NY Times - Peter Lik's Astounding Success and Marketing

Very much like Thomas Kinkade in some respects.

Basically a couple of con artists making good use of populism when you get down to it.
 
He is doing well his job, and his job is to find the right product for the right customer, just like the producers of the Mars Bar. Let's not get too pretentious - since Duchamp sold a bottle dryer and Manzoni sold his canned feces, "art" has become all about the trade mark. If Lik made 400 million, he could have well afforded to pay at least 10 for his red print, his 6.3 million effort is unimpressive.
 
I´m impressed with the business model.

http://deutsch.istockphoto.com/royalty-free/zen+landscape?facets={%2234%22:[%221%22,%227%22,%228%22],%2235%22:[%22zen+landscape%22]}#1d11d63d
 
Years ago he had a shop in Noosa (Australia) and I have to say his Cibachrome prints were quite fantastic. The guy who did his printing deserved some credit, I thought.
 
Equipment quality differences aside, I can do better landscapes than this guy...

Then again, nobody's paid $6 million for my work yet :D
 
A my wife's former client in Japan bought one of his prints. The client knew I loved photography. She asked my opinion. When I mentioned his marketing was more creative than his photography my wife gave me a kick that would have killed a horse to shut me up.

He fails to mention power of software, his marketing team, his printing staff and his sales staff are also pretty important to his success as well.

I wish I had the balls to call myself "The world's most influential..."
 
The prints seem to be of exceptional quality and if his customers like them enough to pay him a huge amount of money, that's fine with me. He is successful, he makes a LOT of money. I don't particularly like his work but I don't have to buy it. What's the problem? That he has success with something that is more technically perfect than artistically inspired? That he has huge economical success while "serious" artists are suffering?;)
 
icebear said:
The prints seem to be of exceptional quality and if his customers like them enough to pay him a huge amount of money, that's fine with me. He is successful, he makes a LOT of money. I don't particularly like his work but I don't have to buy it. What's the problem? That he has success with something that is more technically perfect than artistically inspired? That he has huge economical success while "serious" artists are suffering?;)
Click to expand...

I would say that the "problem" is that his work is not all that impressive, and probably the majority of people here on RFF can produce more pleasing images (yes - that's my OPINION).

That said, I think that he's definitely got his finger on the pulse on the average American consumer. Viva capitalism! :rolleyes:
 
He's an entertainer.

There's a reason it is called the 'entertainment industry.' Not the entertainment studio, the entertainemnt atelier, the entertainment craft. It's an idustry.

He's giving people something that they are willing to pay for. The 'something' is the full experience, not just the print in a frame.

And despite what people are saying, his photos *are* good. Limited and melodramatic, but he has a good clean eye. Give him some credit for that, and more credit for hustling himself into the position he has. He gives people what they want, he sure seems to have a lot of enthusiasm and energy, and he doesn't seem to be hurting anyone in any serious manner best as I can tell (cf. Terry Richardson). That's entertainment, folks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom