Peter Lik Photo Sells for 6.5 Million. How?

<p>To me, this is a business success story as opposed to a quality-of-photography one, akin to controversies surrounding the unexpected success of tech companies founded by college dropouts whose achievements were not measured or rewarded by technical competence. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>David C. " One of the people at the gallery told us that collectors had suggested this move and he is responding to that."</p>

<p>Now that is interesting because to me it suggests his work is indirectly commissioned work, he loosely directed in his craft by the tastes of those willing to make a bet by purchasing his work. So in part his work is a view into the superficiality of the tastes of his patrons, insipid though well crafted, not worth a second look, craft in its inception monetized with little else to recommend it. So if representative of institutional art, his work and it sale disclose a failure of within an institution in part corrupted by its wealthy patrons. Not so different than the demise of the now monetized periodical the New Republic, co-optation of values by branding in the way that Peter Lik is just a brand and a trashy one at that.</p>

<p>My wife and I visited the Lik Gallery a few times in South Beach Miami and watched his TV show when it was running on The Weather Channel. We noticed that all the photos in the gallery were on specially mounted frames and seemed to be backlit, creating this incredible and striking vividness to the photos. The guy is a genius artist and a very good businessman, which no doubt gives him the whole enchilada for big time success. Art Wolf is another mainstream photographer that has a chain of galleries, one of which we visited in Las Vegas this year. Beautiful work. These guys are born photographers who've been at it for decades. I find them inspiring.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Now that is interesting because to me it suggests his work is indirectly commissioned work, he loosely directed in his craft by the tastes of those willing to make a bet by purchasing his work</strong><br /> <br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not trying to start an argument, but I must state the obvious that Michaelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci were commissioned by patrons to subsequently create timeless masterpieces that continue to inspire millions of people around the world for 500 years and counting. In the 20th Century, one of my favorite painters, Marc Chagall, was commissioned numerous times to paint the stained glass in churches and cathedrals and synagogues, creating visually stunning pieces of art. If Lik is indirectly creating amazing and inspiring photographs for his wealthy patrons, which all of us can still enjoy in galleries and books, I say more power to him.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>specially mounted frames and seemed to be backlit,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe metal prints? Great presentation in a gallery can seemingly transform a good print into a great one. He takes care and money to present his prints in the best possible way - seems a sensible practice.</p>

<p>Here's <em>The Washington Post's</em> take on the story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/11/this-peter-lik-photograph-reportedly-just-went-for-a-world-record-6-5-million/?tid=hp_mm</p>

<p>I was surprised by a couple of critics' remarks quoted there:</p>

 

<ul>

<li><em>Guardian </em>art critic Jonathan Jones said, "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."</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Megan Dick, the director of Australia’s MiCK gallery, said, “Being such a literal interpretation of the subject, landscape photography is more in the realm of documentary rather than art.” (I wonder whether she thinks it was art when Ansel <em>et al.</em> did it but isn't anymore, or whether it never was.)</li>

</ul>

<p>I've been to Peter Lik's gallery on Waikiki and there is some good stuff in it that is presented very well. Marketing is everything.</p>

<p>Funny story: Peter's latest image was on display and it was a tropical beach scene with coconut palms overhanging the beach and clouds over the ocean on the horizon-- you know the type. I took one look and said "The horizon isn't level." The curator was accompanying us and he was visibly startled, because, in reality, the horizon was crooked. I don't think he had noticed. I wonder if they fixed it.</p>

<p>We were carrying our cameras because we were cruising around shooting and as we left the gallery I said "Thanks very much. Now we're going to go take some photos and put Peter out of business." I don't think he thought I was very funny. Oh, well.</p>

<p>Re: backlit</p>

<p>I thought so too, but the curator assured us that wasn't the case and I looked behind a few images to make sure. He said it was a special printing procedure that gave it that look, that I must admit was very nice. Cheers.</p>

<p>I just looked at a pile of Peter Lik's images. I am sorry, but I see nothing resembling "genius". I see only technical competence and lots of saturation. <a href="http://www.pinterest.com/mynewnotebook/eliot-porter/">Eliot Porter</a>? Yes. <a href="http://www.josephholmes.com/gallery01.html">Joseph Holmes</a>? Yes. Even <a href="http://www.muenchphotography.com/davids-gallery/#14">David Meunch</a>? Yes.<a href="http://www.charliewaite.com/gallery"> Charlie Waite</a>? Yupper. Lik? Not really.<br>

BTW, if you want the ghostly image in YOUR Antelope Canyon shot, have the guide throw sand into the beam of light, and shoot a dozen or so frames.</p>

<p>Thomas - "...I must state the obvious that Michaelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci were commissioned by patrons..."</p>

<p>Yes, yes and I suppose I was stating the obvious in placing Lik loosely in the commissioned market albeit that he is being paid after the fact. So among all things the first for him is anticipated money. That other greats have produced for patrons is a fact, doesn't mean they were primarily money motivated, and it is a fact that from those other patronages came timeless masterpieces.</p>

<p>But I had to add that something has gone wrong if that Lik photo was deemed worth anything more than any other failed postcard picture, failed for deserving to be kept off the postcard rack as garishly [even in black and white he's garish] hostile to the material world. In the 'hostile to the material world' group I would also include Megan Dick who in the linked to Washington Post article confessed by her action to be unable to let <em>materia</em> be: "Yeah, my pics of the Parthenon this summer looked really awesome in monochrome." Which is her way of saying materia in and of itself wasn't awesome. (Too bad, because Antelope Valley by another set of values had to also have been sacred place. What is wrong are the dedications and values of the patrons, a big problem since they have so much money and power.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I am sorry, but I see nothing resembling "genius"."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The genius is in the ability to exchange a photograph for $6.5M. </p>

<p>There's something deeply immoral about someone paying this huge amount for a picture to put in a bank vault when so many children in the World are starving, I don't know how he sleepsat night.</p>

 

 

 

<p>I agree Ben and, taking exception with Michael, it isn't genius to exploit the Navajo nation in such fashion. My nose tells me that Lik won't given them one dime of the 6.5 million. With 6.5 million the Navajo nation might decide to close that site to we foreigners. In what other nation's museums or sacred sites can you just snap away for your own personal gain?</p>

I wonder how some people draw conclusions about a photographer/artist not caring and helping others

simply because he made a great sale. Projection? Not knowing Lik I would not draw such a conclusion.

<p>I don't know him Brad, except from the Washington Post article which describes him:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>That assessment hasn’t stopped Lik from selling. Take it from photographer Scott Reither, who also sells pictures and once worked as one of Lik’s salesmen. He wrote a lengthy blog post on his travails in which he spoke of hustling photographs like a used car salesman and pushing fine art on a Las Vegas clientele caught up in “impulsive behavior while visiting Sin City.” Reither said he sold $700,000 worth of Lik’s photography in seven months and quit, unable to “stomach it any further.” ...." … the discussion with prospective buyers had to become about <em>value, </em>[and] I was done because I did not believe in the value of the product.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me either, sensitive stomach me.</p>

<p>Curious about the archival ability of this photo. I mean I would want it to last so I can sell it in thirty years, no? Maybe it comes with a guarantee that it will be replaced with another in kind should the buyer notice any fading at all. </p>

<p>Also, is this going to be 1/5 prints made available? Let's see; 5 times $6.5 million....</p>

 

<p>Charles, here's a tongue-in-cheek challenge: One of the images in the link below is the authentic Cy Twombly "Untitled" 1970 that sold for $69.6M at Christie's last month (Nov. 2014). Can you identify it?<br>

[<a href="https://www.google.ca/search?q=Cy+Twombly+1970+untitled&rlz=1C1CHFX_enCA521CA521&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=xn-KVKDQD5KkyQS5_4KYDQ&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1440&bih=770">Link</a>]</p>

<p>Closer to photography, Andy Warhol's "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Elvises">Eight Elvises</a>" sold for $100M in 2008. Naturally, it would make sense that fewer Elvises should command less money, and indeed that was the case as his "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Elvis">Triple Elvis</a>" sold for a mere $81.9M at the same auction as Twobly's above. Of course that would mean 8 Elvises should now be valued at well over $200M today, if I did my math correctly. </p>

<p>Peter Lik's photo at a mere $6.5M is chickenfeed compared to these other "artists" whose buyers pay more than that just in buyer's-premium paid to the auction house. On the other hand, Cindy Sherman's "Untitled Film Stills" 1977-1980 sold for $6.7M but contains 21 photos, so that must mean Lik's photo is at least 21X better. <br>

<br>

We exchange thoughts on these things in forums but there's a whole different world out there exchanging big money to back up their words on the same thing. </p>

<p>For us lay people, Laura Paulson, Chairman, Post-War and Contemporary Art at Christie's, discusses Cy Twombly’s Untitled, 1970, which sold for $69.6M on 12 November 2014 in New York.<br>

<a href="

- 3:05</p>

<p>"I don't believe in millionaires, but it would be dangerous to offer me the position."<br /> -- Mark Twain</p>

<p>Thanks Michael.</p>

<p>There's definitely something wrong with western societies sense of values.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In what other nation's museums or sacred sites can you just snap away for your own personal gain</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So many, it doesn't bear listing....</p>

<p>The Washington Post article did spend a lot of time snootily dismissing Lik and some of the quotes listed in the article were pretty silly. I mean, I personally find it much harder to accept Cy Twombly's scribblings for $60 million than Mr. Lik's output. As Kent says, is black and white now outmoded as Jonathan Johns seems to suggest? I missed that memo. As for landscapes being largely documentary as Dick suggests, well I find that amazing as Lik's landscapes and so much (hypersaturated/exaggerated) landscape photography is about as documentary as Van Gogh's view of Arles. </p>

<p>I don't agree with Johns' view on black and white (who I wrongly quoted on that as from Dick). Nor do I agree with Dick who offers that landscapes as largely documentary. Still, it's hard to find reasons for dislikes without fumbling.</p>

<p>I don't agree with Jonathan Jones's view on black and white either, but I've appreciated being made to think about it. I remember about 20 years ago or so, when a friend's kids were about 7 and 10 and Nickelodeon was first starting to show reruns of some of the old great classic sitcoms. These kids didn't want anything to do with those shows because they were in black and white. I think much contemporary visual social commentary can be done very effectively in color and in many cases color can really help in capturing a certain zeitgeist. There is some truth to the idea that black and white is often used to be arty and does have a classic and nostalgic use as well. That's always worth considering. Jones is off, though, when he concludes that it's outmoded. Black and white is still being expressively and effectively used. But he's claimed that photographers can't be fine artists, so it's probably good to read him with a degree of skepticism, even as there are some things worth considering in what he says.</p>

<p>In looking up the Jones article, I came across a response by Sean O'Hagan (link below). This interests me more than the fact that Peter Lik received 6.5 mil for his photograph. When that kind of money gets spent on something like Lik's photo...it's a whole other realm and bears little relation to the real world. Who knows what the rationale is behind it? I strongly suspect promotional shenanigans (to borrow a word from Lex) or a high degree of gullibility or bad taste on the part of someone who has millions to burn. I know nothing personal about Lik other than having seen some of his images online and an occasional trailer for a tv show he was on ("Love the sound o' that shuttuh!"). In terms of what moves me, I far prefer some of the images that O'Hagan displays in his article.</p>

<p>And the reactions here are also interesting. Some sneer at him, then others congratulate Lik and sneer at those who sneered and accuse them of envy. Bollocks! Not that anyone gives a damn (least of all Lik), but if I had to sum up much of what I've seen of his work I'd call it overpriced kitsch. The kind of stuff I'd expect to see posted on the wall of a college dormitory, not framed in the living room of a serious collector of photography. But creating work like that and getting well paid for it doesn't make him a bad person any more than my opinion of his work makes me a bad person.</p>

<p>Now...if the day ever comes that there is a Lik retrospective at MOMA or the Chicago Art Institute,<em> then </em>I'll take to the streets with rage and indignation. ;-)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/dec/11/photography-is-art-sean-ohagan-jonathan-jones">http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/dec/11/photography-is-art-sean-ohagan-jonathan-jones</a></p>