Peter Lik Photo Sells for 6.5 Million. How?

<p>It's a parody. That's what's up.</p>

<p>WINDANDSEA<br>

<a href="http://www.scottreither.com/details.php?prodId=96&category=10">http://www.scottreither.com/details.php?prodId=96&category=10</a></p>

<p>Windy Windandsea<br>

<a href="http://scottreither.com/blog/?p=163">http://scottreither.com/blog/?p=163</a> Note the follow your bliss quote beneath it</p>

<p>And from Wikipedia "The title article in <a title="Tom Wolfe" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wolfe">Tom Wolfe</a>'s book of essays, <em><a title="The Pump House Gang" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pump_House_Gang">The Pump House Gang</a></em>, is about a group of surfers from Windansea Beach who "attended the <a title="Watts riots" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_riots">Watts riots</a> as if it were the <a title="Rose Bowl (game)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Bowl_(game)">Rose Bowl</a> game in <a title="Pasadena, California" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasadena,_California">Pasadena</a>." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windansea_Beach">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windansea_Beach</a> . Note that the remnants of restrictive covenants in that Magic Mountain [reference to Mount Soledad and to Thomas Mann] had just been removed because UCSD couldn't get the best people and when 'they' did move in, when the real estate and banker community were persuaded to show and loan, few in La Jolla would talk to 'them'. Things changed though. A lot of things changed though in a Magic Mountain community few <em>have</em> to know it. I see they've kept their cross on Mount Soledad by calling it a Veteran's Memorial. That's funny. "The cross was initially understood as a signal that Jews were not welcome in <a title="La Jolla" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Jolla#Antisemitism">La Jolla</a>." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad</a></p>

<p>So Wolfe wasn't all that far off in writing that about kids in that community at that time. But where in Reither's treatment of his La Jolla sea scapes does a viewer get any sense of the reality that was well said by Wolfe? Nowhere, and no where in Lik's happyscapes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm not a fan of Lik's work for a lot of reasons, but I defend art from having to be overtly socially conscious. That's because I think good art which doesn't directly address social issues serves a socially significant purpose anyway. Aesthetic appreciation, like meditation, can be good for the soul. And one good soul leads to another. Mother Teresa devoted her life to charity and Tom Wolfe was a socio-political writer. But not everyone who lives a good life or practices art has to do it the way Mother Teresa and Tom Wolfe did it. There's the famous chastising of Adams and Weston by Bresson, who claimed they were out photographing rocks while the world was falling to pieces. There's a significant place for what Adams and Weston were doing in that they were adding to the tapestry of human expression as well as signaling an appreciation for nature and the environment, which was probably much more socially relevant than Bresson gave them credit for. In short, it's not a negligible side of humanity that appreciates the aesthetic in life even when that doesn't serve the same kind of utilitarian purpose as so-called socially or politically relevant exercises do.</p>

<p>Fred it probably goes without me saying, and isn't all that interesting for me to say, that Reither's views, Lik's views, are overtly socially conscious. IMHO they are overtly social not because of <em>having</em> to be so. Instead they are social views just because they are. They can't help but be, just as that writer Wolfe couldn't help it. In my words there is no assertion that there 'has to be' social commentary in art. That element of commentary is always there whether we want to bring it into relief or not. As to Reither specifically: if a beach is but a beach, then what folks make of a beach (whether artist or art viewer) speaks volumes about the artist, the artist's viewer's, and the world.</p>

<p>With Windandsea, I don't know if Reither's presumably La Jolla gallery caters to La Jolla residents or to tourists. My guess is tourists. The locals see place day in and day out, don't need a suggestive picture, and as a small boy growing up I used that windandsea shack as opportunistically and pragmatically as did the seagulls or crabs. To a local so it will always be, buried in memories of snacking dogs and birds, and of mother, and later of monotony. Reither's shot turns windandsea into something it never was, his processing techniques an attempt to supplant the everyday. Likewise with Lik's Phamtom, turning place into nonsense a local would probably find hard to take.</p>

<p>Fred - "There's a significant place for what Adams and Weston were doing in that they were adding to the tapestry of human expression as well as signaling an appreciation for nature and the environment, which was probably much more socially relevant than Bresson gave them credit for."</p>

<p>Right. And there is an insignificant place for what Lik is doing and it's appropriate to note that insignificance and complain about it endlessly like I do. The event of the sale creates cognitive dissonance that apparently is widespread. Hail to cognitive dissonance and hail to Lik if the sale turns out to be his contribution to performance art.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Charles, if Lik is insignificant to me, it's because his visual aesthetics are hollow, not because of how he handles his sales. I accept the commerce of art as I do all other commerce and what businesses or salespeople do doesn't usually affect my appreciation of art <em>per se</em>. I judge Lik's art on <em>its</em> merits, not on <em>his</em>.</p>

<p>Fred - "I judge Lik's art on <em>its</em> merits, not on <em>his</em>."</p>

<p>That's an important distinction I agree.</p>

<p>How about a capuchin monkey upset with an unequal reward? about 14:20 into Waal's ted talk: <a href="

<blockquote>

<p>In short, it's not a negligible side of humanity that appreciates the aesthetic in life even when that doesn't serve the same kind of utilitarian purpose as so-called socially or politically relevant exercises do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But that is what art is - it usually has no utilitarian value. It's food for the heart and brain not the stomach.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But that is what art is - it usually has no utilitarian value.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Art is many things and it can't be reasonably denied that much art is political and social. What I was saying is that it doesn't have to be, but that doesn't mean I'd dismiss the value of much art as political and social mechanisms. </p>

>>> But that is what art is - it usually has no utilitarian value.

 

But it can. Gehry's Disney Concert Hall in downtown LA quickly comes to mind.

<p>Brad: You're right. Architectural art is on example of utilitarian art. You actually live or work in the art. That's why I said "usually". The art we're talking about here is visual art. That has little value other than what it does for our senses, feelings, heart and mind.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My hope is that someday someone will say about me: "he has more money than brains".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, it's the other way round. And lookng at my bank balance, that's not too difficult!</p>

<p>Alan, two things. First, if a picture does something for our senses, feelings, heart, and mind, it could easily be argued that at least some of that is utilitarian. Second, photojournalism, documentary photography, photography with a political or social message, all have utilitarian value and all can be art.</p>

<p>Consider Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Robert Frank, Leni Riefenstahl, Andres Serrano, Diane Arbus, Nan Goldin, Robert Mapplethorpe among those legions of musicians and photographers whose art all had utilitarian social and political value.</p>

<p>Consider Picasso's <a href="http://www.museoreinasofia.es/en/collection/artwork/guernica">Guernica</a>.</p>

<p>Consider <a href="https://www.boundless.com/art-history/textbooks/boundless-art-history-textbook/europe-and-america-1900-1950-36/europe-1920-1945-227/utilitarian-art-in-russia-802-7062/">Constructivism</a>.</p>

<p>Art and utilitarianism do not have to be at odds. There is plenty of overlap. Art encompasses many universes and rigid distinctions between art and other worldly pursuits rarely pan out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>" . . . We must find a new aesthetic (do not be afraid of the word aesthetic). Let us look for and find a forward-looking enthusiasm to present our new Socialist reality by photography.</em><br /> <br /><em>. . . The shot of a newly-built factory is not a simple object but a source of pride and joy in the industrialization of our country and that is what we must show. </em><br /> <br /><em>. . . Do not learn theoretically, ignoring the advice of practical workers. Abstract theories for practitioners were invented by the aesthetic theoretician – they are an enormous danger."</em><br /> <br /> —Alexander Rodchenko, photographer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please don't mistake my quoting Rodchenko as advocating what he advocates, though there's certainly merit in constructivist thought. I am simply trying to show the infinite variety of purposes that art has historically held, and continues to hold, from the more "purely" aesthetic to the more political, social, and utilitarian.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cultjer.com/video/all-art-is-political-jonson-otherwise-it-would-just-be-decoration-anonymous">From the movie, <em>Anonymous</em>, written by John Orloff.</a> Again, this is just one of many perspectives on art. I don't think all art has to be political. But art can be, much art has been and will continue to be.</p>

<p>Allen - "The art we're talking about here is visual art. That has little value other than what it does for our senses, feelings, heart and mind."</p>

<p>Fred - " I don't think all art has to be political. But art can be, much art has been and will continue to be."</p>

<p>Here is a Ted Talk <a href="

Weaving narratives in museum galleries by Thomas P. Campbell, where he in part discusses medieval tapestries. Medieval tapestries, he says, when hung on walls transformed a "...cold dank interior into a richly colored setting." Utilitarian, but they were decorative depictions of medieval life. Campbell stresses that tapestries were hugely expensive in skill and materials. They were a "vast canvas on which the patrons of the day could depict the heroes with whom they wanted to be associated, or even themselves....So in an age when the visual image of any kind was rare, tapestries were an incredibly potent form of propaganda."</p>

<p>Campbell goes on to describe some tapestries that depict court life. And in one depiction of a hunting scene there is, as Campbell interprets it, an "in your face joke by the artist.", namely, a dog pooping in the foreground. These were the elite of the day paying to memorialize themselves propagandistically. Campbell suggests that the artist was nevertheless able to include in that depiction his own one finger salute to that elite. That's an interpretation of a dog pooping, and sometimes a pooping dog is just a pooping dog. But I give weight to Campbell's interpretation of that dog because his specialty is the study of medieval tapestries. I do question how "incredibly potent" medieval tapestries were as propaganda. If Campbell's interpretation of the pooping dog is the correct one, then not even the artist was propagandized.</p>

<p>I'm sure there are other and perhaps clearer examples of an artist making a critical statement about the patron in the work that the patron commissioned. And I think also that those tapestries aren't <em>just</em> propaganda, aren't just political. I don't favor the view that all art should intentionally propagandize or intentionally serve one purpose over any other. Purpose seems to work against creative expressions of many kinds. At the same time, we're a social animal and exist in a social context. That we aren't just socially produced, in my view, goes without saying.</p>

<p>Expressions <em>express something</em>, obviously, and with a Lik or a Reither, anything they say is fair game for the exploration of both the person behind the expression, the people to whom they are expressing themselves, and the broader world in which those expressions are made.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There's plenty of political art that's not propaganda, unless you're making the case that all politics is propaganda, with which I'd disagree. Not quite sure what your point is. Mine is that art can be both contemplatively aesthetic (which in itself can be seen as utilitarian as it enhances our sense of humanity) and more overtly utilitarian. We admire beautifully-wrought ancient pottery and utensils for their aesthetic value at the same time recognizing their utilitarian aspects and sometimes appreciating the aesthetics even more given that they are "mere" utensils. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Expressions <em>express something</em>, obviously, and with a Lik or a Reither, anything they say is fair game for the exploration of both the person behind the expression, the people to whom they are expressing themselves, and the broader world in which those expressions are made.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, no problem. Yet it still seems wise to me to understand both the relationship of and the distinction between one's verbal expressions and one's art. An artist's words and thoughts can inform our understanding of his artwork. But the words and thoughts can also be overplayed when assessing the art. Lik's gamesmanship and salesmanship relates to his art, sure. But, when assessing his art (negatively, in the case of my own opinion), I will want to emphasize the artistic/aesthetic lapses over the salesmanship aspects. Because the lack of artistic merit is found right there in the art. His salesmanship seems to me more ancillary, even though obviously related.<br>

<br>

Now, it's been argued (debatably) that Cezanne engaged in some "shameless" self promotion/salesmanship. It would be hard for me to discover verbal expressions of Cezanne that would in any way undermine his paintings. Not that Cezanne was one, but an artist can certainly be a fool, can be mercenery, etc. without it undermining the experience of his art itself. In Lik's case, the salesmanship and the aesthetic seem to go hand-in-hand, so neither is admirable and they likely inform each other. That's not always the case. Hitchcock was in many ways a real jerk. Ironically, his maltreatment of women and his misogynist attitudes may come through in his films, such as in <em>Vertigo</em>, but the depths of his exploration of these things and his own human foibles probably add to the dimension with which this film deals with gender roles and males fashioning the females they love. Sometimes, human failings are the foundation of very honest works of art.</p>

<p>I am very excited to see this upward trend in pricing for photographic prints. I'm planning to offer a series called Billionaires On A Budget with prices starting at only $650,000.00</p>

<p>:-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Purpose seems to work against creative expressions of many kinds.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does it? How so? </p>

<p>I put together a small group of artist quotes about the importance of purpose to their art, not necessarily to prove a point but because many of them challenge me to think and to keep at it.</p>

<p><em>"Without thinking too much about it in specific terms, I was showing the America I knew and observed to others who might not have noticed. My fundamental purpose is to </em><em>interpret the typical American. I am a story teller."</em> <br />(Norman Rockwell) <br>

<br /><em>"The artist is not a person endowed with free will who seeks his own ends, but one who allows art to realize its purpose within him."</em> <br />(Carl Gustav Jung) <br>

<br /><em>"Art is the perpetual motion of illusion. The highest purpose of art is to inspire. What else can you do? What else can you do for any one but inspire them?"</em> <br />(Bob Dylan) <br>

<br /><em>"The first thing to do in life is to do with purpose what one purposes to do."</em> <br />(Pablo Casals) <br>

<br /><em>"My job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."</em> <br />(Mark Twain) <br>

<br /><em>"My aim is not to exhibit craft, but rather to submerge it, and make it rightfully the handmaiden of beauty, power and emotional content."</em> <br />(Andrew Wyeth) <br>

<br /><em>"A writer must think that whatever happens to him or her is a resource. All things have been given to us for a purpose, and an artist must feel this more intensely. All that happens </em><em>to us, including our humiliations, our misfortunes, our embarrassments, all is given to us as raw material, as clay, so that we may shape our art."</em> <br />(Jorge Luis Borges) <br>

<br /><em>"Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one consciously, by means of certain external symbols, conveys to others the feelings one has experienced, whereby people so infected by these feelings, </em><em>also experience them."</em> <br />(Leo Tolstoy)</p>

<p>Rockwell: "<em>"Without thinking too much about it in specific terms,</em>" something I intended to convey with "Purpose seems to work against..."</p>

<p><em>"The artist is not a person endowed with free will who seeks his own ends, but one who allows art to realize its purpose within him."</em></p>

<p>Right, because the artist's will, or conception of her purpose, can NOT allow art to realize its purpose.....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred: "There's plenty of political art that's not propaganda, unless you're making the case that all politics is propaganda, with which I'd disagree. Not quite sure what your point is."</p>

<p>I didn't write anywhere that all politics is propaganda, nor did I write that all political art is propaganda. Did I?</p>

<p>Fred: "Mine is that art can be both contemplatively aesthetic (which in itself can be seen as utilitarian as it enhances our sense of humanity) and more overtly utilitarian."</p>

<p>That too was my point in giving a link to a ted talk and discussing medieval tapestry as aesthetic, utilitarian, and political. </p>

<p>Fred: "In Lik's case, the salesmanship and the aesthetic seem to go hand-in-hand, so neither is admirable and they likely inform each other."</p>

<p>In Lik's case, but not all cases.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I didn't write anywhere that all politics is propaganda, nor did I write that all political art is propaganda. Did I?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wasn't sure what you meant by this statement: "And I think also that those tapestries aren't <em>just</em> propaganda, aren't just political." I wondered whether you were associating "propaganda" with "political". There are times when people repeat a clause like you've done, exchanging one word for another, as you did with propaganda and political, where they do mean to associate the two words by doing that. Thanks for setting me straight, though.</p>

<p>I appreciate what Rockwell has to offer, but I also like the other more specific references to purpose given by some of the others, particularly Wyeth, Borges, and Tolstoy. What I don't think is that purpose, even very specific purpose, works against creativity. I think purpose often motivates/inspires it. Of course, like anything else, purpose, for some, could work against creativity. Hell, being sick can work against creativity or it can inspire it, just as can being depressed. I wouldn't say what you have said about purpose and creativity because my own two main photographic projects, giving visibility to middle-aged and older gay men and documenting the special needs community in New Hampshire, both have relatively specific purposes (which doesn't mean I can't open up doors within each of those and expand my purpose as I go along), each of which inspires me to create.</p>

<p>Fred too, I think that back when I was very purposed with documentary photographs of coyotes, my creativity was in making those opportunities as far as getting the picture was concerned. The actual picture taking, processing wasn't as 'creative' to me.</p>

<p>Purpose can take as many forms as the creative result itself. It can be related to the desire to make something of an often seen (overexposed) site such as the canyon and light shaft of Lik's photo. What distinguishes Lik's image from others, apart from its B&W tone, is the surendipitous light image. Was it the result of purpose, as it might be if he threw or had someone throwing fine particle sand into the light, or was it simply accident?</p>

<p>Sometimes the two, the result and purpose, go together, as in my photo below of light patterns on a dark medieval church interior in central France. I watched the projected window light change positions on a far wall as the sun to earth position changed over a half hour or more (after a three course french lunch, with ample wine, I wasn't in a hurry), camera on tripod. The chosen pattern seems to symbolize Christ on a cross, at least to those who have since responded to photos of the result. It is the amalgam of purpose (diffused) and result (in large part accidental). In that way it is probably similar to the nature of the creation of Lik's photo. Are such unusual compositions art? Yes, I think so, but only if they convey some higher meaning than the chance composition itself. In my opinion, neither Lik's photo or my own example do that.</p>

<p>Leaving creativity and chance aside in the making of images, are we led to conclude that in many cases self-marketing prowess and peer recognition is more important than the creative result? Do critical art reviewers have any independent role to play in the business of art? <br>

</p>

<p>Purpose can take as many forms as the creative result itself. It can be related to the desire to make something of an often seen (overexposed) site such as the canyon and light shaft of Lik's photo. What distinguishes Lik's image from others, apart from its B&W tone, is the surendipitous light image. Was it the result of purpose, as it might be if he threw or had someone throwing fine particle sand into the light, or was it simply accident?</p>

<p>Sometimes the two, the result and purpose, go together, as in my photo below of light patterns on a dark medieval church interior in central France. I watched the projected window light change positions on a far wall as the sun to earth position changed over a half hour or more (after a three course french lunch, with ample wine, I wasn't in a hurry), camera on tripod. The chosen pattern seems to symbolize Christ on a cross, at least to those who have since responded to photos of the result. It is the amalgam of purpose (diffused) and result (in large part accidental). In that way it is probably similar to the nature of the creation of Lik's photo. Are such unusual compositions art? Yes, I think so, but only if they convey some higher meaning than the chance composition itself. In my opinion, neither Lik's photo or my own example do that.</p>

<p>Leaving creativity and chance aside in the making of images, are we led to conclude that in many cases self-marketing prowess and peer recognition is more important than the creative result? Do critical art reviewers have any independent role to play in the business of art? <br>

</p>