Peter Lik

[Bob Carnie]

If my sources are correct and I believe they are... other than Disney and some national park outfits., Jeff was indeed the king in purchasing cibachrome backlight material... His marketing of these images is brilliant, and he is being studied by many young artists..I may be wrong but I think he still has a stash of this paper and is still producing...in ciba.

It is stated that cibachrome is permanent in dark storage...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Three threads merged.

 

[cliveh]

I have heard him described as the Picasso of the darkroom. Would others agree?

 

[hoffy]

I have heard him described as the Picasso of the darkroom. Would others agree?

I'm assuming we are talking about Lik? Does he do darkroom work? I'm assuming he still shoots Chromes, but I got the impression that his prints are inkjets.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I'm assuming we are talking about Lik? Does he do darkroom work? I'm assuming he still shoots Chromes, but I got the impression that his prints are inkjets.

That link you shared on page two, by the guy who used to work in one of his galleries, has an answer:

One of the things that made this time so very interesting, is that it was in this period when Lik was changing all his limited edition prints from the traditional Ilfochrome prints hand-printed by a master printer in Australia, to Fuji Supergloss prints being printed by a machine.

Not sure how long ago that was, but it looks like when Ciba was available and he was using it, it was still someone else doing the printing. Almost certainly now, whether it's RA4 Laser/LED or if it's pure inkjet, either way it'd be scans if not just a pure MF back.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I am not sure what this means , but I can describe a few significant darkroom printers that have been a influence to me.

Mike Spry- the master of Lith, nobody comes close in my book- but I am sure there are a lot of London printers who will add their fav's.
Joel Peter Witkin- Until you have seen one of his prints you are missing some of the best printed silver work.. he is responsible for me being less critical about abberations in a print.
Jerry Ullsmen- quite possibly the inventor of Photo Shop- his mastery in the darkroom with multiple montage is second to none.
Sandy King- the king of monochrome carbon- his prints are outstanding
John Bentley & Todd Gangler- the best archival colour printers currently working today IMHO.
Slobodan Filipovich- he was my first paid job- taught me how to dodge and burn properly.

and of course probably my all time favourite printer- Brett Weston- he lets his blacks go and the prints jump off the wall.


I would be interested who is the picasso you are referring to?

I have heard him described as the Picasso of the darkroom. Would others agree?

 

[benjiboy]

I'm not a bleeding heart but I can't help thinking that there's something seriously wrong with the values of Western society when it can let hundreds of thousands of people in the World die of starvation, and one individual can pay this obscene amount of money for a single sheet of printing paper that will probably never see the light of day again, I hope he can sleep at night.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Regarding Peter Lik- there is so much anger directed at this persons work... I suggest let the standard of time elapse to give proper judgement on his place in photography.. that could apply to all of us here and on the other threads.

One thing that seems to elude most is that the PRESENTATION of his work is spectacular... to the point of outrageous effort on Mr Liks part to make these monster face to plexi hanging presentations.. I have done many of these types of presentation going back to the 80's... I can even say I put 36 face mounted Cibachromes in the Smithsonion for David Griffith, mid 90's.
So I know this process well... It is technically and process control wise almost impossible to do. Peter Lik makes them sing.. The work sells because it does have a spectacular finished look and I am sure all here would not be able to produce any where close to this presentation, and of course have access to a facility that can match his finish.

 

[jovo]

A review of Lik's work from one of the links in this thread included this statement:

"The fact that it is in black and white should give us pause. Today, this deliberate use of an outmoded style can only be nostalgic and affected, an 'arty' special effect. We've all got that option in our photography software. Yeah, my pics of the Parthenon this summer looked really awesome in monochrome. Lik's photograph is of course beautiful in a slick way, but beauty is cheap if you point a camera at a grand phenomenon of nature."

Monochrome is an outmoded, nostalgic and affected 'arty' style? Seriously? And the critically preferred current style is washed out color, with flat lighting and careless composition? I shall maintain my antique preferences nonetheless, and be that much less sympathetic to what 'critics' have to say.

In a discussion with friends, though, the notion of the 'grand phenomenon of nature' came up. If you're competent with a camera, you pretty much can't miss making a wonderful image in Yosemite (AA). But, if you're really imaginative and creative, you can make turn a pepper into a rather grand phenomenon as well. (EW).

 

[Alan Klein]

Regarding Peter Lik- there is so much anger directed at this persons work... I suggest let the standard of time elapse to give proper judgement on his place in photography.. that could apply to all of us here and on the other threads.

One thing that seems to elude most is that the PRESENTATION of his work is spectacular... to the point of outrageous effort on Mr Liks part to make these monster face to plexi hanging presentations.. I have done many of these types of presentation going back to the 80's... I can even say I put 36 face mounted Cibachromes in the Smithsonion for David Griffith, mid 90's.
So I know this process well... It is technically and process control wise almost impossible to do. Peter Lik makes them sing.. The work sells because it does have a spectacular finished look and I am sure all here would not be able to produce any where close to this presentation, and of course have access to a facility that can match his finish.

His presentation is spectacular, I agree. I was in Hawaii and ran through his gallery (my wife was waiting for me. Plus I didn';t want to get into conversations with the sales people). But there was one small room that you'd enter that had a seat on one side and his picture on the other. It was if you were in a cave looking out of the cave through his picture. He is a superb showman and knows how to market, use architect's and interior designers and has great business acumen. He's a very hard worker to have put together all that he has done. Whether the $6.5M was real or a marketing tool, well, time will tell. He certainly needs a lot of high sales to pay for all his galleries and staff.

 

[Trail Images]

He is a superb showman and knows how to market

Very good comment, Alan. This was the point I mentioned in my post earlier.

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.

Yes, one must still be a good or excellent photographer too, but knowing how to market the work in high volume or high price range is the ticket if you're in the business or wanting to make a living at it. It does no hurt to have a gift for gab also........

 

[blansky]

I believe people are over thinking this:

He is a good photographer that chose to open his own storefront to sell his work.

Like it or don't like it, he is no different than anyone else in any other profession that opens a store and sells his wares.

It's not important where he fits into the "art" world.

The bottom line is, if you sell something for $20 or $6 million dollars, that's what it's worth.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

The bottom line is, if you sell something for $20 or $6 million dollars, that's what it's worth.

Only at that moment in time, and only if someone truly paid that.

(Not sure if someone posted the below link yet...)

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...oto-sale-with-scepticism-20141212-125khz.html

 

[Trail Images]

Perhaps the US tax authorities will be able to verify whether this sale occurred given they must have a keen interest in the income tax payable on this multi-million dollar transaction.

I think the last sentence in the above linked article sums things up a bit. Obviously beyond a sale ploy if the purchase was real.

 

[cliveh]

I would be interested who is the picasso you are referring to?

Bob, I'm only quoting what I have read about Peter Lik. Please note this is not my opinion.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

This would seem to be the source of the "Picasso" quote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...er-whose-work-sells-for-millions-9919427.html

I take it just as a rhetorical flourish, and not as a particularly informed judgment about Peter Lik's darkroom and digital production technique or about Picasso.

 

[MattKing]

Only at that moment in time, and only if someone truly paid that.

(Not sure if someone posted the below link yet...)

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...oto-sale-with-scepticism-20141212-125khz.html

I was particularly entertained by the fact that at the bottom of the article linked to above there was a further link to an article about anti-aging creams.

 

[Arcturus]

A single photograph just sold for $6.5 million, setting a record.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...dly-just-went-for-a-world-record-6-5-million/

"This week, he sold a photograph named “Phantom,” showing a shaft of light cutting through a monochromatic Arizona landscape. The price: $6.5 million. That’s reportedly the most ever paid for a photograph."

The price is absurd and the guy is full of himself, but apparently he knows how to sell his photos. Is this how you have to act in order to become successful in photography these days?

Here is his website, if you're looking for entertainment.
Dead Link Removed

 

[AgX]

see this thread on this matter too:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[snapguy]

sucker

You guys have been suckered. WHO SAYS this guy sold this photo for mega-bucks? I read his original press release and he "verifies" the sale by quoting an unknown person at a law firm with a half dozen attorneys in the firm's title. The firm probably has 50 lawyers and there is no way you could confirm this nonsense. He doubles down by quoting another unknown person at another law firm. Hah. HE does not say it was sold at that price. THE BUYER does not say so. He's good at getting your attention but that is about all. I wouldn't give you ten bucks for the photograph.

 

[blansky]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...dly-just-went-for-a-world-record-6-5-million/

"This week, he sold a photograph named “Phantom,” showing a shaft of light cutting through a monochromatic Arizona landscape. The price: $6.5 million. That’s reportedly the most ever paid for a photograph."

The price is absurd and the guy is full of himself, but apparently he knows how to sell his photos. Is this how you have to act in order to become successful in photography these days?

Here is his website, if you're looking for entertainment.
Dead Link Removed

Whether he did or he didn't, who cares.

But what he did do is travel the world taking photographs, opened a dozen or so galleries, which must sell his work to stay open, and he enjoys his profession.

That's not a bad accomplishment.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I think there's a third thread too, or did they merge them?

 

[benjiboy]

Tell me news not history.

 

[gone]

Those are excellent business accomplishments blansky, but in art terms it doesn't mean a thing. That guy who painted all of those large, doe eyed children did pretty well financially. Wouldn't want one of those in the house.

However, I would be most happy w/ one of Van Gogh's paintings in the hallway (who was a colossal business failure).

Anyway, I sorta like the big money photograph we're talking about, the one that may or may not have sold for a gazillion dollars. It's worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

 

[blansky]

Those are excellent business accomplishments blansky, but in art terms it doesn't mean a thing. That guy who painted all of those large, doe eyed children did pretty well financially. Wouldn't want one of those in the house.

However, I would be most happy w/ one of Van Gogh's paintings in the hallway (who was a colossal business failure).

Anyway, I sorta like the big money photograph we're talking about, the one that may or may not have sold for a gazillion dollars. It's worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

But who REALLY cares about "art terms" when we know how manipulated all that nonsense is. A worthless Van Gough in his lifetimes sells for millions now.

Bottom line is when someone succeeds we are jealous. So we tear away at them. Shitty work. Too much photoshop. The guys a jerk. I don't like it. etc

I wonder why we do that?