NY Times - Peter Lik's Astounding Success and Marketing

All else aside, I do like the unbridled enthusiasm for the American landscape that he expresses in the corporate video. I think it's genuine.
 
KevinS said:
All else aside, I do like the unbridled enthusiasm for the American landscape that he expresses in the corporate video. I think it's genuine.
Click to expand...

let's be honest, the landscape we are talking about is quite amazing.
It's difficult not to make kitschy photos of it once you're there in the middle of Antelope, or Monument Valley..
 
He's figured out a way to monetize over-sized post-cards. Good for him.

I've seen many "successful" wedding photographers doing the same thing, minus the bigger money, ie. pedestrian photography, incredible presentation.

It's business...the thing they don't teach you in art school.
 
Davelo this is as good as Mr. Peter Lik "the most sought after fine art photography in the world!" I am not kidding.

med_U39974I1424286778.SEQ.0.jpg
 
I can only commend the marketing machine he's built up. I respect that.

I don't respect him insulting Ansel Adams for crude self-aggrandizement...the very best photographers, in any genre, always seem to be people who don't talk like this guy or behave that way. Maybe that's because they're more secure in who they are and what they do...in any event they're pretty pictures but it's a sign of how degraded and perverted the world of High Art has become that it's so stripped of identity and substance that hucksters and carnie barkers can move in and set up shop.

There's also some question as to the prices he's actually getting for his works...
 
Reminds me of Keane painting is the early 60s. That is if I spelled 'Keane' right. One for those circus people said, 'A sucker is born every minute' and some one else said, 'Never over estimate the intelligence of the American people.' I think that was a politician.
 
Colin Corneau said:
...it's a sign of how degraded and perverted the world of High Art has become that it's so stripped of identity and substance that hucksters and carnie barkers can move in and set up shop.
Click to expand...

I think it's a mischaracterization to say that Lik is part of the High Art world. The article makes clear that he in is almost no major museum collections. I doubt he will ever be seen at a Venice Biennale. Or even Art Basel or Art Basel Miami Beach, which ARE the real playgrounds for high-class hucksters and carnie barkers.
 
He thinks he's God.

That's about sums it up for me.
It's funny when my wife saw the 6.5 mil photo, her first reaction was "Whaaat, how much? For *that* ?"
 
Dan Daniel said:
I think it's a mischaracterization to say that Lik is part of the High Art world. The article makes clear that he in is almost no major museum collections. I doubt he will ever be seen at a Venice Biennale. Or even Art Basel or Art Basel Miami Beach, which ARE the real playgrounds for high-class hucksters and carnie barkers.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is into being part of the high art world. I'm not condoning (or condemning) Mr. Lik's work, but if he's truly figured out how to deal in huge sums of money outside of that world. Does he really need that world then?

And let's not pretend ... even the best, most exclusive, galleries sell work that does not hold its value.

It's not my thing, but I'm not offended. This type of salesmanship happens every single day in the world. I just try to not be a victim of it.
 
There are plenty of things about this article that rankle a bit, but...

1) he's a photographer
2) he's built a *really* successful business out of it
3) he's become wealthy as a result.

I have to applaud that. Make your own success... a perfect case in point.
 
I think I'll tape the shutter down on my holga. place it on bulb. Throw it up in the air. Catch it, develop the negs, print them & see if I can find some rich sucker to pay a Million for a print.:D
 
The thing that bothers me the most about this Lik guy and what he's doing, (and comparing him to Kinkade like I did in my first response), is that they are both taking advantage of folks who don't understand fine art and how the fine art world works.

I grew up "between the coasts" here in the Midwest, in a community where no one knew who Cartier-Bresson was, or Avedon, or Warhol, or most not even Picasso. They didn't understand how fine art is priced and what makes a painting or photograph valuable. So they get taken in by the sales pitches of fraudsters like Lik and Kinkade and they believe that the photo or painting they are buying is an investment and is going to increase in value, when in reality, it isn't.

I remember back in the 1990's, I was home for a visit and a guy I grew up with was all excited to show me the paintings he had purchased (all Kinkade's) and he explained to me how they were an investment for his kids college tuitions, how he was going to be able to sell them for double what he paid for them because the price had already gone up at the shop where they were purchased (sound familiar Mr. Lik). I didn't have the heart to tell him he would have had just as much success had he invested in Beanie Babies.

So if Lik just hung his photos in his shops and didn't try to promote them as investments (which they aren't), I would be less critical of his whole operation.
 
The secondary art market was the one subject that Mr. Lik was reluctant to discuss. Presented with the Artnet results and pressed for a comment, he said of his work, “It’s like a Mercedes-Benz. You drive it off the lot, it loses half its value.”
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

THIS. Basically, Peter acknowledges that his work sells for prices that are far below their expected value on the resale market, all while controlling the prices of his work to create the illusion that his prints are in high demand, and presumably, actually worth what he charges for them. It would seem many of his customers don't bother researching the secondary value of his work, and so buy his stuff for exorbitant prices because they surmise that it "will be worth something someday." Too bad it isn't.

Peter Lik isn't a bad photographer (just IMO he ain't all that good either). Is he an artist, sure; then again aren't we all? What Peter definitely is not is an "artist" by the standards of the art-collecting (IE art-as-commodity) community, where his work doesn't manage to retain much of it's value in the secondary market. And he certainly manages to come across as self-aggrandizing, and profiteering from the ignorance of some of his customers.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be the kind of business person he is, and I don't know how he profits from ignorance the way he does without feeling like a total dick, but hey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom