Peter Lik Photo Sells for 6.5 Million. How?

[aplumpton]

<p>Former omitted example (purpose - result duality):</p><div></div>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>are we led to conclude that in many cases self-marketing prowess and peer recognition is more important than the creative result?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, definitely <em>in many cases</em> - or someone has to buy into you - be it your gallery/agent/benefactor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do critical art reviewers have any independent role to play in the business of art?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, because without them you will not enter the canon of "real artists" and once you are a "real artist" and accepted as such you will command attention in the long run. However, critical acclaim is not essential, as Lik shows, and for the very many other very good artists in the past who have not been anointed by the critics. Critical appreciation waxes and wanes, however, so you may not last in the canon for ever, but if you have lasted 2 centuries you will probably remain a force to be reckoned with, even if your star may diminish.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Here's a story about the sale:<br>

http://petapixel.com/2014/12/10/expensive-photo-world-best-marketing-stunt/ </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Thanks for the link, JDM. The last line in the article stood out to me:</p>

<p><em>"If you want to be inspired by a master marketer, look no further than Lik. If you want to see great photography, head over to the ICP and see the Salgado exhibit."</em><br /> <br /> As a matter of fact, maybe to balance out the time spent on Lik's marketing we could have a look at and discussion about Salgado's photos . . .</p>

<p><a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00d0sG">HERE'S</a> a new thread.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Fred: Thank you very much for those thought-provoking quotes!</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Thanks JDM for the link which clearly states what is probably behind the whole sale: a promotion stunt of the artist in person. Here is another article from the Independent expressing the feelings of people concerned more about art than marketing :<br>

: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/photography/peter-lik-the-selfproclaimed-fineart-photographer-whose-work-sells-for-millions-9919427.html</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Art’s worth is what someone is willing to pay for it,” she says. “And if an artwork is only legitimate through the intervention of someone’s hand on material, then photography would not be alone in not fitting that categorisation. It’s a very old-fashioned idea.”<br>

Clare Grafik,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with her, and I have to say Lik's "sale" has worked in alerting us to the fact that there is now a photographer named "Peter Lik", something I was not aware of until I saw this thread: so I guess the plan has worked for him and his associates already, whether the price paid was real or not.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>I've seen most of his shows on the Weather Channel and he is very entertaining. The image is really well done and I congratulate the person or team that post-processed and printed the image. First rate. </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Yes, Robin, I too did not know Lik before. Now he is indeed known ! But, not for the better and his name is now marked by the event, which does not served him or his work. His work might even deserve better. Money corrupts.</p>

[aaron_mccormick]

<p>6.5 mil? <br>

Looks to be worth about 6 dollars & 50 cents. Even more with a frame.</p>

[michael_roberts11]

<p>Just shows that reputation is everything in this industry!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Follow up thread: <a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00d9Eu">New York Times Exposes Peter Lik Photography Scheme</a> <br>

( http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00d9Eu)</p>