From what I've been able to learn about you, Alan, I can tell that you have not read the NYT article linked above--right? I sincerely doubt you would have made this post if you had read it.
I've read all the negative articles for years about Lik and Kincaid probably included that one from 2014. They're all the same. Also, I've commented on the Phantom picture years ago in forums and believe it was probably a friend who "bought" the picture for publicity to help Lik market his pictures. Lik does what galleries do with limited editions and other ways to keep the prices up. Most photographers starve without their day job. Kincaid cheated on his taxes. Who cares? Millions of his fans got spiritual inspiration from his work and still do. We're talking about art and how to sell it. No one cared that VanGogh cut his ear off. It didn't help him sell his paintings until after he was dead. Lik is still alive. As photographers, we should be happy that there are some of us who are making a good living from photographic art. Knocking their style and art is beneath us. Associating their immoral or illegal behavior to knock their art is just a cheap shot at someone who knows how to turn his photography into big time profits. It also says nothing after their work, salesmanship, or the customers who pay for their work and hang it in the million-dollar homes. Kincaid also sells cheap stuff for the everyman.
Have you ever been to a Lik gallery? I have. In two different world class cities. They're impressive. Do you know what it costs to set up and lease space for a specially designed gallery in a dozen of the major cities around the world and manage that? And shoot pictures? First rate presentation and the salespeople are gorgeous and effective. Go there and learn how to sell and present your work. Learn a thing or two about closing a sale. In one, I think it was Hawaii, maybe Las Vegas, he had this small, dark room with a back-lighted huge chrome of one of Utah's arches like the one below. There was a couch opposite the picture so when you sat down, it was like meditating in an actual cave in the desert with you looking out onto an amazing sunrise scene. $4000. What have people here sold recently?
Echoes of Silence
This limited edition print encapsulates America's spirit, with an arch-framed Canyonlands bathed in dawn's glow, meticulously composed as collectible wall art.lik.com
Once thousands of people found out the work they highly "invested" in, even in terms of retirement hope, was in fact mass-produced and relatively worthless, and the whole business scheme collapsed, and that the individual in question (Kincade) resorted to franchise fraud, and not merely art fraud, and then got indicted with a serious felony, and drank himself to death facing both bankruptcy and prison time, would you call that a successful career? That kind of thing has a chilling effect on legitimate galleries too. How does the unsuspecting man on the street, being tempted with an art investment opportunity, tell the difference?
For those who enjoy his genre, and got in early, and bought actual paintings, done entirely by himself with real brushes and canvas, they might have something. I know someone like that. But all the later production line work by others, and mass-produced fancy posters, soon lost its claimed value due to the sheer quantity of it out there. There was nothing wrong in making them in that manner, but there was with respect to the degree of deception in how they were being sold.
When someone goes into a prime tourism location, and then schemes how to drive out the neighboring galleries in an underhanded manner, and takes over their own locations trying to create a waterfront monopoly, all for sake of a similar slippery "investment" sales approach (Lik), should I feel sorry for him if the whole thing burns down? I do feel sorry for all the actual residents of Lahaina, and their terrible sufferings at the moment. But predatory outsider-owned and operated tourist traps might not benefit them a single penny. And it's more of the same that they're especially dreading in the upcoming rebuilding phase, pricing them out of their own town.
And would you want to be a "great businessman" having to constantly look over your shoulder due to repeatedly tempting the FBI by waving a red cape at the bull? There are in fact laws in place defining the parameters of what is acceptable and what is not, when it comes to art marketing. You can't claim just anything in order to get someone else's money.
The first time I actually stumbled into a Lik gallery in Vegas, on a business trip, I almost literally vomited. I've never seen worse work in my life, or more blatantly cheesy digital coloration. That totally unverifiable sale of the print in question was actually a black and white shot of an exact spot in Antelope Canyon photographed tens of thousands of times. An assistant threw up some dust in the air for a little cloud ("angel") effect, and then the resulting digital image was over-colored solid red, no nuance whatsoever, and the actual quality of ink-jetting is downright amateurish. I'd defy any of you whining about by my comments to actually see one of those mass-produced samples in person and not call it the kind utter trash which discredits outdoor photographers in general. The actual image is vertical, rather blaah, but garish red all over. The web example has been doctored in another manner, as if a masterful black and white print with bold contrast, which it is not. The secret Arabic collector appears to be totally fictitious.
So Koraks, you obviously don't know what you are talking about in this instance. This is all old stuff being reposted, and to this day has never been verified. What cash? If there was cash, and the transaction has no evident paperwork, and the transaction really occurred, then the IRS would been barreling down on him for tax evasion years ago, and on felony scale, if anything really of that alleged sum of money transpired. But other than his own unverified web claim, there never has been a drop of proof he ever sold anything even remotely in that price range. "Good for him"? - for what, being an effective snake oil salesman? Being rich?
It is justifiable for him to sell some really huge prints in the forty thousand or so range, because that kind of item is inherently very expensive just to produce, properly and and frame, and install. And that is something his facility is highly competent to do. Why anyone would actually look at those big kindergartenish faux-colorized abominations in their own homes is another matter. The kind of thing one might encounter in Vegas or Miami, certainly not here, thank goodness.
Was he selling the backlit piece or a smaller print? It's not going to be the same experience. Plus, most of his photos are not very original from what I've seen. The usual landscape tropes shot by the hundreds.I've read all the negative articles for years about Lik and Kincaid probably included that one from 2014. They're all the same. Also, I've commented on the Phantom picture years ago in forums and believe it was probably a friend who "bought" the picture for publicity to help Lik market his pictures. Lik does what galleries do with limited editions and other ways to keep the prices up. Most photographers starve without their day job. Kincaid cheated on his taxes. Who cares? Millions of his fans got spiritual inspiration from his work and still do. We're talking about art and how to sell it. No one cared that VanGogh cut his ear off. It didn't help him sell his paintings until after he was dead. Lik is still alive. As photographers, we should be happy that there are some of us who are making a good living from photographic art. Knocking their style and art is beneath us. Associating their immoral or illegal behavior to knock their art is just a cheap shot at someone who knows how to turn his photography into big time profits. It also says nothing after their work, salesmanship, or the customers who pay for their work and hang it in the million-dollar homes. Kincaid also sells cheap stuff for the everyman.
Have you ever been to a Lik gallery? I have. In two different world class cities. They're impressive. Do you know what it costs to set up and lease space for a specially designed gallery in a dozen of the major cities around the world and manage that? And shoot pictures? First rate presentation and the salespeople are gorgeous and effective. Go there and learn how to sell and present your work. Learn a thing or two about closing a sale. In one, I think it was Hawaii, maybe Las Vegas, he had this small, dark room with a back-lighted huge chrome of one of Utah's arches like the one below. There was a couch opposite the picture so when you sat down, it was like meditating in an actual cave in the desert with you looking out onto an amazing sunrise scene. $4000. What have people here sold recently?
Echoes of Silence
This limited edition print encapsulates America's spirit, with an arch-framed Canyonlands bathed in dawn's glow, meticulously composed as collectible wall art.lik.com
Wow! Sorry.Duplicates are often made in even oil paintings today. Ever go on a cruise and bid at one of the cruise ship auctions? We bid on one and won. So $1700 later we owned a photo-copied art painting that the original artist Picot added a few oil paint strokes and signed to make it an "original". He has hundreds of them. Goes on with all this art stuff.
I went to the art store in New York and "factory" of another artist, Bazzini, who had other artists banging out copies of his work while we were there. Also, goes on all the time.
I visited Clyde Butcher's photo gallery in Venice, Florida. Would you believe he had workers spotting dust out of the analog prints. I didn;t see it but I doubt oif he was making the prints either. And on his digital printer where he trns out his digitally shot photos, he had this little note on the machine that tells his workmen operators which settings they should use. Imagine, other people were wrapping up his photos and mailing them to customers. Never did meet Clyde. Where was he? Photographers create limited editions of their work always less than the numbers they really figure they'll ever sell, just to get customers hungry. Then prices are raised as some are sold under the theory that the less that are left raises the price of those because their rarity makes them more valuable. Game playing. So better buy early go the ads. I'm shocked, simply shocked that artificial enthusiasm and other sales methods are applied to art sales. That artists don't do all their work and sub it out. That copies are made to increase sales. Even with photos!
As is quite typical, your presumptions once again get the best of you. I have no interest in presenting, nor in selling, my work to anyone else. Sorry about that!Go there and learn how to sell and present your work. Learn a thing or two about closing a sale.
Ok, so you didn't read it. That was obvious from the start. With all of the religious references you manage to drop into your posts (including within this thread), I'm very surprised that you are this fond of a person who declared "I am God." I learn something new every day.
(And yes, I've set foot in a Lik gallery. And then I walked the hell out of there as quickly as I could.)
They don't even need to throw out the sofa, because (as mentioned in the article), Lik's salespeople will coordinate their "decor" with your existing furniture! It must be true art!There was nothing unique of one-off about the alleged picture at all. It was inkjet printed in smaller sizes afterwards, if there ever even was a big one to begin with. And Lik's images are in general just about the most digitally altered and colorized as any I've ever seen, and quite amateurishly. Basically big kitchy postcards as if done with Krylon fluorescent spray paint. He does begin with 8x10 film shots, but why???? - makes no sense to me. He apparently wants big, but by the time any actual print comes out, it looks so utterly fake that I don't know why a camera needed to be involved at all.
Even the quality of the inkjet printing itself is substandard from what I'm accustomed to. The big sample backlit transparencies themselves are obviously done on chromogenic medium instead, but using the same digital files. And any claim that there is anything technically special about any of this is an outright lie. What being based near Vegas allows is access to remarkably skilled workman who can lay faux wallpapers on casino ceilings and so forth better than anyway, and therefore constitute a labor pool to lay down huge prints or transparencies seamlessly too. The technical side of that is indeed impressive, but certainly not what goes into the prints themselves. Those are downright mediocre.
And yes, this should all be classified as decor. People who can afford it can also afford to throw out their sofa and drapes at the same time, and start over with another loud splash of faux color on the wall. I'd imagine it's the kind of thing Tony Romo of "Scarface" would put on his big Miami mansion walls. The next owner would replace it with something less bullet-hole ridden.
Why don't you address some of my points? What have you sold recently? Why aren't your photos selling like his? How many galleries are your photos being sold in? What are you paid for them? How many are hanging in million-dollar homes?
As is quite typical, your presumptions once again get the best of you. I have no interest in presenting, nor in selling, my work to anyone else. Sorry about that!
Well, it's hard to know what to believe in his case. He's getting older, but does use assistants. But there's nothing with respect to the actual quality of the prints I've seen, even some rather big ones that would mandate 8x10. It's just a waste of square inches of film when printed substandard. Even his camera operations skills are so so. Even if he has downscaled to MF digital sensors, it probably wouldn't make much difference output-wise. It all gets digitally tortured anyway, after the shot.
It's all catered to tourists - coming off a cruise ship at Lahaina (in the past tense), or winning at a slot machine in Vegas and deciding whether to spend it on a black velvet Elvis Rug or a Lik picture (I recommend the former option). It's not like any of these people have ever seen serious photography. They just want some loud color behind the sofa, perhaps falling in with the sales suggestion that it might be a wise investment in the long run. But he does seem to give his sales agents serious incentive - they're real pros, and very carefully bob and weave around that topic, while still getting it across. Outright preaching investment worth can get one in real trouble, legally, if it doesn't pan out and formal complaints arise. But there are other ways of implying, including unsubstantiated tall tales in this case, on this particular thread.
Of course, Lik, just like Kincade, has been involved in other things. He had his own TV travel photo show, not worth watching a second time, as well as real estate development projects around Lost Wages, Nevada, all of it basically a form of self-promotion, yet with distinct risk. These are the kinds of people that rags to riches, and then back to rags, movies get made about. It's not necessarily about their "art" at all, but their colorful egos, attitudes, tricks.
For art buffs out there, no one knows with certainty the identity of the Mona Lisa. One theory is that it is the wife of a Florentine (not Roman) merchant, which makes some sense as Leonardo lived in Florence during the time it is thought the Mona Lisa was painted. Another theory is that it is Leonardo's mother. Yet another is that it Leonardo himself. By the way, Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel. Maybe Leonardo painted it in the Hollywood movie.
Alan - you still don't get it. Those are the kind of business models that might make a lot of money on the short run, with their high-heeled babes in short skirts; but what they tell customers might get them into real trouble with the law. I've actually listened in, with respect to both Kincade and Lik galleries, and it was pretty slippery talk. Back when I was doing gallery gigs in Carmel, most of the photo galleries themselves were on the up and up, but any number of the painting galleries were using the same marketing tricks and assembly-line mass-production strategy as we're speaking about here (not the same technology). And there was a full-time FBI agent assigned to that one relatively small neighborhood, to catch them in the act, because things had gotten so egregious. It's classified as fraud.
I've had a co-worker burned by a similar SF tourist gallery, talking him into spending a few thousand dollars on a framed print that would be worth forty thousand dollars in a few years. Well, if that were really the case, why wasn't the salesperson buying it themselves? And I know for a fact that most of it was mass-produced and not even worth the picture frame it was put in. I had access to the wholesale price lists.
In the case of the print my friend bought for maybe $3,000, and paid me to frame much better, the actual wholesale cost to the gallery (unframed) was only $15. It was basically a poster offset printed in the thousands. And in California it's illegal to sell a photolithograph (a halftone reproduction) as if an actual lithograph - those being inherently limited in edition quantity. But that strip of SF was mob protection racket zone anyway, so any legit gallery would have a hard time there.
That's why Kincade would apply a little dot or two of paint onto certain of his mass-produced prints with his own hand, so that he could wiggle around CA and NY art fraud laws. He sorta got away with it. But it certainly caught the attention of the FBI and put a bulls-eye on his back. He was tempting fate. And it was just a matter of time until he was emboldened to go distinctly further; and then they bagged him.
Personally, I'd rather live out in the woods and be forced to eat pine nuts than promote my photography by unethical means. To an even greater extent, I'd give up photography entirely before making images I personally find downright insulting to actual natural beauty and its light. There are plenty of other ways to make money; why whore out what you love by slathering it with cheap gaudy PS makeup? You don't cross that line yourself, so why envy those who do?
For art buffs out there, no one knows with certainty the identity of the Mona Lisa. One theory is that it is Lisa del Giocondo (hence the alternate title of the painting), the wife of a Florentine (not Roman) merchant, which makes some sense as Leonardo lived in Florence during the time it is thought the painting was made. Another theory is that it is Leonardo's mother. Yet another theory is that it is Leonardo himself. Nothing quite like a mystery in the art world.
By the way, Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel. Maybe Leonardo painted it in the Hollywood movie.
When Alan asked how much the Pope paid Da Vinci to paint the Sistine Chapel, I almost replied with "Not one thin dime," but I decided not to waste the energy.
Which reminds me: "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!?"
Many respected artists ran workshops to produce some of their work—especially large-scale paintings. That does not take away from the value (artistic, moral and monetary) of the work. The pieces n question might never have seen the light of day otherwise. As far as your inane comments about whether a photographer needs to be hands-on for every part of the process of producing a print, that is pure none sense. Maybe you need to take another cruise and buy some more “art.”
I would be hard-pressed to compare Mr Lik's customers ot an art patron. By the way, which Picot did you acquire? One of the clown pictures?How do rich Las Vegas patrons differ from some rich Roman wanting a picture of his wife to hang in his house to please his wife and paying DaVinci to paint the Mona Lisa? Since when have art patrons and home decorators been necessarily art experts at what they buy? I'd like to know what the Pope paid DaVinci to paint the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel? And according to the Hollywood movie, as I recall, there were loads of helper painters DaVinci hired and directed to place a stroke here and a stroke there. Nothing much has changed only the methods.
Maybe because they don't come off a such, given the rest of the content of the post.I was being sarcastic. People here often miss my wise cracks. I don't think artists need to do all of the work themselves. Does an architect build the building?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?