pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Peter Lik, master salesman, does it again  (Read 11688 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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
141290 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
20447 Views
Last post March 02, 2015, 01:13
by Hobostocker

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results