »
0
John Huszar interviewed Adams for his 1981 film, Ansel Adams: Photographer. Adams recalled:

    "Well, people have asked me what kind of cameras I used. It's hard to remember all of them. Oh I had a box Brownie #1 in 1915, 16. I had the Pocket Kodak, and a 4 x 5 view, all batted down. I had a Zeiss Milliflex. A great number of different cameras. I want to try to get back to 35 millimeter, which I did a lot of in the 1930s. Using one of the Zeiss compacts. In the 20s and into the 30s, I would carry a 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 glass plate camera -- that was a little heavy. And I had a 4 x 5 camera, then of course we went to film, to film pack, things became a little simpler.

    "...I guess we all did the best as we could. If we had very heavy cameras we simply didn't go so far or take so many pictures. Knowing what I know now, any photographer worth his salt could make some beautiful things with pinhole cameras."
I am surprised he went down to 35mm. Most photos of him show him with a large format camera, but there is at least one where he is using a Hasselblad. If you want the absolute best out of black and white film you would still go for large format. As for pinholes, well, they might sometimes look nice but they would fail QC - even on iStock!

« Reply #60 on: December 16, 2014, 02:59 »
+2
One thing for sure - Lik's getting a lot of traffic to his site because of all this publicity, and probably selling a lot of his "cheaper" stuff too... good marketing move... regardless of the sale being fake or real, he got the clicks... I should do something like that for my FAA portfolio  ;)

Actually, he's doing us all a favour by telling the public that pretty ordinary photos can be worth a lot of money. Funny thing is that I saw a guy selling much more original and more difficult 10x8 images than Lik's on a Christmas market for about $25 each the other day. I thought he was under-pricing himself quite badly.

« Reply #61 on: December 16, 2014, 17:09 »
+1
I would like to to hear what Mr. Lik thinks of the Dollar Photo Club.

« Reply #62 on: December 16, 2014, 19:29 »
0
Nothing can prevent any of us to ask 6.5 million in FAA or our own site.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #63 on: December 16, 2014, 22:28 »
0
Nothing can prevent any of us to ask 6.5 million in FAA or our own site.

hahaha, i think it would be against their TOS and perceived as trolling.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #64 on: December 16, 2014, 22:32 »
0
I would like to to hear what Mr. Lik thinks of the Dollar Photo Club.

ironically he must be an expert of living on the edge as he takes pride of having lived on a van for 10 yrs with the excuse that it was the only way to reach far away places to shoot which is total BS as judging from his works he's shooting quite famous iconic locations that are easily accessible by road and by train.



Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #65 on: December 16, 2014, 23:04 »
+1
Actually, he's doing us all a favour by telling the public that pretty ordinary photos can be worth a lot of money. Funny thing is that I saw a guy selling much more original and more difficult 10x8 images than Lik's on a Christmas market for about $25 each the other day. I thought he was under-pricing himself quite badly.

of course, because Lik is not just selling a photo but he's giving buyers a whole "buying experience" when they enter his galleries which is a totally different concept, it's the same strategy adopted in the Apple stores and i've seen the same in the Sony and Samsung showrooms.

actually we could speculate is the same also for the top fashion brands, just look at any shop of Gucci, Armani, Louis Vitton, Chanel, Bulgari, they look as luxurious as jewelry, anything you see there smells of expensive from a mile away, no matter if that 300$ pair of jeans has been produced in Bangladesh and it's worth 5 bucks.

the guy selling for 25$ should get the foot in the door of an art gallery and once his stuff is sold there it will sell for 250$ just for the single reason it's now sold into a gallery and not in the street.

we should do the same for out best photos actually, or finding a way to sell them online for high prices.
selling on micros means totally devalueing our work but on the other side micro images are not used for artistic purposes so there's a logic at play backing the actualy low market value.

one of my street photos can be a 1$ stock image but also a 500$ fine art print in a gallery or a 50$ news/editorial image, it's all depends on the buyer.

Lik is focused on rich impulsive buyers but how many millions has he invested in his galleries, how much is he paying to rent his shops in top locations in Miami or Las Vegas ? i mean it's very risky despite he's certainly doing big profits.

it's not a magical receipt, in fact i read he closed some galleries that weren't performing well, just as i've seen so many expensive fashion stores failing miserably because of bad location or whatever other reason, i would say this marketing strategy only work in 50% of the cases, at best.

 


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #66 on: December 16, 2014, 23:05 »
0
One thing for sure - Lik's getting a lot of traffic to his site because of all this publicity, and probably selling a lot of his "cheaper" stuff too... good marketing move... regardless of the sale being fake or real, he got the clicks... I should do something like that for my FAA portfolio  ;)

yes, and on his site he's also selling a limite edition book for ... 5000$ !

« Reply #67 on: December 17, 2014, 02:56 »
0
I agree with that 100% , hobo. With the way microstock is going, proper galleries are obviously the answer.

« Reply #68 on: December 17, 2014, 08:20 »
0
I agree with that 100% , hobo. With the way microstock is going, proper galleries are obviously the answer.
With "proper" galleries you will earn  nothing but if you have famous and rich friends as  Lik has.

Anyway his picture has been sold in a private auction, with an anonymous buyer... I have sold a my image for 10.000.000$ too... ::)

« Reply #69 on: December 17, 2014, 11:11 »
0
I guess that I  too would rather sell one print for $6M than 18 million subs.

« Reply #70 on: December 17, 2014, 11:49 »
0
Nothing can prevent any of us to ask 6.5 million in FAA or our own site.

hahaha, i think it would be against their TOS and perceived as trolling.

Where do you see this clause in their TOS? Actually if you are a paying artist, FAA says clearly it is your own website. A piece of artwork can be worth nothing, like van Gogh's during his lifetime, then what is van Gogh's worth now? The value of artwork is definitely a perceived one, my friend.  ;)

ultimagina

« Reply #71 on: December 18, 2014, 08:13 »
+2

Salgado is in my all-time top 10 of photography, his photos have just everything, technical skills, emotions, a message, composition, and he's still underrated

I agree. If you want a real investment in high art photography Salgado certainly has potential. Good luck to Lik, why shouldn't he make what he can? and I think the Guardian comment about it "proving" that photography is not art is ridiculous, it just proves that the people who pay telephone numbers for pictures aren't necessarily good judges of art.
Read that article properly, till the end.

The last paragraph says:
"IF this is the most valuable fine art photograph in history, God help fine art photography."

The key word is IF.

The author is ready to admit that photographs can be art IF people stop treating photos like Lik's as art.

This is no art. This is craft. And Lik is not an artist, but a good photographer,  a professional,  a craftsman.

Quote from a dictionary:

"There is an indefinite distinction, for current or historical aesthetic items: between "fine art" objects made by "artists"; and folk art, craft-work, or "applied art" objects made by "first, second, or third-world" designers, artisans and craftspeople. "

For some, that distinction is very fluid.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2014, 09:16 by ultimagaina »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #72 on: December 18, 2014, 20:23 »
+2
This is no art. This is craft. And Lik is not an artist, but a good photographer,  a professional,  a craftsman.

according to the crooks in the top-end art market the best of the best in fine-art photography are the selfies of Cindy Sherman and the obscure snapshot of Gursky so good luck clearly defining what is "art" nowadays ...

but at least Gursky is good at scams and is even spending some time walking into a supermarket and on wall street, Cindy Sherman is a textbook case of total scam, the most striking example and living proof that the whole US and in particular NYC art market are a Ponzi scheme.

OM

« Reply #73 on: December 19, 2014, 20:54 »
0
John Huszar interviewed Adams for his 1981 film, Ansel Adams: Photographer. Adams recalled:

    "Well, people have asked me what kind of cameras I used. It's hard to remember all of them. Oh I had a box Brownie #1 in 1915, 16. I had the Pocket Kodak, and a 4 x 5 view, all batted down. I had a Zeiss Milliflex. A great number of different cameras. I want to try to get back to 35 millimeter, which I did a lot of in the 1930s. Using one of the Zeiss compacts. In the 20s and into the 30s, I would carry a 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 glass plate camera -- that was a little heavy. And I had a 4 x 5 camera, then of course we went to film, to film pack, things became a little simpler.

    "...I guess we all did the best as we could. If we had very heavy cameras we simply didn't go so far or take so many pictures. Knowing what I know now, any photographer worth his salt could make some beautiful things with pinhole cameras."
I am surprised he went down to 35mm. Most photos of him show him with a large format camera, but there is at least one where he is using a Hasselblad. If you want the absolute best out of black and white film you would still go for large format. As for pinholes, well, they might sometimes look nice but they would fail QC - even on iStock!

Interesting. Thanks. Surprising though in light of his Zone System which rather prefers individual exposure and development for the desired result......plate films easy, medium format less so and 35mm even less.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #74 on: December 20, 2014, 02:26 »
0
Knowing what I know now, any photographer worth his salt could make some beautiful things with pinhole cameras."

it's already going this way, there's many artists already doing exhibitions and sold in art galleries with photos shot with the cheapest and worst piece of sh-it cameras ever seen including cellphones or webcams.

actually i like some of these artsy/dreamy pinhole shots but if you look carefully it's more dreamy than artsy and it's not a small difference, the dreamy FX i can simulate in endless ways on PS if i want, but to make a photo artsy it's quite a different story and it has nothing to with which kind of gear you're using, that's irrilevant.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
14463 Views
Last post February 27, 2010, 05:11
by photoshow
728 Replies
141291 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 11:20
by luissantos84
15 Replies
8782 Views
Last post July 27, 2010, 20:26
by a.k.a.-tom
8 Replies
3400 Views
Last post February 18, 2012, 17:41
by Fran
52 Replies
20448 Views
Last post March 02, 2015, 01:13
by Hobostocker

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results