MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Off Topic => Topic started by: Hobostocker on February 24, 2015, 06:44
-
finally !
Peter Lik’s Recipe for Success: Sell Prints. Print Money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/business/peter-liks-recipe-for-success-sell-prints-print-money.html?_r=2 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/business/peter-liks-recipe-for-success-sell-prints-print-money.html?_r=2)
"Arguably, the person best versed in Peter Lik comparables is David Hulme, a fine-art valuer based in Australia for a company called Auctionata. For years, he has been getting calls from Lik owners around the world, and he finds the calls depressing.
“People tell me all the time, ‘I’ve been in touch with the gallery, and they say my photograph is now selling for $150,000 a copy,’ ” he says. “So they want to know what they can sell theirs for.”
A tiny fraction of that sum is the answer. A subscription service called Artnet — which bills itself as the most comprehensive database of its kind — captures the resale value of Lik photographs by cataloging auction results, and the most anyone has ever paid for one his photographs is $15,860, for a copy of an image called “Ghost,” in 2008. (It’s a color version of “Phantom.”) After that, it’s a long slide down, to $3,000 for a copy of “Eternal Beauty (Antelope County, Arizona)” in 2014. Fifteen images have sold for between $1,000 and $2,500, and four have sold for between $400 and $1,000. Another handful failed to sell. And that’s it."
BWAHAHAHA !!!!!
Lik is soooo full of sh-it, must be seen (check his ridicolous videos) to be believed, he's fitting like a glove his customer base of illiterate rich jerks.
-
They are getting what they deserve. Rule number 1: never invest in something you don´t understand...
-
They are getting what they deserve. Rule number 1: never invest in something you don´t understand...
there would be no problem if he just sold his prints for 3-4000 bucks which is already an obscene price considering a limited edition is usually 10-20 prints and he prints 950 !
but no, he want to squeeze the last dollar out of his gullible buyers, selling up to 35000$ and even training his clerks to use the usual well known sales ripoff tricks.
but hey, what goes around comes around, sooner or later he'll be hit by a mob of angry lawyers for fraud and his reputation will be finally destroyed, let's not forget that his rich buyers can afford to waste time and money in court, and they will.
-
Hey, if he asks an amount and someone pays it, I don't see how it's fraud. The price is what it is, for what it is.
-
Hey, if he asks an amount and someone pays it, I don't see how it's fraud. The price is what it is, for what it is.
mr locke i agree... on one hand microstock-ers complain they get shafted for pennies
now someone gets paid well it is considered scam. strange mentality double standard.
-
What's wrong with it?
-
He takes a great picture and his galleries are fantastic at displaying his work - I think the problem lies not with what he charges but that the sales methods infer that the picture you buy could increase in value and is a investment rather than just buying it for its aesthetic value.
I do find people who belittle the actual work annoying, it's no mean feat to get those images in many cases.
-
I think it's analogous to a stock IPO. There is publicity, there is pitch, there is hype, and then there is what's called "puffery" (legal exaggeration in advertising) but then there is misrepresentation. I don't know if Peter Lik has crossed that admittedly fuzzy line, probably he hasn't, but the phrase "pump and dump" comes to mind.
-
his work is very mediocre and cliché and far from spectacular but he knows what his market wants...which is bright, over-saturated, feel good living room art, framed well to match the decor of wealthy buyers lacking much depth in fine art knowledge.
http://www.lik.com/thework/likinhomes.html (http://www.lik.com/thework/likinhomes.html)
...a combination of Steve Irwin and Lance Armstrong and PT Barnum
-
his work is very mediocre and cliché and far from spectacular but he knows what his market wants...which is bright, over-saturated, feel good living room art, framed well to match the decor of wealthy buyers lacking much depth in fine art knowledge.
[url]http://www.lik.com/thework/likinhomes.html[/url] ([url]http://www.lik.com/thework/likinhomes.html[/url])
...a combination of Steve Irwin and Lance Armstrong and PT Barnum
Well it's not what's generally accepted as 'art' in the gallery world of photography, but to say it's mediocre is just nuts. It may not be to your taste but there's no denying the impact of the images when you see them.
Photographers love to think they can do what others who are doing better than them (me included), but it takes a lot of time, skill and effort to get images like that. Don't be fooled by the showman persona, there's some real craftwork going on there.
If his gallery business dries up those images would sell really well as stock!
-
his work is very mediocre and cliché and far from spectacular but he knows what his market wants...which is bright, over-saturated, feel good living room art, framed well to match the decor of wealthy buyers lacking much depth in fine art knowledge.
[url]http://www.lik.com/thework/likinhomes.html[/url] ([url]http://www.lik.com/thework/likinhomes.html[/url])
...a combination of Steve Irwin and Lance Armstrong and PT Barnum
Well it's not what's generally accepted as 'art' in the gallery world of photography, but to say it's mediocre is just nuts. It may not be to your taste but there's no denying the impact of the images when you see them.
Photographers love to think they can do what others who are doing better than them are doing (me included), but it takes a lot of time, skill and effort to get images like that. Don't be fooled by the showman persona, there's some real craftwork going on there.
If his gallery business dries up those images would sell really well as stock!
I just viewed all his images on his website and stand by my comments. He started as a postcard sales man and has not moved far from that. Much of his work are snapshots.
-
It's not about knowing how to make images. It's about knowing how to sell those images. If the last two years have taught us anything it's that the sales platform is what matters. The real skill is in selling. That is why he makes more on his images than other more talented artists. It's also why people don't give him enough credit. They are focusing on the images and completely missing his real skill set.
-
Fair play to him really for parting so many mugs from their cash. But I do like these comments culled from the British newspaper The Independent:
“It’s an abomination,” Michael Hoppen, a leading British photography gallerist, says of Phantom, which shows a shaft of light entering a canyon. “I remember when he sold the picture in 2010, my jaw dropped. I thought, who could be persuaded to part with $1m for a piece of tat? You could have done it with an iPhone.”
“I’ve never even heard of him,” Martin Parr, the renowned British photographer, says.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/photography/peter-lik-the-selfproclaimed-fineart-photographer-whose-work-sells-for-millions-9919427.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/photography/peter-lik-the-selfproclaimed-fineart-photographer-whose-work-sells-for-millions-9919427.html)
-
his work is very mediocre and cliché and far from spectacular but he knows what his market wants...which is bright, over-saturated, feel good living room art, framed well to match the decor of wealthy buyers lacking much depth in fine art knowledge.
[url]http://www.lik.com/thework/likinhomes.html[/url] ([url]http://www.lik.com/thework/likinhomes.html[/url])
...a combination of Steve Irwin and Lance Armstrong and PT Barnum
You should send him an email and tell him where he's going wrong, maybe give him a few pointers on how to brush up on his photography.
-
Fair play to him really for parting so many mugs from their cash. But I do like these comments culled from the British newspaper The Independent:
“I’ve never even heard of him,” Martin Parr, the renowned British photographer, says.
Who's Martin Parr?
-
Fair play to him really for parting so many mugs from their cash. But I do like these comments culled from the British newspaper The Independent:
“I’ve never even heard of him,” Martin Parr, the renowned British photographer, says.
Who's Martin Parr?
Works for Magnum - a cider company I think.
-
Fair play to him really for parting so many mugs from their cash. But I do like these comments culled from the British newspaper The Independent:
“I’ve never even heard of him,” Martin Parr, the renowned British photographer, says.
Who's Martin Parr?
Works for Magnum - a cider company I think.
He's got a few bits on Magnum, though goodness knows why, with his snapshots with wonky horizons.
http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL5357TF (http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL5357TF)
He's described on Wiki as a photojournalist and book collector!!!
-
his work is very mediocre and cliché and far from spectacular but he knows what his market wants...which is bright, over-saturated, feel good living room art, framed well to match the decor of wealthy buyers lacking much depth in fine art knowledge.
[url]http://www.lik.com/thework/likinhomes.html[/url] ([url]http://www.lik.com/thework/likinhomes.html[/url])
...a combination of Steve Irwin and Lance Armstrong and PT Barnum
You should send him an email and tell him where he's going wrong, maybe give him a few pointers on how to brush up on his photography.
you tell me...
is his work that much better than these social media, file sharing shots?
http://www.viewbug.com/blog/tropical-sceneries-photo-contest-finalists (http://www.viewbug.com/blog/tropical-sceneries-photo-contest-finalists)
http://www.lik.com/thework/oceans-beaches-harbours.html (http://www.lik.com/thework/oceans-beaches-harbours.html)
-
It's not about knowing how to make images. It's about knowing how to sell those images. If the last two years have taught us anything it's that the sales platform is what matters. The real skill is in selling. That is why he makes more on his images than other more talented artists. It's also why people don't give him enough credit. They are focusing on the images and completely missing his real skill set.
Agreed. He took his background in sales, polished his sales pitch to a high sheen, trained his salespeople in successful tactics, and make tons of money.
I just had a conversation about an illustrator who was really popular in the 80's...took him weeks to do one very simple illustration. Looking at his website today, I think he probably would not even be accepted at the stock sites. If he was accepted, his images would get buried instantly. But at the time he had everyone in the ad industry convinced he was brilliant.
What about Lichtenstein? All this time I thought he'd done original works inspired by comics, but I recently read an article that he actually copied published comic book frames line for line, dot for dot, losing a lot of the nuance in the process. The original artists got paid very little for their original work. But L. made millions. And Warhol...
-
Hey, if he asks an amount and someone pays it, I don't see how it's fraud. The price is what it is, for what it is.
his buyers are fraudolently PROMISED by the croocks posing as "art consultants" in Lik's shops that the market value of the prints WILL go up as much as 1000% and that they're not buying but making an "investment" and they will go to great lenghts telling them a 3000$ print will soon be worth 30K $ or even 200K $ !
this is a scam.
-
“It’s an abomination,” Michael Hoppen, a leading British photography gallerist, says of Phantom, which shows a shaft of light entering a canyon. “I remember when he sold the picture in 2010, my jaw dropped. I thought, who could be persuaded to part with $1m for a piece of tat? You could have done it with an iPhone.”
“I’ve never even heard of him,” Martin Parr, the renowned British photographer, says.
finally some words of wisdom.
-
He's got a few bits on Magnum, though goodness knows why, with his snapshots with wonky horizons.
[url]http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL5357TF[/url] ([url]http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL5357TF[/url])
He's described on Wiki as a photojournalist and book collector!!!
he's a street photographer and his stuff is great for magazines about society and trends, if you don't like him take a look at Bruce Gilden (Magnum), he's much better.
as for Lik : as Carr said, nobody ever heard about Lik before he claimed to have sold his print for millions, not to mention his crazy claims of being the world's top photographer !
-
He's got a few bits on Magnum, though goodness knows why, with his snapshots with wonky horizons.
Are you serious ? He is one of the most significant British photographers of the past 40 years. And has also done a huge amount to promote British photography - in particular the work of Tony Ray Jones.
ETA: personally I am not so interested in his work - but I can understand its important place in the evolution both of British photography and of Magnum. And I love listening to him talk.
-
He's got a few bits on Magnum, though goodness knows why, with his snapshots with wonky horizons.
Are you serious ? He is one of the most significant British photographers of the past 40 years. And has also done a huge amount to promote British photography - in particular the work of Tony Ray Jones.
ETA: personally I am not so interested in his work - but I can understand its important place in the evolution both of British photography and of Magnum. And I love listening to him talk.
As someone who hasn't heard of him, I am being serious. I had a look at his work and what I saw could have been taken by any Tom Dick or Harry. But he's obviously promoted himself well, and become (apparently) famous and made good money and gone all over the place taking lots of shots .... now, who does that remind me of? Oh, yeah, Peter Lik.
But perhaps Martin Parr is mostly famous in the UK, Lik is certainly famous in a lot of places so I'm surprised if Parr hasn't heard of him since I've stumbled into references to him for a good number of years (and I'm not wild about his style, either).
-
As someone who hasn't heard of him, I am being serious. I had a look at his work and what I saw could have been taken by any Tom Dick or Harry.
No it couldn't. He absolutely forged new ground both stylistically and in terms of the subject matter and technical approach.
But perhaps Martin Parr is mostly famous in the UK
The word 'fame' is not especially appropriate in this context IMO. This is not Disney or the X - Factor. Suffice to say that Martin Parr is very well known internationally* - in the world of reportage and in terms of intelligent photography in general. He belongs to a lineage of photographers which would also include all of Magnum - but also gallery photographers back through William Eggleston, Lee Freidlander etc. Straight out of and directly back to The Family of Man tradition IMO.
* eg his work is included in the permanent collection at MOMA
-
Scam? Hardly. He's just applying traditional sales and marketing methods to art. Scarcity, urgency, and luxury branding rather than bottom dollar commodity. And he does have some nice work but arguably may not be much nicer than some work being sold for $1 in micro.
He's clearly a businessperson first and artist distant second. Which goes to show that with art it may not be the art itself that dictates the price but how much sales and marketing hype creates interest and perceived value.
-
That's true for everything, pretty much.
-
Fair play to him really for parting so many mugs from their cash. But I do like these comments culled from the British newspaper The Independent:
“I’ve never even heard of him,” Martin Parr, the renowned British photographer, says.
Who's Martin Parr?
Works for Magnum - a cider company I think.
He's got a few bits on Magnum, though goodness knows why, with his snapshots with wonky horizons.
[url]http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL5357TF[/url] ([url]http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=CMS3&VF=MAGO31_10_VForm&ERID=24KL5357TF[/url])
He's described on Wiki as a photojournalist and book collector!!!
He never been my taste, but arguably he was ahead of his time, doing phone documentary before the invention of phonecams. Probably his work will be very interesting as 'social history' in the future.
I happened to browse, in one of these Paris bookshops where you can find almost anything in print, a book full of photos taken on instamatic cameras, and as a 'real' snapshot (if you like) of the times, it was actually very interesting.
-
As someone who hasn't heard of him, I am being serious. I had a look at his work and what I saw could have been taken by any Tom Dick or Harry.
No it couldn't. He absolutely forged new ground both stylistically and in terms of the subject matter and technical approach.
But perhaps Martin Parr is mostly famous in the UK
The word 'fame' is not especially appropriate in this context IMO. This is not Disney or the X - Factor. Suffice to say that Martin Parr is very well known internationally* - in the world of reportage and in terms of intelligent photography in general. He belongs to a lineage of photographers which would also include all of Magnum - but also gallery photographers back through William Eggleston, Lee Freidlander etc. Straight out of and directly back to The Family of Man tradition IMO.
* eg his work is included in the permanent collection at MOMA
Well, I've googled to try to find out what's so different and innovative and so far all I've found is that he reckons you should get close to your subject for street photography... I'm not sure when that was innovative. Until I find something more persuasive I'll stick with the idea that he's probably succeeded largely through contacts and marketing and self-promotion, as so many have done, and you can stick with the idea that I'm a cultural philistine, if you like.
Throwing in Moma and Magnum is really just an "argument from authority", which suggests we should not have our own opinions but should slavishly swallow what some establishment expert has decreed. I'd rather have my own views on artistic merit, even if they seem ridiculous or naive to others.
-
Until I find something more persuasive I'll stick with the idea that he's probably succeeded largely through contacts and marketing and self-promotion
He succeeded initially by making pictures which instantly communicated a very subjective, more or less signature, perspective. Pictures which were typically about class and the social order. His picture stories and spreads looked great in the national and international weekend supplements of that era - but the body of work he built up also made intelligent sense in a gallery. It was often about how England looked at that time. His approach was both indie and yet also mainstream.
Technically he was innovative too. Specifically for example his early use of medium and large format color negative and fill flash in a reportage context - where natural light, 35mm and black and white was the norm for "serious" photography. And serious color almost invariably meant transparency film in those days - which looked very different. Other people were shooting color neg too - I am not saying he invented that approach.
an "argument from authority"
Like nearly all good art of lasting value, his evolving body work is very clearly part of an existing tradition but has also taken that tradition forward.
-
I can go along with important historical records, and - fair enough if he was trying different materials (though surely 120 B&W was standard for reporting in the 50s, 60s and 70s - not colour, of course, because the printing methods for news couldn't cope and development took longer; as late as the 80s I was having to send colour material out to a specialist shop to get separations made for a local newspaper and it wasn't until the mid to late 90s that colour started to be standard for many pages in daily newspapers, as computers allowed direct printing of full colour page negatives - and advertisers were willing to pay for colour).
-
Hey, if he asks an amount and someone pays it, I don't see how it's fraud. The price is what it is, for what it is.
I totally agree. I can't help but admire anyone who can make a very descent living in a world where thousands are clawing each other's entrails out to sell their work for 22 cents a pop. That's the real scam.
-
it wasn't until the mid to late 90s that colour started to be standard for many pages in daily newspapers
It was the weekend magazines which took over the tradition of the picture story (from Life, Picture Post etc). And the British and US newspapers had color pictures stories in the Sunday magazines at least as far back as the mid 60s. Eg - famously - Cartier Bresson's pictures of Eton, Tim Page in Vietnam etc in the Sunday Times.
-
it wasn't until the mid to late 90s that colour started to be standard for many pages in daily newspapers
It was the weekend magazines which took over the tradition of the picture story (from Life, Picture Post etc). And the British and US newspapers had color pictures stories in the Sunday magazines at least as far back as the mid 60s. Eg - famously - Cartier Bresson's pictures of Eton, Tim Page in Vietnam etc in the Sunday Times.
Yeah, but those were things that had a long lead in. Colour wasn't feasible for daily papers for various reasons - the number of printing cylinders was usually insufficient as it takes three additional cylinders to get colour on a single page (or set of four pages for a tabloid, two for broadsheet), the time involved in developing film and then in getting separations or blocks made and the additional cost of plates and ink all made colour a no-no. So only feature photographers would shoot colour, or those on weekly magazines.
-
About Parr part, it's an art, he's an artist. We can't deny it. Someone likes it, someone doesn't. But, you can't understand it just by taking it to pieces (color film, flash light etc). It doesn't work that way.
-
Throwing in Moma and Magnum is really just an "argument from authority"
exactly.
Bruce Guilden (Magnum as well) is the real king of street photography, suffice to say he's the only one shooting a flash in front of his subject and that's a feature of his style, not a bug ... hahahahaha .... watch some of his videos he really knows the score when on the street, i do exactly the same but without flash by the way.
Carr is more "artsy" but i'm not a big fan of him, photos should be self explanatory rather than needing the author explain what the photo is all about ... but i understand that's precisely why they like his works.
-
Scam? Hardly. He's just applying traditional sales and marketing methods to art. Scarcity, urgency, and luxury branding rather than bottom dollar commodity. And he does have some nice work but arguably may not be much nicer than some work being sold for $1 in micro.
He's clearly a businessperson first and artist distant second. Which goes to show that with art it may not be the art itself that dictates the price but how much sales and marketing hype creates interest and perceived value.
sure, but promising his buyers that the prints will be worth 100x times more is indeed scammy, it's just a matter of time before they hit him with a big fat lawsuit and his reputation goes down the drain ... he knows that but at this point he's filthy rich and doesn't care, worst scenario he's going back to OZ and live like a king.
-
photos should be self explanatory rather than needing the author explain what the photo is all about
Does this typical Martin Parr photo really need explaining ?
(http://www.photoforager.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/New-Brighton.jpg)
-
Oops...Probably shouldn't have brought Martin Parr into the mix. Never mind....I'm also a fan of William Eggleston, Nan Golding, Stephen Shore, Bruce Davidson (see pic below), Lise Sarfati, Alec Soth, Daido Moriyama.......
My favorite photograph of all time:
(http://www.rit.edu/news/umag/winter2009/images/p22-Davidson-1.jpg)
-
Scam? Hardly. He's just applying traditional sales and marketing methods to art. Scarcity, urgency, and luxury branding rather than bottom dollar commodity. And he does have some nice work but arguably may not be much nicer than some work being sold for $1 in micro.
He's clearly a businessperson first and artist distant second. Which goes to show that with art it may not be the art itself that dictates the price but how much sales and marketing hype creates interest and perceived value.
well said Pauliewalnuts!!! that goes with all forms of (art)... music, painting, etc
from the toilet bowl to the meat and stripes on the wall they call art
to the crapola that packs in stadiums...
and that is more or less our problem in most case when you are not making enough to survive as an (artist).
then again, you could also have a good businessman to run your show
and still get scr*wed...
ask the piano man Billy Joel !!! he'll tell you all about it.
-
well said Pauliewalnuts!!! that goes with all forms of (art)... music, painting, etc
from the toilet bowl to the meat and stripes on the wall they call art
to the crapola that packs in stadiums...
and that is more or less our problem in most case when you are not making enough to survive as an (artist).
then again, you could also have a good businessman to run your show
and still get scr*wed...
ask the piano man Billy Joel !!! he'll tell you all about it.
it's the natural consequence of selling art as a product, of course someone will stick a price on it and scr-ew the artists .. actually the artist in this scenario just becomes a "supplier", as if we were talking of selling trucks of beef or potatoes, no wonder the whole industry is a joke and totally stacked against the interests of the artists and the buyers.
the only reason there's an Art industry is that artists have no way to "sell direct" in most of the cases, i mean in 99% of the cases probably, of course a few rich and famous creatives could try unhorthodox ways to profit from their work but it's the exception to the rule.
-
FRAUD DEFINITION:
1.
deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. A particular instance of such deceit or trickery:
mail fraud; election frauds, Any deception, trickery. A person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
Any Clearer ?
-
Hey, if he asks an amount and someone pays it, I don't see how it's fraud. The price is what it is, for what it is.
I totally agree. I can't help but admire anyone who can make a very descent living in a world where thousands are clawing each other's entrails out to sell their work for 22 cents a pop. That's the real scam.
i award you for the best comment to date on this topic. in a business where everything is subective
from music to art to photography to garbage and vice versa
it is worth repeating
admire anyone who can make a very descent living in a world where thousands are clawing each other's entrails out to sell their work for 22 cents a pop. That's the real scam.
-
FRAUD DEFINITION:
1.
deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. A particular instance of such deceit or trickery:
mail fraud; election frauds, Any deception, trickery. A person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
Any Clearer ?
Pretty clear. And by that definition it's pretty clear that most businesses and their products and services probably fit this definition to some extent.
Ever buy a car? Too many scenarios to list here.
How about the grocery store where you only find out at the cash register the discount price tag on the shelf is only good for Reward Club members?
Miracle makeup that makes you look 20 years younger?
I think the big difference here is that we're been conditioned to expect and accept it in our daily lives. Art may have been excluded from embellished sales practices so it's a surprise to see someone applying it to art. Not that an art gallery would ever lie to anyone.
-
Art may have been excluded from embellished sales practices so it's a surprise to see someone applying it to art.
You must be on a different planet! Unmade beds and rotting sheep worth the price of a house? An entire industry where everything is valued not on how good it is but on who made it? An industry where success or failure depends on whether you have friends in the establishment who will publicly swoon over what you produce? An industry where one "expert opinion" can change the value of an object from $100 to $1,000,000. And that's leaving out watercolour societies that can't tell the difference between an injet print and a "hyperrealistic" painting, or where everybody is copying LS Lowry and putting his name on the bottom and even more people are copying your photos and mine to sell on the same microstock sites?
The whole art industry is about deceiving people into thinking things that have little intrinsic worth or merit are worth a fortune. But it's not usually the person who creates them who creams off the cash, so good luck to those that do.
Look at Banksy, setting up a stall in NYC and offering original, signed prints to the sophisticated New Yorkers passing by for a few dozen dollars. Scarcely any of them could see enough merit in his work to be bothered to buy it but I bet a good many of them would kill to have one of his works on their wall. Everything in art is illusion and trickery.
-
Everything in art is illusion and trickery.
EXACTLY !!!!
-
Art may have been excluded from embellished sales practices so it's a surprise to see someone applying it to art.
You must be on a different planet! Unmade beds and rotting sheep worth the price of a house? An entire industry where everything is valued not on how good it is but on who made it? An industry where success or failure depends on whether you have friends in the establishment who will publicly swoon over what you produce? An industry where one "expert opinion" can change the value of an object from $100 to $1,000,000. And that's leaving out watercolour societies that can't tell the difference between an injet print and a "hyperrealistic" painting, or where everybody is copying LS Lowry and putting his name on the bottom and even more people are copying your photos and mine to sell on the same microstock sites?
The whole art industry is about deceiving people into thinking things that have little intrinsic worth or merit are worth a fortune. But it's not usually the person who creates them who creams off the cash, so good luck to those that do.
Look at Banksy, setting up a stall in NYC and offering original, signed prints to the sophisticated New Yorkers passing by for a few dozen dollars. Scarcely any of them could see enough merit in his work to be bothered to buy it but I bet a good many of them would kill to have one of his works on their wall. Everything in art is illusion and trickery.
I think we're saying the same thing.
My point was if the person I quoted wanted to call Lik a fraud, then business in general is fraud and art is no different. I think the sales tactics are a bit different but Peter Lik is bringing mainstream sales tactics to art. Maybe my "Not that an art gallery would ever lie to anyone" didn't come across as sarcasm.
-
Not just art:
http://youtu.be/uVvcD4Czx4Y (http://youtu.be/uVvcD4Czx4Y)
http://youtu.be/KyNQuLPTkvM (http://youtu.be/KyNQuLPTkvM)
http://youtu.be/1i4rgxOi73c (http://youtu.be/1i4rgxOi73c)
-
Reminds me of a "conversation" with my other half who recently blew £50 on candles - went something like this:
Me: It's a f______ candle!
Her: No. These are limited editions.
Me: I could have bought 500 candles for £50!!!
Her: These smell nice. I've got Shea Butter, Jelly Bean, Aloe Water.....
Me: They smell the same as all your other candles and they smell like toilet cleaner!!!
Her: I don't care they were in the sale........along with these shoes.
Me: (insert sound effect of man gasping for air)
To be fair we have similar conversations about the money I "waste" on photography books.
-
[snip] To be fair we have similar conversations about the money I "waste" on photography books.
Probably those Martin Parr books :)
-
FRAUD DEFINITION:
1.
deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. A particular instance of such deceit or trickery:
mail fraud; election frauds, Any deception, trickery. A person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
Ever buy a car? Too many scenarios to list here.
How about the grocery store where you only find out at the cash register the discount price tag on the shelf is only good for Reward Club members?
Miracle makeup that makes you look 20 years younger?
we only need to look at air travel which i am sure most of us use regularly-
FLY TO XXX for 25 (add your local currency here)
book it,
finally total = 350 or more.
oh, we did not include air transportation tax,etc etc etc
in the end paying far more than the other not so special discount.
same thing for those absolutely amazing offer to xxx cheapest rooms in luxury hotels.
when you get there, all the tours are triple what you pay for at home .
so you stay in your hotel and go nowhere.
-
FRAUD DEFINITION:
1.
deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. A particular instance of such deceit or trickery:
mail fraud; election frauds, Any deception, trickery. A person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
Ever buy a car? Too many scenarios to list here.
How about the grocery store where you only find out at the cash register the discount price tag on the shelf is only good for Reward Club members?
Miracle makeup that makes you look 20 years younger?
we only need to look at air travel which i am sure most of us use regularly-
FLY TO XXX for 25 (add your local currency here)
book it,
finally total = 350 or more.
oh, we did not include air transportation tax,etc etc etc
in the end paying far more than the other not so special discount.
same thing for those absolutely amazing offer to xxx cheapest rooms in luxury hotels.
when you get there, all the tours are triple what you pay for at home .
so you stay in your hotel and go nowhere.
Not at all true. Those airfare shenanigans have long been banned in the EU. All costs are mentioned. Maybe you havent looked properly then for the past couple of years?
-
Not at all true. Those airfare shenanigans have long been banned in the EU. All costs are mentioned. Maybe you havent looked properly then for the past couple of years?
AirAsia is the KING of misleading pricing and you're not even allowed to get a refund or cancel your booking, no matter what, happened to me twice (small money but it's the principle !!).