Sine
Phil Orchard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izmlGcaCSU0
Having watched the above segment of Pawn Stars, I really wonder whether a photograph could be worth $25,000. Before photography, if a painter wanted to sell a duplicate copy of his work, he had to paint it all by hand. This was of course a very time-consuming process, justifying the expense of the final product. You can get a nice print of a photograph - much like the one shown in the video - down at your local pro lab for around $100. So what justifies the extra cost? It was mentioned that the Peter Lik photo was indeed very popular, and I see that the limited edition run consisted of 950 prints. If every print was sold at the gallery price, sales revenue would be 23.7 million dollars. Not bad!
You might say, the reason this capture is so highly valued is because it's unique. Nobody could replicate this exact set of visual elements, which is why Mr. Lik is able to charge what people will pay. But is it really unique?
[STRICTLY MY OPINION]
Haven't we seen this image before, in countless magazines and postcards? Peter is no doubt a skilled and talented photographer, but unlike his other work, I don't find the image unique or visually interesting. For the price that the pawn shop paid ($5000), I could buy an XPan, a ticket to Fiji and a roll of Velvia. Landscape is a static subject, it's not going anywhere. At the end of it, I'd still have an XPan, and I will have been to Fiji.
[/STRICTLY MY OPINION]
On the other side of the spectrum you have images from photographers like Cartier-Bresson. Nobody thinks exactly like he does; his composition is distinctive and working with human subjects in portraits and street, almost all of his images will never occur again. Assuming that his negatives are being well-preserved, even these images can be infinitely replicated. So what should they be worth?
Having watched the above segment of Pawn Stars, I really wonder whether a photograph could be worth $25,000. Before photography, if a painter wanted to sell a duplicate copy of his work, he had to paint it all by hand. This was of course a very time-consuming process, justifying the expense of the final product. You can get a nice print of a photograph - much like the one shown in the video - down at your local pro lab for around $100. So what justifies the extra cost? It was mentioned that the Peter Lik photo was indeed very popular, and I see that the limited edition run consisted of 950 prints. If every print was sold at the gallery price, sales revenue would be 23.7 million dollars. Not bad!
You might say, the reason this capture is so highly valued is because it's unique. Nobody could replicate this exact set of visual elements, which is why Mr. Lik is able to charge what people will pay. But is it really unique?
[STRICTLY MY OPINION]
Haven't we seen this image before, in countless magazines and postcards? Peter is no doubt a skilled and talented photographer, but unlike his other work, I don't find the image unique or visually interesting. For the price that the pawn shop paid ($5000), I could buy an XPan, a ticket to Fiji and a roll of Velvia. Landscape is a static subject, it's not going anywhere. At the end of it, I'd still have an XPan, and I will have been to Fiji.
[/STRICTLY MY OPINION]
On the other side of the spectrum you have images from photographers like Cartier-Bresson. Nobody thinks exactly like he does; his composition is distinctive and working with human subjects in portraits and street, almost all of his images will never occur again. Assuming that his negatives are being well-preserved, even these images can be infinitely replicated. So what should they be worth?
