pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: the NYT exposes Peter Lik's scams !  (Read 20763 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« on: February 24, 2015, 06:44 »
+3
finally !

Peter Liks 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


"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, Ive 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. (Its a color version of Phantom.) After that, its 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 thats 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.


« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2015, 07:01 »
+4
They are getting what they deserve. Rule number 1: never invest in something you dont understand...

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2015, 11:51 »
+2
They are getting what they deserve. Rule number 1: never invest in something you dont 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.




« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2015, 12:02 »
+28
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.

« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2015, 12:10 »
+7
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.

« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2015, 12:13 »
0
What's wrong with it?

« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2015, 13:03 »
+1
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.

« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2015, 13:14 »
+2
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.

« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2015, 13:29 »
+3
his work is very mediocre and clich 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

...a combination of Steve Irwin and Lance Armstrong and PT Barnum

« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2015, 13:37 »
+5
his work is very mediocre and clich 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

...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!
« Last Edit: February 24, 2015, 14:56 by fotoVoyager »

« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2015, 14:11 »
0
his work is very mediocre and clich 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

...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.

« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2015, 14:41 »
+13
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.

« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2015, 15:02 »
0
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:

Its 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.

Ive 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

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2015, 15:04 »
+1
his work is very mediocre and clich 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

...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.

« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2015, 15:13 »
+8
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:

Ive never even heard of him, Martin Parr, the renowned British photographer, says.


Who's Martin Parr?

« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2015, 15:28 »
+1
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:

Ive never even heard of him, Martin Parr, the renowned British photographer, says.


Who's Martin Parr?

Works for Magnum - a cider company I think.

« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2015, 15:44 »
+2
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:

Ive 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
He's described on Wiki as a photojournalist and book collector!!!

« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2015, 16:21 »
0
his work is very mediocre and clich 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

...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.lik.com/thework/oceans-beaches-harbours.html

Shelma1

« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2015, 16:30 »
+2
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...

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2015, 03:30 »
+2
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.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2015, 03:39 »
+1
Its 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.

Ive never even heard of him, Martin Parr, the renowned British photographer, says.

finally some words of wisdom.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2015, 03:50 »
0
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
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 !



« Reply #22 on: February 25, 2015, 06:34 »
+4
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.

« Reply #23 on: February 25, 2015, 07:19 »
+1
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).

« Reply #24 on: February 25, 2015, 07:33 »
+2
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
« Last Edit: February 25, 2015, 07:47 by bunhill »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
6084 Views
Last post March 19, 2009, 19:47
by m@m
728 Replies
145799 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 11:20
by luissantos84
8 Replies
3457 Views
Last post February 18, 2012, 17:41
by Fran
74 Replies
11971 Views
Last post December 20, 2014, 02:26
by Hobostocker
0 Replies
1350 Views
Last post May 24, 2018, 19:09
by pixel86

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results