New "World's most expensive photo"

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Wow, a lot of negativity and hate over a photograph. Not everyone approaches photography the same way and that's cool with me. Anyone who can make great money while doing the photography they want to do is lucky to be in that position IMO. Good for them.

How do you know he made anything from it? These high dollar sales are rarely made by the photographer personally; they're usually a collector or gallery that owns the print selling it to another collector. The artist/photographers gets NOTHING, not a cent, from such sales.

 

[daveleo]

I am so jealous that someone has $6.5M to spend on non-essential stuff, whatever it is. That's a bunch of loose cash there.

 

[jsrockit]

How do you know he made anything from it? These high dollar sales are rarely made by the photographer personally; they're usually a collector or gallery that owns the print selling it to another collector. The artist/photographers gets NOTHING, not a cent, from such sales.

You truly think the man never received any money from this photo? Maybe not this transaction, but he sold it to someone and made money somewhere along the line. He sells enough to be considered very lucky to be in the position he's in. This man is not a victim of the gallery system... he makes plenty.

 

[btgc]

He sold single print or exclusive rights along?

 

[anu L ogy]

Its a pretty picture, but I feel like its the same picture that everyone takes when they go there.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

You truly think the man never received any money from this photo? Maybe not this transaction, but he sold it to someone and made money somewhere along the line. He sells enough to be considered very lucky to be in the position he's in. This man is not a victim of the gallery system... he makes plenty.

I'm sure he made money from when he sold it to its original owner. I was responding to people saying he deserved to make the millions this recently sold for if someone was willing to pay it. The problem is, he almost certainly did NOT get anything from this record-breaking sale. You knew that, though, so why try to prove me wrong? Some people just have to be contrary, regardless of merit.

 

[Bill W]

"This man is not a victim of the gallery system"

No, his customers are the victims.

 

[jsrockit]

"This man is not a victim of the gallery system"

No, his customers are the victims.

Could be...

 

[RichC]

No matter what these $2 critics say, at least the Peter Lik image has more eye appeal than Andreas Gursky’s Rhine II which to me is totally lacking in interest, let alone artistic merit. In fact I look at it and go "huh?" I feel the same way about some (much?) of Gregory Crewdson's work (to name one artist) which plumb leaves me cold and befuddled as to what the fuss is all about.

Clearly the art market (or segments of it) is not driven by artistic merit, it's driven by daddy warbucks and the ability of some "names" to be bankable.

Good grief!

1. The dictionary says art is "something created with imagination and skill to be beautiful or to express important ideas". In other words, art can be a pretty decoration that says very little (like Peter Lik's) or ugly but with a lot to tell us (like Gursky's).

2. It's ignorant to diss art at either end of this spectrum as wholly lacking artistic merit.

3. It's fine to dislike some kinds of art. Personally, I prefer Gursky to Lik - I find Lik's photographs aesthetically cliched, without a strong message: that doesn't mean Lik makes bad photographs, just that I dislike aesthetics for its own sake and prefer pictures that tell us something worthwhile or new about our world.

4. Would I have either on my wall? No! But Gursky and Lik (and Crewdson) are exemplary artists, excelling at what they do. Rightly, they're well known and their work sought after (though I agree that the excessively high price of their work is driven by commercial interests).

 

[shadowfox]

Its a pretty picture, but I feel like its the same picture that everyone takes when they go there.

I agree.

But hey, look at the bright side, now every photography student in the world can point to it saying: "See, the most expensive photo in the world put the subject in the center"

😀

 

[bobbyrab]

Looks to me like marketing far more successful than the content, it is an Athena poster at best. Honestly if this ever does go to Christies the owner would be lucky to recoup a fraction of that price, if indeed it was ever paid.

 

[jsrockit]

But hey, look at the bright side, now every photography student in the world can point to it saying: "See, the most expensive photo in the world put the subject in the center"

I'd say the subject is the whole frame.

 

[Bill W]

"Antelope Canyon is one of the most photographed places on Earth, and most of the photos I've seen of it are not very original."

Antelope Canyon and Venice.

 

[nongfuspring]

"This man is not a victim of the gallery system"

No, his customers are the victims.

Rubbish, nobody is a victim here. The collector in this case is clearly pumping the price, an artwork is a fluctuating investment and nobody spends this kind of money without expecting a return. Buying for very high prices is a common tactic to raise the general market value of an artist's work. If the collector already owns a significant collection of the artist's work then the gamble can pay itself off in the form of higher returns through boosted secondary auction prices on what the collector already bought at "low" primary gallery prices.

Photography/Art/whattever is an investment commodity that is traded like any other. Photography in particular is a pretty smart field to do this kind of price pumping since photography values are relatively low (6.5m is not even a blip in the contemporary art world) so I imagine these hyping tactics work well.

Having said that, I'm skeptical that this stunt will permanently raise the photographers market credibility in the way the buyer probably intended since the work is really, truly insipid.

 

[paulfish4570]

just another purty pitcher, to me ... 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

i agree with nongfuspring, i think, though now i'll have to go google "insipid"

 

[nongfuspring]

All true, but this is a first, trying to do it in one of those non-artworld galleries.

This work has no after-original sales market since it is not being shown or sold outside of his galleries. He is totally invisible [unknown] in the "real" art market, and in the art press.

True, I just did a bit of googling (which was a mistake, I feel like taking a shower). There are plenty of ways that a collector can recoup costs on a major art investment outside of what I mentioned, like to reduce taxable income and so on, but the more I read about his operation the more sketchy it sounds. I read a blog entry from a former Lik gallery employee who mentioned that part of their sales strategy is to have extremely expensive AP editions to make the regular editions (that have 90% less expensive) more attractive. Considering that the sale was probably internal and the buyer anonymous for that reason.

 

[Vics]

He had expenses, too. You have to pay the Navajos to go in there. My pictures of that canyon are highly prized... by me.

 

[Tin]

I'd just call this another classic case of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Just like this "Voice of Fire" piece hanging in the Art Museum of Ottawa:

http://www.macleans.ca/culture/are-we-over-this-yet/

 

[mbisc]

Since it exists both in color and B&W, it must be a dSLR snapshot -- which means that this inkjet concoction will fade to junk in the next 20 years.

/running_for_cover 😎