Peter Lik

[Rick A]

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?

Good question, short answer is petty jealousy. I try to teach others to be truly happy yourself, you must be truly happy for others. Personally, I am happy for his accomplishments, we should all strive to do well and be honest with ourselves. Before tearing someone else down, ask yourself why? Why would you disparage someone else. When you ask "why him, and not me" don't stop there, ask what did he implement that I can emulate.
I think Mr. Lik hit upon a formula for success. His talent coupled with a marketing strategy, pursued with determination, and a willingness to see it through to the nth degree.

 

[pbromaghin]

Although his stuff is saturated way beyond my tastes, he's a lot better photographer than I'll ever be. It would be a privilege to learn from him. Too much money? Phht, it didn't disappear, it just changed hands.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm not jealous of him. So what if he made a bunch of money? He's never lived. He doesn't see a damn thing, but treats nature like some cheap whore he can slather with gaudy makeup and pimp out. An actually beautiful woman does't need that kind of nonsense to get attention. He markets art like used car salesmen. And I have an absolute right to say that kind of cynical marketing insults both my intelligence and my eyes. And who needs more flashy tourist traps out there? He should stay in Vegas, where his faux nonsense fits in.

 

[Dinesh]

.... He's never lived. ...

On what are you basing that?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Those who can... sell. Those who can't... want to sell.

Whether it be luck or fate or common BS, Lik succeeded in making millions. So what if he's selling crap. People are buying his crap... and not our crap.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

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?

Oh, really!? I'm more concerned about truth. That is the prevailing feeling. Why would anybody want to be jealous of a guy who has publicly slandered Australia, even renounced his citizenship (1984) yet still likes to beat about as being a "larrikin Aussie"(which he is not). Cut the bullshit. Of the sale report, though,media in contact with Lik's staff have been fobbed off "down a congo line of fictitious [phone] numbers..." and never provided any proof. In the absence of that, I don't see any truth in the reported sale (or a previous one). Honesty and integrity are requisite to business. Lik has shown a willingness to ride roughshod over others and gild the lily so much that it is wilting under the weight of pretention. Above this, some things developing in Australia at the moment might well lift the veil for the world to see...

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't see crap, and I don't print crap. And no, I have zero aspirations to be rich. Sure, I want enough to live on. But I want to live. When I
photograph something, I want to see, not go around cynically hunting for some postcard stereotype that I can beat into submission in Fauxtoshop just so some naive tourist will pull their credit card out. I've never sold a print to a tourist in my life, maybe never will. I'd rather sell to someone who really has resonance to the image itself, not just bragging rights to how much money they spent on some gaudy splotch of color above their sofa, or how much money they spent on some party dress they'll never wear again. Life: actually experiencing something beautiful, taking in its nuances, turning it into a priceless life experience, not pimping it out. The dude has a mercenary mind.

 

[Dinesh]

I don't see crap, and I don't print crap..

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Once again, how do you that "He's never lived"?

 

[benjiboy]

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.

I agree modus just because a photograph sells for megabucks doesn't make it "Art", monetary value Isn't the criteria that the art establishment use to determine the aesthetic value of an artists work.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Fauxtographer with a faux sale of a Fauxtoshopped fauxny image.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I answered your question, Dinesh. A faux life, a faux career. By contrast, I want to actually live what I photograph, be in it, behold the nuances of genuine light and environment, and then possibly communicate some essence of that, and of my own experience of it, to the viewer. The hunt is more important than the kill. But Lik is like one of those people who goes to a game farm and shoots a lion in a cage just so he can stuff the head and mount it on the wall, or make a rug out of the hide. Even the darkroom becomes a journey for me. I want to live it. Sure I can come up with some pretty damn good prints .... but that's not the point. Even before I could, I loved the learning process itself. I'd hate to become a mass-production operation, just marketing commodity images. Why bother? There's no joy in that. Sure, some people who make a lot of money and don't really need any more do it just for the adrenalin rush. Not my type, but I understand.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Do you want to see a REALLY crappy PS image? I'll show you one. Just about everything imaginable is wrong with this image and, yes, I'm ashamed to admit it's mine. It was requested as a cover image for the local rag at Reese AFB (defunct) many, many years ago. The space at the top is there for the newspaper's type. This was done when PS 2.5 was brand new and I'd only been doing digital imaging for a year or so. Back then the more crap one did to a digital image the better. Feel free to laugh... I keep it to remind myself to be conservative. Oh... and this ugly overprocessed thing won international first place in an AF contest, LOL!!!

So if you think Lik's stuff is crap... just try to keep this one in mind.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

Lik and Gorsky are to art what pigeons are to statues

 

[blansky]

I answered your question, Dinesh. A faux life, a faux career. By contrast, I want to actually live what I photograph, be in it, behold the nuances of genuine light and environment, and then possibly communicate some essence of that, and of my own experience of it, to the viewer. The hunt is more important than the kill. But Lik is like one of those people who goes to a game farm and shoots a lion in a cage just so he can stuff the head and mount it on the wall, or make a rug out of the hide. Even the darkroom becomes a journey for me. I want to live it. Sure I can come up with some pretty damn good prints .... but that's not the point. Even before I could, I loved the learning process itself. I'd hate to become a mass-production operation, just marketing commodity images. Why bother? There's no joy in that. Sure, some people who make a lot of money and don't really need any more do it just for the adrenalin rush. Not my type, but I understand.

That's fine, but that answer suggest that you believe everyone should do and think like you.

You have a deep emotional response to Lik and it seems close to " he's a blot on humanity."

Kind of seems over the top.

 

[DREW WILEY]

He is an insult to nature, to the eyes, and frankly, to marketing honesty. And it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the law itself catches up with him eventually, just like it did with Kinkade. I've seen this kind of game many times before, so in terms of statistical outcome, have a hunch.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Drew... did you see the shit image I posted that I did 20+ years ago (post #21)? THAT is a blot on humanity!!

 

[DREW WILEY]

That is an Ad, not something purporting to represent a real scene. Over-the-top corny ads are actually kinda cute, and some people even
collect them. But I passed up a partnership in a very successful ad firm because I really couldn't stand to be pried away from the West. I'm
really like a fish out of water once I get too far from mtns, rangelands etc. Even though I live in a city, I'm only a five minute walk from
7000 acres of open space, with plenty more nearby. But the whole paint of a successful ad image is "gotcha" - i.e., grab you attention fast and hold it momentarily. That is what Peter Lik essentially does. (Or in my case, look at it and feel nauseated). But in my world, a successful photograph is loaded with nuances. Maybe not instantly accessible, but rich and rewarding over the long haul. If I can hang a particular picture on my own walls and stand it a few years later, I figure it's a success. I'm my own worst critic. But anything too obvious
is going to become a cliche. But I'm not offended by your poster, or whatever that was. It would probably have to be a lot worse to appeal
to all the neo-rich geeks in the techie world around here. A few episodes of Big Bang Theory seem pretty close to the truth in that respect.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

When Lik sells a photograph at Sothebys for $6.5 mil then he can brag about it. As it is, there is no proof so I smell a rat. The Kinkade reference above sounds familiar. He is releasing these numbers to try to inflate the sale of other prints so some Joe Blow will think the bubble gum on the wall has a chance to be worth $6.5 mil for a simple $20 large. The Lik market is fabricated and will fall apart in the future. It isn't like there are museums lining up to show it.

If you are ever near a Lik gallery go inside. It is like a cross between a used car lot and a Sephora.

 

[pdeeh]

just try to keep this one in mind.

It's quite the thing of beauty, O-N-F

And posting it here for public consumption demonstrates clearly you don't take yourself too seriously ... something one or two other people here could learn from ... :devil:

 

[digital&film]

Fauxtographer with a faux sale of a Fauxtoshopped fauxny image.

This is EPIC! My new sig, unless you object! ha ha ha

 

[cliveh]

When Lik sells a photograph at Sothebys for $6.5 mil then he can brag about it. As it is, there is no proof so I smell a rat. The Kinkade reference above sounds familiar. He is releasing these numbers to try to inflate the sale of other prints so some Joe Blow will think the bubble gum on the wall has a chance to be worth $6.5 mil for a simple $20 large. The Lik market is fabricated and will fall apart in the future. It isn't like there are museums lining up to show it.

If you are ever near a Lik gallery go inside. It is like a cross between a used car lot and a Sephora.

When I walk around some art galleries and see red dots for paintings/or whatever media as sold, it does make me wonder if it just hype to encourage sales.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yet another thread on this topic, merged.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

A.D. Coleman gives Peter Lik a sound smooshing, and then offers a good explanation of why a photograph might justifiably command a high auction price.

http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/2015/01/24/what-makes-one-photo-worth-2-9-million/

 

[Mick Fagan]

Smooshing!

David, that's the word of the day for me, puts it into perspective.

Mick.

 

[lxdude]

I love the smooshing sound of a sound smooshing.