I don't get it
Dec 13, 2014 12:55:55 #
I have heard that Damien Hirst is actually a part of the consortium that owns the auction house that buys and sells his work. He uses it to raise the value of his work. I have the same feeling about Lik in this case. The full sale included three photographs for 10 million. This sale put three more Lik photographs on the top 20 most expensive photographs of which four are Lik's. My guess is the buyer is a friend as it has no been disclosed who the buyer was nor is any actual documentation of the sale. It sounds to be like this was PR stunt to raise Lik's profile. He is not well known is the art world. He reminds me a lot of Thomas Kinkade, a master marketer but whose work was nothing more than kitsch.
Dec 13, 2014 14:09:35 #
many amateurs have taken great shots of antelope canyon and I really enjoy their shots. why this one it is not the greatest I have seen. I think it was stupid to pay for this alone this much money cheapens photo art.
Dec 13, 2014 14:17:48 #
Darkroom317 wrote:
I have heard that Damien Hirst is actually a part of the consortium that owns the auction house that buys and sells his work. He uses it to raise the value of his work.
From the artist's point-of-view it's about control and money.
A gallery will generally take a 40-50% commission on work sold through the gallery. The original artist generally receives little or nothing when the work is sold in the secondary market either auction house or private sale.
Hirst is cutting out the gallery by selling direct. Not only does he control the product stream but he makes more money.
The irony, of course is that the auction house has already established the market price range for new work by the artist. Hirst is a very bright guy letting Christies and Sotheby do a lot of the work.
BTW, this is not a new model, i.e., artists taking control of their work, D. W. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and Douglas Fairbanks formed United Artists in 1919 for the purpose of getting out from the control of the large film studios.
The "master of light" Mr. Kinkade tried a different business model, creation of an original image or two per year, mass producing copies and selling the copies via franchised Kinkade galleries. He failed not because the business model was flawed but because he supposedly cheated his franchisees. That said, he sold a lot of "paintings" and licensed a lot of images.
Dec 13, 2014 14:43:45 #
Don't really care for either rendition!! I find that a lot of high end photography I wouldn't hang in my garage much less my house!! Maybe that's why it's so expensive so poor people like me don't have to give it a 2nd look---it's just that ugly that it's high buck!!
Dec 13, 2014 15:32:27 #
Morning Star wrote:
I hope it was at least framed for that price, and had a hanger on the back?
Best comment by far! Perfectly captures the absurdity of it all.
Dec 13, 2014 15:48:05 #
msmith44 wrote:
From the artist's point-of-view it's about control... (show quote)
And died very young (54: To me, anybody dieing under 70 is v ery young!)
Dec 13, 2014 16:06:36 #
I suspect that the buyers accountant probably told him to offload some cash for tax purposes.
Dec 13, 2014 16:28:39 #
wasatch
Loc: Salt Lake City, UT
Kodachrome basin is hardly remote. It is about a 1 hour drive from Bryce Canyon.
Dec 13, 2014 17:33:59 #
1stJedi wrote:
Not only do I wonder why anyone would pay so much, I also wonder why they would pay for something that isn't even particularly good. I have several shots from within the canyon that I feel are superior to this photo. In fact, I still fail to see what all the fuss is about.
I don't get it either.
I don't get it either.
It's like buying Salsa from 'New York City'!!!
The TV Ad where the 2 Cowboys sitting at the campfire talk about the City- Slicker buying his Salsa made in New York City.
Craig
Dec 13, 2014 17:52:51 #
CraigFair wrote:
It's like buying Salsa from 'New York City'!!!
Craig
Craig
New York City?!?!?!
Dec 13, 2014 18:07:11 #
TheDman wrote:
What should be consequential to them is the fact that it makes a mockery of physics and believability, like it was slapped together by a second grader who doesn't understand that clouds can't be behind the moon, and that if the sun is setting behind the moon, it can't also be lighting it up from the front.
Despite the hyperbole of the image being a "mockery of physics" I can see no justification in asserting that others should be either concerned or even the slightest bit outraged by Lik's composite. People like and buy art because it resonates with them personally. And while defiance of the rules of physics may not work for some aesthetically, for others it is of little importance. In the end, personal taste trumps what others feel is or should be deemed acceptable.
While I can't see myself being willing to spend millions on this latest Lik image, I can't really fault someone else doing so if it floats their boat, or for Lik being willing to accept such a payment.
Along the line of defying physics, try this one on for size. Should we all deny any enjoyment or fascination we might feel in looking at this image because it so plainly seems to defy the rules of the physical world?
Really?
Dec 13, 2014 18:23:46 #
DaveHam wrote:
Some photographers are good enough at self promoti... (show quote)
Many of these photographers are modern day P.T. Barnums, and you know what he said about suckers.
Dec 13, 2014 19:38:59 #
Darkroom317 wrote:
Yes, it's sounding more and more like a PR stunt.I have heard that Damien Hirst is actually a part of the consortium that owns the auction house that buys and sells his work. He uses it to raise the value of his work. I have the same feeling about Lik in this case. .... My guess is the buyer is a friend as it has no been disclosed who the buyer was nor is any actual documentation of the sale. It sounds to be like this was PR stunt to raise Lik's profile....
Lik has 4 of the top 22 most expensive photos listed in Wikipedia, but it is worth noting that each and every one are tagged as "Dubious-Discuss" >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs
Link to the general discussion >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_most_expensive_photographs#Lik.27s_Phantom
This is one of the links in the general discussion >> http://petapixel.com/2014/12/10/expensive-photo-world-best-marketing-stunt/
And here's a couple of extracts from the last link...
Quote:
As with his 2010 piece, One, the purported sale was to a private collector, and therefore there was no way to verify the claim. Rumors have swirled for years that Liks investors buy his works at absurd prices as a marketing stunt to generate interest in his work.
Quote:
Link to the Salgado exhibit (worth viewing this shot) >> http://www.icp.org/museum/exhibitions/sebastiao-salgado-genesisBut all that aside, the lack of transparency in the sale raises nothing but questions about the validity of the claim. It feels like a marketing stunt to get Liks name in the news, and a few more feet into the galleries. On that account, the sale is a success. But youd be hard pressed to find support for his artistry.
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.
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.
Dec 13, 2014 19:53:01 #
Racmanaz wrote:
I think it's great that he made this much money on his photo!! cudos to Peter Lik, I am going to praise him instead of criticizing his work and his accomplishment....I just don't understand all the bitterness with this. <shrugs>
There are times in all markets that the Price Point increases. Sometimes algebraically and sometimes geometrically. Maybe this pricing tide will raise all of our boats. Portraits will be appropriately priced in the five figures.................? They certainly require a lot of careful craftsmanship and patience and people skills. And DIVINE intervention has never been cheap!
OR NOT?!?!?
Dec 13, 2014 22:06:28 #
In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? He took a picture, promoted it and sold it to someone gullible to pay that much for it. So what? Don't see the big deal here.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.