• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Peter Lik

Been trying to find out if I like it or not. Came to the conclusion I can't really tell. There's nothing about the picture that'd make me care enough about it to feel any sympathy or antipathy for it. Like the pictures of Ansel Adams, it may be technically immaculate, but entirely meaningless to me. Pure indifference. There's just nothing it's trying to communicate to me. A perfect place for it may be in a doctor's waiting room, where it constitutes a central element of the interior, but will go largely unnoticed by even those people looking straight at it.
Which is perfectly in line with this photographer's maxim:
»My goal is to capture nature's force and represent it in a way that make the beholder feel passionately connected to it.« -- Peter Lik
 
Good for him. I think when a photographer achieves 'collector' status, the quality of the work becomes less and less relevant in their endeavor to sell more work.
 
I went to a photo seminar back in the early 90's where a very good photographer told me during a coffee break his toughest competitor was not a better photographer it was a better salesperson.
Immediately from that day forward I've seen it take place many times over the years proving the point.

The shot in the article was from Antelope Canyon and there must be millions of photos from those slot canyons and probably thousands from that exact spot. Most probably sold or are selling in the hundreds of dollar ranges if that.......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All it takes is a willing buyer... no self-rightgeous interlopers to interfere with the deal between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
 
The price is as high as it is, because he has other work that has sold at very high prices. And this is a departure for the photographer, who is better known for colour work.

I like the fact that it is black and white.
 
Good for Mr. Peter Lik. Actually, also good for us photographers. It's a great that in the times of cell phones with cameras, instagram, and flickr, pictures can still be sold for those figures.
 
A bit rich: Peter Lik's 'Phantom' sells for US$6.5 million

Australia's non-resident 'Crocodile Dundee' of "wild" landscapes is flexing some financial muscle with the latest reported sale making him a tidy few millions. This article contains some already known stingers and a few new facts about the man himself. What isn't discussed very often is the amount of post work ('artifice', if you will) being introduced into Lik's images, with one being reported by Petapixel last year (the one sold for $1 million) as being given 32 hours' of post work until Lik was satisfied with it. No doubt 'Ghost', the original colour version of the Antelope Canyon photograph, looked superb as it was -- even among the many thousands of images of that chasm in Antelope Canyon. But how does a colour-to-B&W conversion pay off so well? And is it "art"? Somebody has gone happily troppo with their (considerable) petty cash...

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainm...world-record-785-million-20141212-125f49.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The answer is it doesn't. Unless the details of the sale are verified then it is just hearsay. They were talking about this on another site... its just a marketing stunt.
 
It is good to see someone making money with photography.
 
Chris G said:
The answer is it doesn't. Unless the details of the sale are verified then it is just hearsay. They were talking about this on another site... its just a marketing stunt.
Click to expand...

I love quotes like "Price, of course, is arbitrary, and one could make the argument that the eye-rolling is rooted in jealousy." and "On that account, the sale is a success. But you’d be hard pressed to find support for his artistry.".

Those in the art world are a fickle bunch........

As for a marketing stunt, yes, it could all be possible

(BTW, this was also discussed here last night (there was a url link here which no longer exists))
 
Yes, everything is a possibility. What everybody wants to see, including art dealers and critics, is EVIDENCE. Interestingly, Lik has never furnished documentary proof of any of these "record breaking" sales, ever, other than seemingly scripted, enthusiastic endorsements from his sales team. A media stunt? Could well be. It was said in another follow-on piece that Lik's work is ignored by major public galleries and critics. Well, we can all thumb our noses at critics too, but how galleries view "art" does have a bearing. There are photographers here in Australia doing well in small and large public galleries and much of their work has a quality originality about it that is missing from Lik's. I cannot really see how somebody could fork out $6.5m -- even if it is a Vegas hob-nob. Does anybody else in the USA sell their works for anything up to and over six - seven figures?
 
I had never heard of the guy, and this was the first I had heard of his sale. After looking at the image online, I have to admit it's a good one, so it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. That's the game. Having said that, it being a digital image and all, could he have manipulated it to get that ghost figure? Couldn't you do the same sort of manipulation, if it is manipulation, with traditional photography (I'm sure you could)? Does it make any difference?

The shot sure brings to mind a lot of questions, and that's always good. My instinct tells me that it's not that far removed from the person that saw the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast, or something like that, and got a small fortune on ebay for it years ago. I saw that image. It also looked pretty good. I liked it. At least the photograph will, hopefully, hold up better than the toast.
 
MattKing, how did the Canadian command a price for a made-up image? :
[...]"In Dead Troops Talk, Wall arranged the image with actors in a Burnaby, B.C., studio, photographed in individual sections later assembled digitally, and finally simulated a monumental outdoor photograph."
 

You need to familiarize yourself with Jeff Wall's extensive body of work. It is in the collections of a number of museums.

All of his photographs are staged. And until recently, they were mostly shot on large format film and presented as extremely large backlit Cibachrome/Ilfochrome transparencies.

I think Bob Carnie has mentioned that at one time he was one of the largest single users of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome materials in the world.

His most iconic work is incredibly powerful and interesting to view. It really does need to be seen in its original form, and that form depends on being large - usually larger than life.

He is based in Vancouver BC and is both a prolific artist and a respected university professor of Art. He is seen as a mentor by a lot of the art community in our area, at least partially because he is very generous in his support of young artists.
 
I didn't realise it had already been posted and perhaps a moderator can merge with original thread?
 
Beautiful image but what makes it stand out at 6 million dollars more than any of the thousands of others like it ? Something just doesn't smell right here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register