Peter Lik Photo Sells for 6.5 Million. How?

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Oh why can't I get a bigger ego"</p>

<p>Weak ego in my opinion....really not having real respect for his work. Selling art cheap and cheerful.</p>

<p>Seriously undervalued...but that is us believing we are not worthy of real art only the lesser stuff. And we just love to disrespect ourselves... </p>

<p>Please Sir can we have some more....yes, we understand we are not worthy.</p>

<p>Then we ask why we have little respect in the art world.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Scott Reither "...pushing fine art on a Las Vegas clientele caught up in “impulsive behavior while visiting Sin City" quoted again for emphasis.</p>

<p>So we know Lik will stoop pretty low to sell; and we don't know if the 6.5 million was a sale on the merits or some kind of stunt. It's because of who Lik is that we have to question that transaction's legitimacy. He to some is a less than admirable person because of what he does to get well paid. And in that regard he is strictly imitative, not creative, not capable of having anything worth saying.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"admirable person because of what he does to get well paid"</p>

<p>Best all artists work for nothing....lets be honest the real artists, genuine creative folk, are the Bankers/Finance folk who create an art of nothing not even a photo or a brush stroke. The art of the empty poor folks pockets.</p>

<p>Their art is so special that we believe in the magnificence of it....true art. True art where the money is...how simple to understand.<br>

.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"He to some is a less than admirable person because of what he does to get well paid."</p>

<p>Okay, artists should get well paid. They should live a life of poverty for their art. Bankers should get paid for nearly destroying the world economy due to their greed.</p>

<p>Charles, are you from a different reality? Sort of like the rich really need to get richer and the poor should happy to be manure. What do you think?</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>I would be very happy to put that photo on my wall because it is creative and different. I consider myself a creative photographer and recognize creativity in others.</p>

<p>Have some respect for your fellow photographers and try not be the green eyed monster.... and looking at the naysayers remarks I do not see anything special they have contributed to photography.</p>

 

[Brad_]

>>> Scott Reither "...pushing fine art on a Las Vegas clientele caught up in “impulsive behavior while visiting Sin City"

quoted again for emphasis.

 

>>> So we know Lik will stoop pretty low to sell; ...

 

We do? I certainly don't. Perhaps *you* do? That Lik sells art to people who may be impulsive and have lots of money to

spend is hardly an indictment. There are many galleries in large cities, San Francisco included with dozens,

whose clientele are people with money to spend and are looking for a pleasing painting or photograph. That is hardly stooping low to sell and hardly news.

 

It may be shocking to some that most art (paintings, lithos, photographs, sculpture) sold at "downtown" galleries, say in the range that Lik's work was sold ($800 -

$4500 in Vegas), does not have a secondary market. People still purchase because they're moved by the work and want to hang a piece over the sofa. You will not find such

work in Bonhams or other auction catalogs. That's not necessarily bad. It's a fact of life and how the gallery system works for the

most part in cities, selling to people who are not serious collectors.

[Allen Herbert]

<p>In the real world the type of person who takes an interest in this photo would buy it as a whim...loose change in their pocket. Your thoughts on the internet would just be someone with mud on their boots. A noise. </p>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Allen Herbert</strong>: I would be very happy to put that photo on my wall because it is creative and different. I consider myself a creative photographer and recognize creativity in others.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Problem is, it's NOT "creative and different". It's a standard tourist shot. You line up your camera, then have a guide (or your assistant) throw sand into the beam of light until you get something you like.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>There are downtown galleries and then there are downtown galleries: Brad what you didn't address in your comment was whether or not all downtown galleries misrepresent the value of their products like Reither says Lik did.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I was very glad to see Lik's photo and one or two of his other highly priced works. They do as much as anything to confirm my intent to continue my photography and artistic approaches. If the summit of photographic art is these technically fine but mundane images then there is a lot of room for more highly creative expression. I am happy with my own progress in that sense, and have no need to praise, to scorn or to be jealous of what he has achieved. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>If it's true that he sold a rather "mundane" photo for $6.5 million, well then, there's hope for all of us. Be positive! </p>

[Brad_]

>>> There are downtown galleries and then there are downtown galleries: Brad what you didn't address in your comment was

whether or not all downtown galleries misrepresent the value of their products like Reither says Lik did.

 

Except that Reither did not say that, nor do I consider it a misrepresentation. Reither became disenfranchised with the

editioning and artist proof system, something that most photography galleries engage in. Again, that's nothing new, though I

personally disagree with the editioning aspect being used to promote exclusiveness (and higher prices), even though it is widespread. Lik galleries set the price. As there is no secondary market or other galleries selling Lik's work, the price they set

is the price. As an aside, lithographs and serigraphs have been editioned and with set-aside APs for ages. Something that's relatively

new is tiered editioning, where the price of a print increases as the edition is close to selling out. Don't like it, don't purchase. That's the

way galleries work where there is no secondary or alternate markets. As an aside, and IIRC, Avedon ITAW prints were printed in editions of 6, and some of Sally Mann's editioned at 5 or 10. Now, that's a completely different situation as there's a real secondary market for Avedon and Mann prints.

[charleswood]

<p>Reither "… 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>

<p>So Brad would you point me to where you got your version of Reither's discontent? </p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Problem is, it's NOT "creative and different". It's a standard tourist shot. You line up your camera, then have a guide (or your assistant) throw sand into the beam of light until you get something you like."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's classic <a href="http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/089/406/Protip.jpg?1318992465">Protip</a> thinking. It's sorta like saying "<a href="http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/103/100/self_defense_pro_tip.jpg?1318992465">It's easy to win at boxing</a>. Just line up in a boxer's stance and throw punches until you outpoint or knock out your opponent, while avoiding your opponent's punches."</p>

<p>If everyone could do it, everyone <em>would</em> do it. And we'd never get any questions here about the basics of exposure from folks who already own very nice cameras. Or how to extricate themselves from a wedding shoot they screwed up because they lacked the fundamentals of photography and business.</p>

<p>Yeah, a thousand other advanced amateurs could get the same photos. Personally I find most of his photos only a notch or two above a Thomas Kinkade painting, and not quite on the level of Chihuly glass sculpture, but in the same vein of popular art. I'd certainly rather have a darkroom printed b&w landscape from Michael Kenna or Rolfe Horn. But Lik has refined the art, hard work and hustle of marketing, self promotion, access and everything that goes into a successful business based on a non-essential product. Exactly the same thing done by every above average, but commercially successful, artist, writer, athlete, performer and service provider. He seems to be a likeable huckster with far more charisma than the typical landscape photographer.</p>

<blockquote>"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."</blockquote>

<p>I understand the snark about his photography. But not the resentment and anger about his success. Commercial success in creative endeavors isn't a zero sum game or finite pie. And what people do with their money, including for charity and philanthropy, is their business, not yours. Some givers prefer anonymity and never claim any tax deductions, so none of us will ever know who gives what to whom. (Google the annual holiday season stories about anonymous donors who pay off layaways amounting to tens of thousands of dollars.) Save the moral outrage for drug cartel kingpins, banksters and corrupt politicians.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Oh, here: <a href="http://scottreither.com/blogwp/2012/06/11/peter-lik-gallery-photographer-my-story/">http://scottreither.com/blogwp/2012/06/11/peter-lik-gallery-photographer-my-story/</a></p>

<p>artist proof system sounds like a deceptive sales practice; and from Scott's blog a quote:</p>

<p>"I learned the how-to’s and how-not-to’s to opening and running a gallery honorably, forming a sales strategy ethically, managing a staff respectably, among many other things."</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Reither "… the discussion with prospective buyers had to become about value, [and] I was done because I did not believe

in the value of the product.” So Brad would you point me to where you got your version of Reither's discontent?

 

The price of an artwork is set by the gallery/artist - any price can be set, any edition size can be decided, any number of APs

can be set aside - all for the purpose of promoting "exclusivity" and thus higher prices. Value, however is subjective, and that is

what troubled Reither.

 

Set the price too high and potential buyers are eliminated from the market. Set the price too low and you may be reducing your

total potential return. Galleries that don't get that right will not be in business long.

 

If I am in the market for a Toyota, and the company suddenly imposes a $20K price increase next month without any changes

to a model I'm considering, I would likely not purchase one. Some people, though, still may, for whatever reason. I do not see

that as a "misrepresentation."

 

FYI, I'm reading from Reither's blog.

[Brad_]

Charles, we doubled...

 

>>> artist proof system sounds like a deceptive sales practice;

 

It's a system long used in the sale of lithographs and serigraphs. Photographs, too - though the physical

underlying reasoning is certainly more questionable. Photography galleries caught on quick...

 

As it is widespread, and known, I wouldn't call it deceptive necessarily - though I disagree with the practice. OTOH, I'm not in the market...

[charleswood]

<p>Lex: "And what people do with their money, including for charity and philanthropy, is their business, not yours."</p>

<p>It <em>is</em> our business and it is politicizing to say otherwise. There is <em>so</em> much federal public law on charity and philanthropy. Because it is our business in <em>law</em>.</p>

<p>Let's say this 6.5 million sale is to a prearranged buyer who has already found an institution that would accept it as a charitable contribution in a year, valuing that contribution at 10 million. I don't even want to get into the BS appraiser aspect behind charitable donations of art work. It's so much our business it isn't even funny.</p>

<p> </p>

[charleswood]

<p>Thanks for that Brad.</p>

[Dave410]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>If I sold a photo for $6.5 million, I'd be too damn excited to sleep at night!</p>

<p>BTW, did you see the previous record holder and what did you think? Personally, I don't see anything interesting at all about <em>Rhein II</em>, and it sold for over $4 million.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't see anything interesting at all about <em>Rhein II</em>, and it sold for over $4 million.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Had the same reaction when I first saw it. And then I read how large the Gursky prints are - I think that'll probably change a lot on how it gets perceived. Though the 99 Cent II Diptychon interests me more. Sometimes, size does matter.<br>

____</p>

<p>Whether or not the Lik photo should/could be worth 6.5M US$ is a different question from whether any photo could be worth this amount; whether photography is an art, yes or no. I continue to find it amazing that in 2014 there still seems to be some sentiment against regarding photography a credible art-form. I find it disturbing, and using this particular example as a case against 'photography-as-an-art' is simplistic and cheap. Indeed, it looks to be a photo that would work well as the "Inspirational Poster At Work" ("<em>Creativity is seeing people where there is dust</em>"), but that's a matter of taste and personal appreciation more than a matter of solid, reasoned discussion on whether this photo is a piece of art, or not.<br />The price isn't even that relevant in this discussion, and getting all hung up on that is confusing the value of a US dollar for value. It's just not the same thing.<br>

____ <br>

The discussion whether it is ethical or not to spend these amounts on arts is yet again a seperate one, and I wouldn't judge anyone spending this amount on a print if he spends the other 90% of his fortune on charities, wellfare programs and/or sustaining less popular artforms that otherwise would get lost. Judging it as unethical without knowing anything more about how the buyer spends his dollars is a silly assumption. It's not a matter of what is our business or not, but about the balance and how judgemental we'd need to be for whoever spend 6.5M US$ on a print. I do not know who bought it, I do not know how Lik will use these new riches - so maybe they ought to sleep safe and sound at night, maybe not. Get some facts first before judging any of them.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>On the matter of the morality of spending money on this instead of that, we each make choices every day at our own level. The multi-millionaire can afford to spend a few million on art and there will be those who will judge him for it. Those doing the judging may have a lot less money. But if they spend a few cents on a meal out now and then instead of cooking at home and giving the savings to charity, then by their own standards they are as guilty of an immorality. Unless we are Mother Teresa, and most of us are not, we will not devote our lives and the majority of our resources to doing charitable work. In my world, I'm happy if money is spent on photos and art rather than, say, weapons and wars or harmful drugs or political campaigns that are so often a sham. One can certainly make the case that photos add something to the humanity and richness of the world. If, every time I went to a movie or to the circus or to a baseball game, I thought instead about the charities I could be giving to, I'd soon become a basket case. What I strive for is some degree of balance, and even with that I've been known to splurge and even waste money on occasion. Such is life!</p>

<p>I'm with Wouter on his comments about taste. My disliking something doesn't make it not art. That's too easy and subjective a solution to a great puzzle. I am allowed, and the world is allowed, not to like works of art. The thing about art is it's strong enough and substantive enough to withstand the whimsy and subjectivity of taste. Not only is there art I like and art I don't like. There's good art and bad art.</p>

<p>Using the sale of one expensive photo that I may or may not like as an indictment against photography specifically or the art world in general doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The commerce of art and the humanity of art are two very different things. Heck, even charity has become big business. Look at any of the AIDS or Breast Cancer walks and rides and note the high percentage that goes into the bureaucracy. That doesn't make walking the walks, riding the rides, or appreciating the photos immoral. And, having been to many an AIDSWalk, the spirit adds to humanity despite whatever bookkeeping is occurring.</p>

<p>Art takes place as much in photo galleries and studios and basements of people who will forever remain unknown to the masses as it does in high-priced salons and formal museums. That's part of the beauty and mystique of art.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Whether one believes the sale was legitimate or just part of a promotion scheme, whether its art, high art or pablum, the effect has been that the whole photo world, if not the art world, is talking about Lik. So now when people wonder past one of his brick and mortar or on-line galleries, they just might enter in to purchase one of his works when before they would just wonder by ignorant of who he is. </p>

<p>This man is a consummate businessman who understands marketing and merchandising. This way to the Great Egress.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>And then there's <a href="http://petapixel.com/2014/12/13/artist-jeff-frost-inches-past-recently-set-world-record-expensive-photograph-ever-sold/">this</a>.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>The bottom of the article states this: "<em><strong>Editor’s note</strong>: This is <a title="" href="http://www.jeff-frost.com/press-releases" target="_blank">a parody</a> of <a title="" href="http://www.lik.com/news/newsarticle57/" target="_blank">the press release</a> put out by Peter Lik.</em>" So what's up?</p>