# New York Times Exposes Peter Lik Photography Scheme



## Rahul (Mar 3, 2015)

Sorry if it is a repeat / duplicate post. If it is, request the Mods to kindly delete it. 

Peter Lik and Photography Scheme sounds just about right ;D - Never liked his photos, particularly the one where the moon was INSIDE the earth's atmosphere. 

http://news.artnet.com/in-brief/new-york-times-exposes-peter-lik-photography-scheme-264858
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/business/peter-liks-recipe-for-success-sell-prints-print-money.html?_r=0


----------



## tolusina (Mar 3, 2015)

I wouldn't call it a scheme, more like a business model.
The artnet link posted sums it up rather well as they wrote;
"_Lik has quietly managed to turn himself into the Thomas Kinkade of photography, selling pretty, pleasing, banal images that are wildly popular with a certain class of inexperienced collectors, but are barely recognized by the art establishment_"
---
Lik is apparently indifferent to the so called "_art establishment_", with his net worth you can't fault him on that.

Many of us that strive (or would like to make the attempt) to sell our works could sure take some pointers from his marketing methods, I think he's quite brilliant in that respect though ethically questionable in some aspects.
---
Art? 
Please don't ask me as I don't consider myself a photographic artist. Rather, in my work, I feel art is in the nature of whatever scene is before me, my job is to use my gear to capture an image of a scene for later presentation/display.


----------



## leGreve (Mar 3, 2015)

Everyone can make art.... But "real" art is not only beautiful and timeless, it can also take resale.
Some of the best art even manages to incorporate a story or an emotion.

That phantom / ghost shot..... Yeah its pretty, but hardly anything beyond that.

But if you want to admire a guy because he's able to pull out money of ignorant people who thinks art is purely based on price tag, be my guest.


----------



## tolusina (Mar 3, 2015)

leGreve said:


> ....if you want to admire a guy because he's able to pull out money of ignorant people...


Pretty much the same as retail impulse buys, planned obsolescent cars with useless accessories and my favorite rant best explained by a quote attributed to L. Ron Hubbard; "_If you want to get rich, you start a religion_".

Al least when one enriches Lik, one gets something to hang on a wall.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 3, 2015)

Lik's mortal sin was succeeding without going to art school or licking the boots of critics.

Typical sucess envy informs the entire article.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 3, 2015)

Art Critics are not exactly predictors of what people like and will pay for. They never have been.

Marketing is indeed a huge factor in what the public buys.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Mar 3, 2015)

Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. -- Publilius Syrus or Leonard Nimoy.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 3, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Lik's mortal sin was succeeding without going to art school or licking the boots of critics.
> 
> Typical sucess envy informs the entire article.


Well said, and so what about the secondary market or whether or not his photos are museum-worthy or serious enough? I think the worst part of these articles is that they paint his customers as idiots. It's like you have to be qualified to buy "art". I know I've felt that way when I've walked into some galleries - like who are you and how dare you come in here? Profiting while thumbing your nose at the establishment is a win in my book, and personally, I like a lot of his work.


----------



## tculotta (Mar 3, 2015)

I suspect that the fact that the number of prints produced is more than some college dorm room posters doesn't make the art world happy either, where six prints plus and artist's proof is the norm. I say more power to him. Most of us would take the success in whatever form it manifests itself, be it print runs of 1,000 that sell out or exclusive gallery listings. There is room for both.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 3, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Lik's mortal sin was succeeding without going to art school or licking the boots of critics.
> ...



Funny, the first few times in a camera shop I felt the same way.


----------



## tolusina (Mar 3, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> ...Funny, the first few times in a camera shop I felt the same way.....


Only the first few times?
I still get that too often even when walking in with an "L" bracketed 6D over my shoulder.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 3, 2015)

tolusina said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...Funny, the first few times in a camera shop I felt the same way.....
> ...


You still have photography shops? Also, I have to say, I never got that feeling even when I was a 20-something, but Wolf Camera in downtown Atlanta was known as one of the best camera shops around. They always looked at me funny when I wanted my Velvia or Tri-X developed but not cut (for my scanner, of course). Now I'm in the sticks with no camera shops anywhere nearby.


----------



## Sunnystate (Mar 3, 2015)

To be honest, digital photography market is flooded with work on same or much better level than that of the Lik, not to mention his lies and pretty cheap cheesy stories behind every capture, that further cheapens real value of his work. Are marketing skills and trickery worth the premium? Well at the moment in Las Vegas and other high excitements producing places apparently it is! 

{edit} Just wait when the uneducated and most likely "new money" (some lawyers) clients run in to financial problems, and will try to reseal the photographs... did somebody said lawsuits? 

On the side note, the iron grip virtually impossible to break by "undesired" artists of the high end art traders, galleries and museums was just asking for something like that to happen, and will happen even more often. Lets just hope that beside the most sly and cheesy, also the most talented will get the chance!


----------



## tolusina (Mar 3, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> .....You still have photography shops?....


There are still 3 or 4 in the Detroit area, more farther out in Port Huron, near Flint, Lansing.
I've only been to a few, one I'd rate excellent, one very poor.
ProCam in Livonia matched B&H bundle prices while I got to play in store prior to purchase. They've lens rentals, a rather large on site studio with multiple sets, a variety of backgrounds and lighting, seems to me they "GET IT" in a big way. 
They used to advertise here, I couldn't get much more than a stammer in reply to my 'why no longer' query.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 3, 2015)

Sunnystate said:


> To be honest, digital photography market is flooded with work on same or much better level than that of the Lik, not to mention his lies and pretty cheap cheesy stories behind every capture, that further cheapens real value of his work. Are marketing skills and trickery worth the premium? Well at the moment in Las Vegas and other high excitements producing places apparently it is!



Without commenting on this particular photog, shouldn't we be happy that it's possible *_at_all_* to be successful in the age of digital photography? And at least he seems to have retained a sense of humor about it ...



> _While he can't deny artnet's figures and his non-existent resale market, Lik does have an excuse. "It's like a Mercedes-Benz," he said. "You drive it off the lot, it loses half its value._


----------



## Sunnystate (Mar 3, 2015)

Yes, and the only question is as always why he is the chosen one  But, there are more artists also in different arts that are trying to go exactly the same venue, I personally knew very successful painter doing same almost by the script! If is not any weird cult thingy lets find me the name of the agent ;-)



Marsu42 said:


> Sunnystate said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, digital photography market is flooded with work on same or much better level than that of the Lik, not to mention his lies and pretty cheap cheesy stories behind every capture, that further cheapens real value of his work. Are marketing skills and trickery worth the premium? Well at the moment in Las Vegas and other high excitements producing places apparently it is!
> ...


----------



## NancyP (Mar 3, 2015)

We have two brick and mortar photographic supplies companies in St. Louis. One has a single location with everything, and has rentals including Canon cinema line (unfortunately, no 400 f/2.8L), and the other has multiple locations, one major (with the used gear) and several tiny service oriented shops with little stock but providing custom print services and framing.

Lik may have some lawsuits on his hands, depending on how the sellers phrase the spiel.


----------



## Policar (Mar 3, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Lik's mortal sin was succeeding without going to art school or licking the boots of critics.
> 
> Typical sucess envy informs the entire article.



He's also a bad photographer. 

But there's definitely some classism in that article that just feels wrong. New York old money hating on west coast new money. But his work is also pretty shite for the most part, not that there isn't shitty "high art," too.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 3, 2015)

Well, You can commend the guy for running a great business. I suppose he's not all that different from ken rockwell in peddling his wares to the clients he can get sales from. Massive respect, even though I think there is much more amazing Fine Art photographers who don't get a 1,000,000th of the monies this guy makes.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 3, 2015)

If all you want is an expensive print, then fine.... but anyone who thought that a Lik print was an art investment does not know the first thing about investing. Buy high and sell low is a ******* strategy, and having someone with a $200,000 print who can't sell it for $5000 does not fill me with confidence..

With $200,000 I can buy 15,150 cases of beer... have the party to end all parties... and at the end have $18,000 dollars worth of empties... an investment with a return 3.6 times greater than an expensive Lik print...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 3, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Lik's mortal sin was succeeding without going to art school or licking the boots of critics.
> ...



Paying $200,000 for a print straight from his gallery that you could buy for $1000 after market.... doesn't seem that smart to me.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 3, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



One gigantic one, one large one and two small ones just in my area alone still (within 20 miles). More if you to 40miles.


----------



## Vivid Color (Mar 3, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> Well, You can commend the guy for running a great business. I suppose he's not all that different from ken rockwell in peddling his wares to the clients he can get sales from. Massive respect, even though I think there is much more amazing Fine Art photographers who don't get a 1,000,000th of the monies this guy makes.



Since that article came out, I've read several others about Mr. Lik. While it appears that he is not doing anything illegal, I cannot commend his pricing and selling practices. While there is nothing wrong with limiting prints, or even increasing the price of one's prints over time, the way he does it leads unsuspecting buyers to think that they are investing in something that will appreciate as opposed to something they may like to hang on a wall. And, apparently the sales clerks, do not strongly discourage that impression, although they also apparently do correctly say that there are no guarantees. Much of the gambling in Vegas is all about preying on people's emotions to make money off of them and this is just one more scheme. I know that Mr. Rockwell asks for contributions for the information he provides on his website, but he's not creating an illusion that you'll get a "return on investment" by sending him money. And, perhaps Mr. Rockwell sells some prints, but unless his print pricing scheme is like Mr. Lik's, then I think the two men are not at all alike. I will say that Mr. Lik was very smart in seeing an opportunity to open up shops in Vegas to sell photography. He also understands that they people coming through his shops may have a lot of disposable income to part with and prices his products accordingly. Nothing wrong with that if people understand that that are spending money not investing it. That's where I have a problem--the illusion that his stores create in turning commodities into faux investments. What I think needs to happen is for several really good photographers to open up shops in Vegas in competition with Mr. Lik. These new shops would not involve morally questionable pricing or selling practices and they would also educate the potential clients about buying art and photography. Mr. Lik may find his market drying up if that were to happen.


----------



## Vivid Color (Mar 3, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> If all you want is an expensive print, then fine.... but anyone who thought that a Lik print was an art investment does not know the first thing about investing. Buy high and sell low is a ******* strategy, ...



Mr. Lik offers his limited editions at a low price and raises them over time. Not a problem per se, but it's the wrapping he puts them in--making it look like there is market demand for his work when it's just a case of asymmetric information. The problem is that the customers are led to believe that if they buy a Lik print at a low price when it is newly released they can sell it at a high price as the number of remaining limited prints decreases. They generally can't. This is a buyer be very aware situation and sadly the buyers are often clueless. I don't admire Mr. Lik at all.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 4, 2015)

P.T. Barnum's motto is alive and well.

Instead of thinking of these photos as art, think of them as cars....

So I am a Mazda dealer.... Mazda ships me 1000 identical cars, I put fancy rims and race tires onto them, and I start selling them for $100,000 each.... except for 50 of the cars that I put floor mats into, call them special, and sell them for 3 times as much. With the regular stock, once I get down to 200 left, I jack the price up to 5 times as much. Once the stock gets down to 100, I double the price again.... and somehow people keep buying them.

Why doesn't someone go to another Mazda dealer... or a ford... or Honda... or whatever????

There is one born every minute....


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Mar 4, 2015)

I couldn't care less about how much people pay for his work. Do we really care what rich people blow their money on? It's not like he's fleecing the poor. 

With that said, he's one of the biggest douchebags in all of landscape photography. He obviously has no respect or passion for the art itself any longer. It's just a means to fill his Scrooge McDuck money bin with more riches. He lies and cheats like no other. Quite the opposite of someone like Art Wolfe.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 4, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> P.T. Barnum's motto is alive and well.
> 
> Instead of thinking of these photos as art, think of them as cars....
> 
> ...



Yeah especially since the after market is sooooo weak for them.
It's one thing where the prints rise after market and then the whole artists prints and last few and so on make some sense, but here yeah P.T. Barnum. I mean not that you can blame him, it's gotten him tens of millions in riches and it's not like he his shooting people or preying on the downtrodden (although I do wonder if he is not directly suckering some people, which is wrong).


----------



## K (Mar 4, 2015)

Sounds like sour grapes by those who envy his huge success.

The NYT is a sleazy piece of propaganda. Zero credibility of any kind. This is the same paper that criticized Rachmaninoff (a great musical composer) in his time. 

Anyhow...

Beauty and value is in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't pay for any of his work. I don't like his work. Not my style. I appreciate the type of artistic look he creates. These landscapes are very bold and have lots of pop to them. I can see how wealthier people with large homes could utilize these.

I did visit his gallery in Las Vegas last year. These prints have a very different look to them in person. They look more like art, than photography. On the internet, they look more like images. In person, they lack the detail you think they should have. 

However, whether in person or on the web - these type of images are not my taste, for they are extremely heavily processed. It is borderline graphic art, not photography. It depends on the images. Some are graphic art, others are still photography. Few of these are even remotely true to what a person would see in reality. It goes beyond enhancing what is really there - to creating an alternate reality.

That's just my opinion. On the other hand, without all that heavy graphic art processing that he does - he wouldn't stand out much. Granted, there's a lot of people out there doing the same thing. That gives credit to his business skills. Most pros have said it at one time or another - it is more about your business skills than your photographic skills.

In the end, it comes down to who is willing to pay for what. If that is what people want to pay for - he's there to keep providing. 

You have to differentiate what is considered technically correct, what is considered good art, versus what people like to see. Big difference. What might win a photography competition, may have zero appeal to the masses.


The average person knows little about photography. Most are just blown away by simply having better resolution, color and background separation that a DSLR produces. For this reason, there's an oversaturation of wannabe photographers out there scoring gigs. 

I personally do not like modifying images to change the content. I only like to enhance the tones, contrast the colors or exposure. I'm more of a purist. I'm not into heavy post processing. However, time and time again - people who I shoot for always prefer the heavily processed photos. Particularly the portraits. I hate using 3rd party plugins that beautify and glamorize portrait images. But they are a huge time saver, and while to me it looks fake - people LOVE it. They want to see an idealized image of themselves. They want it to look good. They don't care about anything else. I usually scale back the settings on these plugins to minimal cause I don't feel everyone's skin should look like a cosmetics model's skin as seen on some huge poster ad in a Macy's department store. 

The point of my story is, people don't care. They like what looks good to them - and that's that. It isn't rocket science.

And the cold hard reality is, chances are - people prefer a look and style of photo that you DON'T. They might still like your work the way you like it. But heavily processed, cleaned up and all that - they'll like that MORE.


So Peter Lik gives people what they like. Very processed, eye popping, bold landscape images. They are somewhat loud images. That, and he is good businessman. 


Everyone else with their truly artistic or technically correct images - they can admire their own work while they run around shooting school portraits on their off days flipping burgers.


----------



## rocksubculture (Mar 4, 2015)

I usually go to Maui once or twice a year, and love checking out the shops on Front Street (where there is a Lik gallery). 

So I've been in his shop there a few times. It's one of those places that you enter with some trepidation, as you are usually claimed by one of the over eager sales people within seconds, kind of like walking onto the lot of a car dealership. 

They drive you crazy pestering you as you try to look at the images.

The first time I went in there, I was looking at a print, and I asked what kind of equipment the photographer uses... Canon? Nikon? Medium format? There must have been half a dozen sales people in there, and none had a clue. I asked how the moon could be so large in the image... no idea. The just press to sell, sell, sell.

So this quote from the NYT article makes me laugh, as I had the opposite impression:



> “Presentation is key, the vibe is key,” Mr. Lik said. “I wanted people comfortable when they went in there. Just relaxed.”



An interesting read, none the less. I'm all for people creating successful businesses, but I'm involved in a different art market, and though the article is obviously a hit piece (well-founded in many ways though), I came away with an impression just from the mechanics of the business that Lik seems more about getting over on people than the money itself. Because with the money made, a sane person couldn't spend all that with half his life over (and no interest in marriage/family to leave it to), and it obviously isn't about the "art" or a legacy as an artist either. So it all seems quite askew and sad in its own way. 

Jason


----------



## curtisnull (Mar 4, 2015)

Lik was scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the Professional Photographers of America convention (Imaging USA) last month in Nashville, TN. He backed out at the last minute.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 4, 2015)

Dumb rich people make the best customers. I hope to find a business that corners this market someday


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 4, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Why doesn't someone go to another Mazda dealer... or a ford... or Honda... or whatever????


More importantly, why don't more photographers try to sell their images in the same way, by opening a gallery and developing their brand name? Instead, I see people who can take photos as well (if not better) set up websites and try to sell images at low prices and with limited success. Some just post their photos online for others to view because they think the whole sales side is too hard. To give Peter Lik some credit, he backed his own abilities and it has paid off for him. 

I just find the whole thing entertaining. Many of his images are the sort of images most of us would try to make. Yet, according to the art establishment, his images are trash. Well, they can get stuffed.


----------



## GaryJ (Mar 4, 2015)

A fool and his money are soon parted....end of story.


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 4, 2015)

Hmmm... maybe I can sell him some of my limited additions (as soon as I think if a nice round number to quit printing) and then he won't have to work so hard. And, then I'd also like the prints he sells, because I don't like them much now. 

Dang it -- off to start another business today ...


----------



## bgran8 (Mar 4, 2015)

I'm surprised at how many of you do not like his work. I'm not talking about his business practices, just his landscape photography. My whole family and I think it's awesome. From what I could tell, only one person stated a reason (it's over processed). What are other reasons that you don't like it? The one photo that is just weird to me of his is the moon. I saw that one in the gallery and it just looks fake--mostly all of the others look good to me. Looking at the post your best landscape photos page, very few come close, in my opinion, to creating similar work.


----------



## geekpower (Mar 4, 2015)

I'm surprised how many people do like it.... Click around randomly on Flickr and you will find better shots of the same scenes within minutes, mostly from amateurs. Does the world really need another shot of Horseshoe Bend?


----------



## benperrin (Mar 4, 2015)

The one thing I've learned is that it doesn't matter if it's good or not, it's the ability to market and sell that makes the difference. There are plenty of poor photographers making way too much money and plenty of great ones barely surviving. Personally I think his work is pretty good, not all of it but enough. It really doesn't matter how much people spend on these things. Does it make them happy and is it worth the cost to them? I wish I had his marketing skills to be honest but not the dishonest side of it all.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Mar 4, 2015)

"It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money." - W. C. Fields 


If he can get people to buy his photographs and he is not misrepresenting anything, more power to him.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 4, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> "It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money." - W. C. Fields


I certainly disagree with that! We're all suckers, only the subject-matter of our sucker-ness differs from person to person.



> If he can get people to buy his photographs *and he is not misrepresenting anything*, more power to him.



This part seems to be in doubt. Misrepresentation can include omission of important information.


----------



## TexPhoto (Mar 4, 2015)

There is serious money to be made in one particular branch of fine art photography. Framing.


----------



## Sunnystate (Mar 4, 2015)

There is a huge void in the market created by high end art dealers.
Peter Lik, (that I have hunch fits the profile of somebody that is a part of certain community very art oriented not only visual, wealthy enough and heavily lawyered up to) filed up that void perfectly with cheapish eye candy style kitschy product that sells well in elegant galleries to people with enough adrenaline in the blood and disposable income in the pockets but lacking taste at the same time, those are the people that have to hire a designer to tell them where to place a coffee table album in the house because can't make that decision on it own.

This is just an effect of certain circumstances that will eventually get balanced out, if his total income really approaches half a billion dollars than there is enough incentive for established art dealers to go after that market. 

Ps. This may actually happen in every monopolistic markets in the world, eventually it may spread in other very tightly guarded markets, precious stones anybody?


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 4, 2015)

My what fine clothes the Emperor is wearing...

It's almost like the photography industry has been hit with a plauge of honesty and the high end guys desperately trying to maintain the justification for their existence.
I guess this should encourage the rest of us to just get our stuff out there, and everyone will be better for it.

Right now the artists I respect most are drawing out bulkheads and floor panels in my favourite videogame.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 4, 2015)

dude is making a living, a very good living, selling "works of art" for thousands, and in some cases, millions of dollars. Like it or hate it, I dont see what the big deal is. Dont like his editing style? Too artificial? Dont thing ansel adams edited his photos in the dark room and processing? It is what it is.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 4, 2015)

The NYT article is a hit piece, but the main point is that the photos are just objects to hang on the wall, not investments. I don't know who was fool enough to pay 6 million for a photo.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 4, 2015)

NancyP said:


> I don't know who was fool enough to pay 6 million for a photo.



This was previously discussed. My personal opinion is that his left hand bought it from his right hand. Or perhaps his cat bought it from him and gave it to the dog as a birthday present.


----------



## TeT (Mar 4, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know who was fool enough to pay 6 million for a photo.
> ...



That is chump change to a larger portion of the worlds populace than you might expect... they have the same urges as the rest of us.

It is art, time will tell if it is more art than my daughters 1st grade Van Gogh sunflower painting...


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 4, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know who was fool enough to pay 6 million for a photo.
> ...


I just sold a picture of a tuna for 8 million to my cat.... and about time, I need that money for the 8 million that Fluffy wants to borrow...

If it was a real sale, it would have been public and hyped.... That's where a lot of the value from real art comes from.... This just has to be a fake sale.....


----------



## lescrane (Mar 4, 2015)

"Lik has quietly managed to turn himself into the Thomas Kinkade of photography, selling pretty, pleasing, banal images that are wildly popular with a certain class of inexperienced collectors, but are barely recognized by the art establishment. "

As a photographer I would wear that critique like a badge of honor. Somehow, starting in the mid 20th century, anything that's "pretty and pleasing" was not art, and is the subject of scorn. In fact, if you want to get into a NY Art photo today, ugly and grotesque is the key. If I can sell my prints by the thousands to the ignorant masses who never went to art school or read the NY Times art critic, I'd consider myself a success.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 4, 2015)

lescrane said:


> "Lik has quietly managed to turn himself into the Thomas Kinkade of photography, selling pretty, pleasing, banal images that are wildly popular with a certain class of inexperienced collectors, but are barely recognized by the art establishment. "
> 
> As a photographer I would wear that critique like a badge of honor. Somehow, starting in the mid 20th century, anything that's "pretty and pleasing" was not art, and is the subject of scorn. In fact, if you want to get into a NY Art photo today, ugly and grotesque is the key. If I can sell my prints by the thousands to the ignorant masses who never went to art school or read the NY Times art critic, I'd consider myself a success.



It's entirely OK to have pretty and pleasing photos on your walls, I do. The problem with Lik is that his work is not distinguishable from the work of thousands of amateurs on Flickr or other portfolio sites. There's nothing to justify the inflated price. He's got solid technical skill as a photographer, but tremendous skills in marketing.


----------



## Policar (Mar 4, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know who was fool enough to pay 6 million for a photo.
> ...



It's certainly possible.

It's almost hilarious that his record sale comes from an extraordinarily generic (if technically competent) image of one of the most-photographed landmarks in generic landscape photography. Which is then... made black and white to make it more "artistic." This is a little harsh, though:

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless

I do think the NYT has an elitist bent toward the art world in that they'll call out the sale of Lik's tacky photos, but they call Hirst's sale of a $100 million skull (which is also pretty, and also somewhat tacky) "Warhol-like" and his business model brilliant for incorporating commerce into it... Hirst pretty clearly bought that skull himself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/arts/design/13skul.html?_r=0

There's this elitist idea that artists and art critics are "in on the joke" when it comes to high art, but Kincade and Lik sell to the "dumb masses" who aren't and are swindling them.

I'm not so sure Koons and Hirst aren't swindling everyone, too.


----------



## SwnSng (Mar 4, 2015)

His style is a bit over the top but I still like them. It's funny because at these galleries the sales people say that the images are not doctored in Photoshop at least that is what a lady said at the Gallery at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas.

The reason why he does well at these galleries is because they are printed and lit beautifully. Huge prints mounted on acryllic with awesome lighting. It makes the images come alive but you could do this with the millions of amazing images floating on flickr,500px, smug mug and get a unrecognizable result from his work. That's my only beef against the company but there are worse DUPES in the world. 

Look at Diamonds...artificially made to be RARE.


----------



## benperrin (Mar 4, 2015)

Who gives a sh%& if his works aren't recognised by art institutes or that there is better stuff on flickr. It's all subjective. Personally I find that a lot of the stuff ordained by art experts is pure crap just like the opinions of movie critiques. No one has a right to tell you what you can or can't sell. You don't have to go to a photographic school to start learning photography and you don't have to be recognised by an art institute to start selling prints. If a photograph moves somebody else then who are we to tell them not to buy that art. 

Yes, this guy certainly has questionable ethics in his methods but there's nothing wrong with trying to sell your own work.


----------



## Sunnystate (Mar 4, 2015)

Maybe Mr. Cruise?



NancyP said:


> I don't know who was fool enough to pay 6 million for a photo.


----------



## quod (Mar 4, 2015)

I think the guy is a douche, but his prints are large, sharp, and impressive in person. The presentation in his galleries is excellent.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 5, 2015)

The Artnet News article was re-titled. At first the title was "New York Times Exposes Peter Lik Photography Fraud". That title was later changed to "New York Times Exposes Peter Lik Photography Scheme". Either way, the title is a misrepresentation of what is actually in the New York Times article, because the NY Times article doesn't expose a fraud or a scheme. I wouldn't be surprised if Artnet News changed the title after realizing that it was not only false but libelous.

The New York Times article is informative and raises some good questions. It's not a "hit piece" as someone wrote above.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 5, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> ...There's nothing to justify the inflated price. He's got solid technical skill as a photographer, but tremendous skills in marketing.



In my opinion this is the definition of "fine art".


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 5, 2015)

SwnSng said:


> Look at Diamonds...artificially made to be RARE.



except in the world of abrasives..... there they are cheap....

Guess it's all presentation and marketing and hype.....


----------



## Vivid Color (Mar 5, 2015)

TexPhoto said:


> There is serious money to be made in one particular branch of fine art photography. Framing.



So very true!


----------



## deleteme (Mar 5, 2015)

There are a lot of galleries that sell photographs of landscapes. Some are run by ht photographer some by a gallery owner representing artists.
Where Lik has succeeded is in creating a brand that has weight among a crowd with wallets.
The vast majority of landscape photographers barely scrape by with a few making fair to decent money.

Lik has created the narrative of passionate loner visionary who happens to look like a bulky GQ model. This resonates with a certain demographic that identifies with the Old West iconography of the cowboy a tall stoic on the side of justice. Not letting anything get in the way of his vision wherever it may be found.
Hooray if you buy the narrative you can have a pretty picture that the world that you to are a photo cowboy.


----------



## 2n10 (Mar 5, 2015)

benperrin said:


> The one thing I've learned is that it doesn't matter if it's good or not, it's the ability to market and sell that makes the difference. There are plenty of poor photographers making way too much money and plenty of great ones barely surviving. Personally I think his work is pretty good, not all of it but enough. It really doesn't matter how much people spend on these things. Does it make them happy and is it worth the cost to them? I wish I had his marketing skills to be honest *but not the dishonest side of it all*.



Isn't that part and parcel of the job?


----------



## zlatko (Mar 5, 2015)

SwnSng said:


> Look at Diamonds...artificially made to be RARE.



Much of the art ever made was artificially made to be rare. Photographs can be mass-produced in unlimited quantities, or they can be produced in limited editions. Either way is valid, and neither way is dishonest.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 5, 2015)

zlatko said:


> SwnSng said:
> 
> 
> > Look at Diamonds...artificially made to be RARE.
> ...



The difference is that one is an abundant, naturally-occurring mineral that's been made rare by unethical (ahem!) means, and the other is rare because the creator of the work chooses limited distribution. Copyright vs. cartel. One is legitimate, the other is not.


----------



## Machaon (Mar 5, 2015)

Art is purely subjective. An item is 'art' if it is an artefact that works emotional magic on you and you choose to present for the purpose of artistic reverence.

These magazine articles just betray the snootiness of the art industry: Lik does overtly what other dealers do covertly. It's his success and their proprietorial hautiness that offend them so much. He's not playing the game with the required pretense.

In the end they all package faux reverence and commerce, like the sale of indulgences.

Buy what you like and hang it on your wall. Don't get caught up in the imperial "art market": the emperor has no clothes, and never has. Just ask Andy Warhol.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 5, 2015)

Machaon said:


> Buy what you like and hang it on your wall. Don't get caught up in the imperial "art market":


+1



> the emperor has no clothes, and never has. Just ask Andy Warhol.


+10 I never thought much of his work, but he was quite the marketer.


----------



## benperrin (Mar 5, 2015)

2n10 said:


> Isn't that part and parcel of the job?


Yes, so true.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 5, 2015)

Innocent me. I didn't think about the possibility that his left hand was selling to his right hand, in the 6 Million Dollar Photo. But then again there are plenty of rich folk who want bragging rights on something unique.


----------



## global pillage (Mar 6, 2015)

Leaving aside the question of whether he is any good or not, or the bitterness of the commentary (some deserved, some just petty and uninformed) on the "art world" (which, ironically, reads as another form of elitism/superiority, us vs them), no one seems to be acknowledging the elephant in the gallery.

I am all for capitalism, but the issue raised that was most disturbing to me was the possibility of deception on the part of the sales staff and whether or not that was institutional policy. It is one thing to say: "Hey, we are selling you this really pretty photo to hang on your wall and it happens to match your couch." I imagine that not many pictures are sold for four or five figures based on that pitch. If the sales staff/administration is, in any way, intentionally misrepresenting the potential for return on investment that is fraud. At least in my book. Add to it the real possibility of the $6,000,000 sale being a manipulated PR stunt and, well...

He has zero investment value. Fair or not, like him or not, that is the brutal truth. It is, basically, worthless once you drive it off the lot. If you truly love his photography and want it on your wall, more power to you. But if you purchased it based on the promise/premise of it being a good investment, get a lawyer and sue him dry.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > SwnSng said:
> ...



Legitimate it is. So why are people criticizing him for making his work artificially rare? He makes his prints in editions of 995, which is not especially rare, and yet he gets criticized for this. The art world has a long history of limited editions, in prints, photography, etc. Most paintings exist as singles. Artificial scarcity is the name of the game. Otherwise Ansel Adams would have been knocking out millions of Moonrises, and Van Gogh would have painted a fresh copy of Starry Night every morning and another every afternoon.


----------



## global pillage (Mar 6, 2015)

Adams did knock out and extraordinary number of moonrises (by one estimate: 1300 over 40 years). And still sold them. They are still selling, sometimes in six figures. And while his work doesn't interest me in the slightest, I say more power to him for doing it on demand, outside of edition. Yes, artificial scarcity is key to a large portion of the art market. Unfortunately, it rarely benefits the artist. Limited editions are primarily designed to benefit dealers and enhance the secondary market. Of course, even without that, very few artists can sell as many as Adams did even if they wanted to.

http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/grant/ansel-adams-moonrise-hernandez-8-31-11.asp


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 6, 2015)

zlatko said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > The difference is that one is an abundant, naturally-occurring mineral that's been made rare by unethical (ahem!) means, and the other is rare because the creator of the work chooses limited distribution. Copyright vs. cartel. One is legitimate, the other is not.
> ...



I don't think that was the primary criticism: most of the criticism appears to be directed at his habit of concocting fables about himself and his work. The unbelievably high trumpeted sales price on the one print, and the outright lies about the origins of the one moon photo are laughable. Stunts like these not only call his integrity into question, but risk side-effects for ethical photographers.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 6, 2015)

global pillage said:


> Adams did knock out and extraordinary number of moonrises (by one estimate: 1300 over 40 years). And still sold them. They are still selling, sometimes in six figures. And while his work doesn't interest me in the slightest, I say more power to him for doing it on demand, outside of edition. Yes, artificial scarcity is key to a large portion of the art market. Unfortunately, it rarely benefits the artist. Limited editions are primarily designed to benefit dealers and enhance the secondary market. Of course, even without that, very few artists can sell as many as Adams did even if they wanted to.
> 
> http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/grant/ansel-adams-moonrise-hernandez-8-31-11.asp



You write, "Unfortunately, it rarely benefits the artist." So we can say, in the case of Peter Lik, _fortunately_, it does benefit the artist. 

1,300 Moonrises is still scarce compared to the number of people who would have bought them. So it's consistent with the idea of artificial scarcity contributing to a higher price — that scarcity coming from Adams' time and willingness to print them. It's not as if he printed 1,000,000+ of them, which would have driven the price much lower.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



What concocted fables? I'm not familiar with his career, but I didn't see that in the NY Times article. The price of the Phantom print does sound unbelievable. But I wouldn't claim it's a "stunt" without some proof that is. 

What outright lies about the origins of the moon photo? Again, I'm not familiar with his career and didn't see this in the NY Times article.


----------



## Policar (Mar 6, 2015)

zlatko said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



There's a hilariously bad photo into which he pasted a picture of the moon taken at a different focal length. And used the wrong transfer mode so it looks like it's in the earth's atmosphere... and claimed (or at the very least STRONGLY implied) it was a single capture.

Adams' prints are super hard to make... lots of dodging and burning per his orders. These are much easier to print. That said, there are more similarities than the art snobs among us might like to think.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 6, 2015)

zlatko said:


> What concocted fables? I'm not familiar with his career, but I didn't see that in the NY Times article. The price of the Phantom print does sound unbelievable. But I wouldn't claim it's a "stunt" without some proof that is.
> 
> What outright lies about the origins of the moon photo? Again, I'm not familiar with his career and didn't see this in the NY Times article.



This will get you started on the moon photo. The tl;dr is that he claimed it was a single frame, but that's physically impossible for several reasons. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3084.0

Due to the fickle nature of the valuation of art works, it's common practice (so I hear, no personal experience) for a person considering an expensive work to hire one or more experts to evaluate the purchase. They might hire an academic art historian and an art appraiser, etc. They'll want to know things like: is it real or counterfeit (e.g. for a painting by a big name), has it been "repaired?" Would it be considered artistically interesting by art scholars? Is it likely to hold value? etc. From what little I've read about his work, the answers to important questions would come back resoundingly negative. A sane rich person is not going to drop $6million on a pretty, wall-sized postcard. I want to be clear: if I'd done some of these photos I'd be rather pleased with myself, but I've seen as good or better done by many other photographers. It's not bad stuff (depending on the individual piece and your tastes) but it's VASTLY overpriced compared to what's out there. All considered, 6mil is far outside the realm of believable for a legitimate sale: the burden of proof should be on PL to substantiate the claim. Not that I really care, but my assumption is that he sold it to himself, possibly using shell companies, for the publicity.

Take this for what it's worth, it's just my opinion mixed with hearsay.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > What concocted fables? I'm not familiar with his career, but I didn't see that in the NY Times article. The price of the Phantom print does sound unbelievable. But I wouldn't claim it's a "stunt" without some proof that is.
> ...



Good points. 

I also strongly suspect that this image has been "enhanced" as well. Something about the "ghost" looks fishy to me, but unlike the moon shot, it's a lot harder to prove fakery here. Fake because Lik seems to like to provide elaborate stories about each shot that leads people to believe he finds the subjects in nature – I personally don't care if it's been manipulated, but don't like it when photographers conceal the manipulation. 

Anyway, some have criticized the NY Times, but they are simply doing their job as journalists and revealing to unsuspecting buyers that Lik's work is neither artistically significant nor likely to retain it's value once it leaves the "gallery." 

Whether or not wealthy but naive buyers need to be protected from themselves is open to debate, but I don't criticize the Times for investigating Lik. He reminds me of "Painter of Light" Thomas Kinkade, who enjoyed a good run for awhile. I've read stories of people who invested heavily in Kinkade prints believing they would increase in value only to be left holding a bunch of prints that no one wants. Yes, it is "buyer beware" but no harm in the media helping to spread the word.


----------



## Policar (Mar 6, 2015)

Kinkade is worse than Lik. Significantly worse.

And that says something. Looking through Lik's gallery he has a lot of nice landscape shots. His compositions are basic but competent, and a lot of the time he seems to wait on good light and I bet those prints look majestic wall-sized.

But the moon shot, for instance, is just so bad. I think it's the hubris (thinking he's a peer of Ansel Adam's) that gets to art critics.

But whether Hirst is just a highbrow Lik is a very good question. Certainly he's shrewder and more conceptual. And his fake sale (for $100 million) is yet more absurd.


----------



## Sunnystate (Mar 6, 2015)

Interesting that in opinion of some posters here "gauging" does not apply to arts. 
If somebody sells the images for X10000 with 99.9% lose at resale, what is it? 

It does not matter what kind of tricks or marketing are applied to it, even if he provides that glittery gallery, framing feel and tacky "artsy" stories behind every capture. 
People that know minimum of art history should be familiar with that kind of BS from Dali, Picasso and others late 19th and early 20th century show off artists! 
Those marketing strategies were invented loong time before we were born, another proof that his clients lack basic education in art history, he is a century behind in creating that "glamorous" image of him self, the only thing missing is that he did not say it yet that he is reincarnated Leonardo Da Vinci or Michelangelo in to a photographer now, it seems that the do that lately


----------



## unfocused (Mar 6, 2015)

Sunnystate said:


> People that know minimum of art history should be familiar with that kind of BS from Dali, Picasso and others late 19th and early 20th century show off artists!



Except Dali and Picasso were great artists, whose works were important in art history and have stood the test of time. They may have been good at self-promotion, but they were also talented and significant artists. Anyone who bought one of their paintings has only seen the value increase. I can guarantee you that Lik's work will never show up in a legitimate museum collection or escalate in value.


----------



## Sunnystate (Mar 6, 2015)

Of course, you are right, at the time that was the way to be an artist, and it was mind boggling for normal people how it is possible to act that way! My point is that 120 years later this is nothing more than cheesy posture ploy that only naive and uneducated consumers can appreciate... Buying remorse is around the corner...
But they are laughing all the way to the bank anyway, so in that respect they won.



unfocused said:


> Sunnystate said:
> 
> 
> > People that know minimum of art history should be familiar with that kind of BS from Dali, Picasso and others late 19th and early 20th century show off artists!
> ...


----------



## zlatko (Mar 6, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



@Orangutan ... The press release is gone, but I gather he never expressly claimed the moon photo was a single exposure. I gather he said something vague like he "got the shot", which can be read different ways. So some people are reading that to mean there was no Photoshop or compositing. But he's not a photojournalist, so the question of Photoshop is neither here nor there. It just doesn't matter. An artist is entitled to keep their working method private, and is entitled to use Photoshop as they like. So what were the "outright lies" about the moon photo? Sorry, I still don't know. And those "concocted fables" ... I still don't know.

Edited: I found the email or press release in that thread. It does talk about "double exposure". Still vague as to how they were combined, but it does expressly mean *two* exposures. 

Whether a picture is "vastly" overpriced depends on the market for it. Apparently people are paying his prices and enjoying his photos on their walls, so I don't see "overpriced" as a valid criticism. I agree that the burden of proof is on PL to substantiate the price of his Phantom photo. But if you're going to say that it *is* a "stunt" — as if you *know* it is — then the burden is on you. It may well be; I don't know either way.

@unfocused ... I'm not criticizing the NY Times. I thought the article was fair and informative. It's more like a business success story than an investigation. It raises some good questions, but doesn't answer them. I'm criticizing Artnet News for totally mischaracterizing the NY Times article, saying it "exposes fraud" ... later changed to say it "exposes a scheme" ... neither of which is correct.


----------



## steepjay (Mar 6, 2015)

I recently walked through the Lik gallery in the Venetian and was entertained to see this writeup so recently after. The experience has a slight "timeshare sales" feel to it. 

As other posters have already pointed out, his work isn't amazing and it isn't bad and beauty is in the eye of the cardholder, but I do get the salesmanship even if I don't respect it. 

I looked somewhat closely at one of the prints and it looks like a metallic paper mounted onto glass or acrylic and then very well lit. He's obviously done some adjustments to get the images to "pop".

I know I personally prefer to print and hang my own work and prints from friends, and I suspect that's true of a fairly large portion of the CR crowd...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2015)

bgran8 said:


> I'm surprised at how many of you do not like his work. I'm not talking about his business practices, just his landscape photography. My whole family and I think it's awesome. From what I could tell, only one person stated a reason (it's over processed). What are other reasons that you don't like it? The one photo that is just weird to me of his is the moon. I saw that one in the gallery and it just looks fake--mostly all of the others look good to me. Looking at the post your best landscape photos page, very few come close, in my opinion, to creating similar work.



Well on thing is that he insists some of the weird ones like the moon are 100% not composites and he goes on about how he trekked backwards through the snow, fighting off deadly mambas and waited, perched, four 17 straight days without food or water until the perfect moment arrived and then he clicked!!!!!

It just seems a bit over the top and, likely in at least a few cases, over the top plus a few lies.

And plenty of the pics are nice, but it's the business model and his business and personal skills and raw gumption and raw do whatever it takes to maximize bucks to the point of used car salesmanship at times that brings the tens of millions of profits in.

If he would just lay off making it seem like these are top investments bit and not go so over the top and even, almost certainly, outright lie a bit about what went into getting some of the photos it would be more power to him. He made a fantastic business and more power to him. But it seems like he pushes a couple things just a bit too far into the used car salesman level for many.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 7, 2015)

zlatko said:


> @Orangutan ... The press release is gone, but I gather he never expressly claimed the moon photo was a single exposure. I gather he said something vague like he "got the shot", which can be read different ways. So some people are reading that to mean there was no Photoshop or compositing. But he's not a photojournalist, so the question of Photoshop is neither here nor there. It just doesn't matter. An artist is entitled to keep their working method private, and is entitled to use Photoshop as they like. So what were the "outright lies" about the moon photo? Sorry, I still don't know.


We'll have to continue to disagree on that. I think this discussion happened in the other Peter Lik thread as well, but I'm of the opinion that photography and sound recording arts are fundamentally different from painting, sculpture, etc: when used in a routine manner, they can create a near-objective record of an actual event. The notion that photographers are free to do whatever they want to an image without any disclosure seems unethical to me. I don't buy the distinction between photojournalism and "art" where these two media are concerned. When I see a statue or painting I have no reason to believe it's an exact replica. If I see a photograph or hear a sound recording that seems to be real, I have good reason to assume it is a pretty close approximation of reality. If a photograph appears to be "real" the viewer should be able to assume that it's so. A photograph that's obviously unreal (e.g. a person standing on a rainbow) doesn't need to be marked as such. Likewise, a multi-frame HDR that produces a result that is a close approximation of reality, or a macro shot of a "giant" insect. However, a composite that appears real, but does not represent something close to what the eye would have seen, is a fiction and should be labeled somehow, e.g. as "manipulated digital photo." The manner of manipulation need not be disclosed, but the fact of it must be. The idea that the viewer should always assume it's manipulated is a dirty little secret amongst some photographers that's just too much snake oil and P.T. Barnum for my ethics.

Do you have a link to that press release? I remember seeing a number of threads on photo blogs debunking the notion that it was a single frame, I can't imagine that would have happened if the press release explicitly mentioned a double-exposure. If you've got a link to the original press release I'll withhold judgement until I've read it




> And those "concocted fables" ... I still don't know. Whether a picture is "vastly" overpriced depends on the market for it. Apparently people are paying his prices and enjoying his photos on their walls, so I don't see "overpriced" as a valid criticism.



If people want to pay a few thousand dollars for one of his prints then that's fine, there's nothing particularly odd about that. What I'm referring to is his claim to have sold a pretty good print for $6million. Not a bloody chance.



> I agree that the burden of proof is on PL to substantiate the price of his Phantom photo. But if you're going to say that it *is* a "stunt" — as if you *know* it is



I never claimed proof, but I did give an explanation of why I thought the price was implausible, and then ended the post with this: "Take this for what it's worth, it's just my opinion mixed with hearsay."

As to whether it's a "stunt," I guess that depends on your definition and some inference. What does PL gain by "revealing" the purported sales price of the print? It doesn't improve his photography, so it must be purely marketing, either to increase his name recognition, or to convince more people to pay higher prices for his work. That sounds like a "publicity stunt" to me.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 7, 2015)

Come on people.... invest in something guaranteed to go up in value.... like Beanie Babies 

This is great marketing, pure and simple. You take a common product that you can get countless copies of, add in some good stories, some hype, some salesmanship, and you can convince people to part with their money.

It doesn't matter that it is photography, it could be anything... what matters is the salesmanship.

And afterwards, when all the excitement has worn of and cold reality comes to light, you realize that your money is gone. That's the story... hype and marketing to the greedy and the foolish.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 7, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bgran8 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised at how many of you do not like his work. I'm not talking about his business practices, just his landscape photography. My whole family and I think it's awesome. From what I could tell, only one person stated a reason (it's over processed). What are other reasons that you don't like it? The one photo that is just weird to me of his is the moon. I saw that one in the gallery and it just looks fake--mostly all of the others look good to me. Looking at the post your best landscape photos page, very few come close, in my opinion, to creating similar work.
> ...



Post #17 on page 2 of this thread quotes the email (I don't know whether it's the same as the press release): http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3084.msg64906#msg64906
It clearly says "double exposure". A double exposure is combination of two exposures. Whether the two exposures are of the same scene with differences in in focus/exposure or whether they're of two different scenes combined together is not explained. And he doesn't have to explain it anyway. It's enough to say that it's not ONE exposure. You figure out the rest. A lot of artists don't reveal all of their working methods or use loose language to describe their processes. Again, he doesn't claim it's photojournalism. I don't know where you're finding these other stories (17 days, etc.), so I won't comment.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 7, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > @Orangutan ... The press release is gone, but I gather he never expressly claimed the moon photo was a single exposure. I gather he said something vague like he "got the shot", which can be read different ways. So some people are reading that to mean there was no Photoshop or compositing. But he's not a photojournalist, so the question of Photoshop is neither here nor there. It just doesn't matter. An artist is entitled to keep their working method private, and is entitled to use Photoshop as they like. So what were the "outright lies" about the moon photo? Sorry, I still don't know.
> ...



There's a link to an email that starts "Attention Collectors" — Post #17 on page 2 of this thread quotes the email (I don't know whether it's the same as the press release): http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3084.msg64906#msg64906
It clearly says "double exposure". A double exposure is combination of two exposures. 

You have a specific view of photography based on the notion that "the manner of manipulation need not be disclosed, but the fact of it must be." Yes, if it's that type of photography, strictly factual. Documentation is one of the great uses of photography. But there's also the whole other world of photography that's based on expression, such as expressing how we want things to look or feel. That side of photography is very much like painting, sculpture, music, theater, poetry, etc.

It sounds like you're criticizing PL because he doesn't disclose the fiction. But he does in a way. When he says it's a double exposure, that already reveals that some fiction is involved. Presumably neither single exposure by itself created the image that we see, but the two together somehow do. So criticize if you must, but this is not courtroom photography with rulers in the picture for scale. It is intended to be big impressive wall art for big houses and it succeeds at that.

If artistic pictures came with disclosure forms describing all of their manipulations, we'd be in a different society, and there'd be some lengthy documents attached to some photos. It would have started in the film era with every dodge and burn disclosed, and disclosures such as "This photograph was made with a color film that does not accurately represent the colors in reality", or "This portrait was made with 15 manipulations that make it better than it would be without".


----------



## zlatko (Mar 7, 2015)

How's this for disclosure?  — 

Attention Collectors,
Midtown Manhattan was never actually blurry or blue like this:
http://www.lik.com/thework/newyork2012/wg929.html
The photographer has manipulated this image in a way that is not an accurate representation of reality. If this bothers you, please don't buy it.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 7, 2015)

zlatko said:


> You have a specific view of photography based on the notion that "the manner of manipulation need not be disclosed, but the fact of it must be." Yes, if it's that type of photography, strictly factual.



You misread my post: I didn't say that all photography should be factual. I said all descriptions of photographs should be factual. A photograph can be manipulated, blended, composited. It can convey any feeling, evoke any mood, so long as the description is honest. Let me simplify:

If it looks factual it should be factual unless it's labeled as non-factual. If it doesn't look factual then no disclaimer is needed. For example, a composited portrait of two people in a park must actually be what it appears to be. If the photo is composited from two different frames of people who were not actually in the same frame, and is not so labeled, then it's deception, and I'd call it fraud.

A photographer can do whatever s/he want with a photo for sale, except lie about it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 7, 2015)

zlatko said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > bgran8 said:
> ...



1. word is that the original version didn't have the line about double exposure, nor did some presentations of it that just had the text such as "I had a specific composition in my

mind and I searched for days to line up this classic tree with the moon. Tonight I hope it all comes

together. It was a long night but I knew at some point my perseverance would be rewarded.

I was white knuckled as I set up the mammoth lens, filling the viewfinder with this balanced scene,

the tree framed amongst the rocks and the low lying clouds added to the tension… this had to

work. The desert silence was stunning, my pulse raced, I could hear the blood running through my

veins. Then, I saw the horizon starting to glow. The golden sphere slowly rose in front of me. I was

totally stunned. I couldn’t believe it. So connected to this lunar giant that I was trembling. Such

an impact on my life. I pressed the shutter, a feeling I’ll never forget. The moon, tree, and earth."


----------



## zlatko (Mar 7, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > You have a specific view of photography based on the notion that "the manner of manipulation need not be disclosed, but the fact of it must be." Yes, if it's that type of photography, strictly factual.
> ...



Well, you misread my reply. I didn't say that you said all photography should be factual. What I wrote is that I agree with your requirement that manipulations in factual photography should be disclosed. 

What I disagree with is the idea that manipulations should also be disclosed in artistic photography just because it looks factual. Manipulations are the artist's prerogative. If the artist chooses to do photography that looks factual, but isn't factual, they don't take on some special disclosure burden, no more than a realist painter does. It's enough that they put it out in the world as artistic or decorative photography. In that case, manipulation is implied. It's usually referred to as artistic license. In other words, factual-looking artistic photography doesn't come with disclosure rules.

Different rules apply if the work is created as photojournalism. In that case, manipulation should be disclosed, such as if the photojournalist used special filters or directed the subject to do something.

Interesting discussion, anyway.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 7, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I think you're really nitpicking. "Word is that ... " Exactly whose word? People with an ax to grind, looking to tarnish a successful photographer? The email announces the photo with an explicit acknowledgment that it's a double exposure. Obviously someone at his company, maybe PL himself, thought that the first person description needed further explanation. Was the info there originally or added later that day, or the next day or the next week ... we don't know. So why nitpick about a "weird" claim that the "the moon are 100% not composites" when he doesn't actually say that specific thing. He describes getting excited about a scene and the moon coming up, and getting a shot he dreamed about. Ok, so it was actually a double exposure of some sort, and gosh he left that out, but "double exposure" is disclosed in the email announcing the photo anyway. So people want to hang him as a fraud for this? He did actually make the photo, and did make the composition that he dreamed about, even if it took two clicks on the shutter instead of one. Big deal. Again, it's not supposed to be photojournalism. It's not made for scientific analysis. It's all about the coolness of the image, like a painting or a song. Does it really make a difference for the buyer? I may be wrong, but I'm guessing people are not buying that photo with this clinical view that it's exactly factual, unmodified by Photoshop or the hand of the photographer.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 7, 2015)

zlatko said:


> Well, you misread my reply. I didn't say that you said all photography should be factual. What I wrote is that I agree with your requirement that manipulations in factual photography should be disclosed.


I don't think so, see below.



> What I disagree with is the idea that manipulations should also be disclosed in artistic photography just because it looks factual.


And I disagree with that: what's the difference between artistic photography and other photography? Is a plain landscape artistic or decorative? Is thrown clay art or craft?



> Manipulations are the artist's prerogative.


This is a long-held presumption among artists, my belief is that the customers/patrons of art often disagree; I certainly do. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Little_Pieces. For decades, journalists assumed that "artistic license" was permitted in their stories and books. It turned out to be a dirty little secret of the industry, and the reading public did not agree. If the customers/patrons of "art" photography expect a work that appears factual to be factual, then that should say something to the producers of that "art."




> If the artist chooses to do photography that looks factual, but isn't factual, they don't take on some special disclosure burden


They do if they mean to sell it, or if they're getting subsidies from patrons. If they're working out of their own pocket for their own benefit then I'll grant them a little slack.



> It's enough that they put it out in the world as artistic or decorative photography.


Do customers and patrons agree with this? Would they feel cheated if they found out their money went for something that was manipulated?



> In that case, manipulation is implied. It's usually referred to as artistic license.


Again, that's accepted among artists, but do the buying public know, understand and agree with that?



> Different rules apply if the work is created as photojournalism.


Stronger rules apply to photojournalism. With "art" or "decorative" photography, only the fact that manipulation has occurred should be disclosed. With PJ, the exact process of manipulation should be disclosed, and the raw files should be seen by the editor.

In looking back at the previous thread, the belief is that PL used three separate exposures: one of the moon, one for the stars, and one for the terrestrial foreground. He also did a bad job of blending because the Earth's atmosphere goes behind the moon. To my mind, that shows disdain for your customers.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 7, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you misread my reply. I didn't say that you said all photography should be factual. What I wrote is that I agree with your requirement that manipulations in factual photography should be disclosed.
> ...



"To my mind, that shows disdain for your customers." — To your mind is right. But you can't read his mind. To his mind, it's likely a beautiful image that greatly pleases his customers. So you're likely criticizing an attitude (disdain) that exists in your mind, not his. 

I disagree that "stronger" rules apply in photojournalism. Rather, photojournalism is where the rules DO apply. Artistic photography is where they DON'T apply. It's not a question stronger vs. weaker rules. He can create the image as he sees fit, free of any rules. That's the nature of art. He can put the atmosphere *anywhere* he wants to (if that is atmosphere in the photo, I'm not sure). You want him to follow rules that don't apply; such rules don't exist in art. Did Picasso or Munch have to follow someone else's rules on how to paint a portrait? Did Monet or Van Gogh have to follow someone else's rules on how to paint a landscape?


----------



## agierke (Mar 7, 2015)

there is no truth (read: fact) in photography. everything is a manipulation from the moment one chooses to frame up a shot. right out of the gate the user is manipulating what will or will not be seen in the frame.

from that point on it is all about intent and whatever manipulations are necessary to realize that intent should be employed. Ansel Adams manipulated the heck out of his development and enlargement techniques....would you declare him to not be a photographer or that his images are not photographs?

Dorthea Lange, Eugene Smith, Duane Michaels, Man Ray, Jerry Uelsmann would all fail this arbitrary definition of what a photograph should be. i find that ridiculously silly. 

Llik does not impress me in the least if i am considering him as a fine art photographer. i don't really care if someone wants to pay him a million dollars for a photo or not. their money, their choice. if fraud is being committed then that's for the legal system to figure out but i will say this...if you are going to be spending that much money and you care about your "investment" you better be damn sure to educate yourself about the risks. its called due diligence.


----------



## horshack (Mar 7, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



When that Lik photo came out we had a mini-contest on FM for the most ridiculous compositing image. Here was my entry - I call it "Moon over Vegas":


----------



## danski0224 (Mar 7, 2015)

horshack said:


> When that Lik photo came out we had a mini-contest on FM for the most ridiculous compositing image. Here was my entry - I call it "Moon over Vegas":



That's awesome


----------



## Sunnystate (Mar 7, 2015)

LOL, that photo for sure inspired many silly pastische moonscapes (mostly better executed than his) we had good share of them here in the past to.

I just hope more respected magazines and critics carefully wording will write and expose the real value of his work. Like I said before he and his people are lawyered up to the teeth. 



horshack said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 7, 2015)

agierke said:


> there is no truth (read: fact) in photography. everything is a manipulation from the moment one chooses to frame up a shot. right out of the gate the user is manipulating what will or will not be seen in the frame.



That's a very common misconception among photographers. I suggest you ask non-photographers what they think. Again, if your photography is for your own purposes it doesn't matter. 



> from that point on it is all about intent and whatever manipulations are necessary to realize that intent should be employed. Ansel Adams manipulated the heck out of his development and enlargement techniques....would you declare him to not be a photographer or that his images are not photographs?



No, they just need to disclose "this photograph was manipulated."



> Dorthea Lange, Eugene Smith, Duane Michaels, Man Ray, Jerry Uelsmann would all fail this arbitrary definition of what a photograph should be. i find that ridiculously silly.



You miss the point: the photograph can be anything, it just has to be disclosed if the image through the viewfinder was substantially different from what's in the final display. In short: don't lie to your customers, and don't pretend they know you're lying because many don't.


----------



## geekpower (Mar 8, 2015)

I don't think manipulation should necessarily be "disclosed", more that it should be self-evident.

For example, I follow a few people on Flickr who do fantasy portraits. Imagine a girl posing in a forest with an owl swooping through the frame, or a girl drifting among the fishes under water who's hair is somehow still dry....

In shots like those, the artist goes to great lengths to make sure the exposures, colour palettes, and direction of shadows of the composited images match as closely as possible, to make the final product look believable. But at the same time, any viewer would quickly realize that it would be impossible to take the picture in a single shot because it contains either logical inconsistencies, or staging it would just be too difficult. But when it all comes together, the viewer suspends disbelief and allows their imagination to engage in fantasy.

And I think that despite it's sloppiness, people wouldn't hate Lik's moon print as much if he presented it as an idealized fantasy of what the moon meant to him, but when he goes to great pains describing the moment it was shot and the emotional impact of having the perfect conditions come together, a once in a lifetime chance, it's just too much. It's literally an insult to his audience.

This is not to say that rich people need to be protected from him or anyone trying to take their money. They can learn to protect themselves if they care. 

But I do think it's fair play for others to have strong negative feelings about him and his work and to express them. Nothing needs to come from it, but art, once put out in the public space, does cause emotional reactions, and that's part of the game. Sometimes those reactions will be negative.

Btw, I stumbled into his gallery in Vegas last year, having never heard of him, and having no preconceived ideas of what to expect. My experience was that the show room had been put together with far more thought and effort than went into the images themselves, and it gave me a very strange feeling. The space was almost impossibly clean, everything was smooth and glossy, and every single image was perfectly lit. Not just adequately lit, perfectly. A tremendous effort had obviously gone into the layout and lighting. I would not be surprised if it had been designed in autocad actually. It was so perfect it was spooky. It actually made me very apprehensive because I felt like I had walked into the lair of someone with a severe mental illness. Meanwhile I was very underwhelmed by the prints themselves. The overall experience was akin to a piece of cake with too much icing and not enough cake. Apparently a lot of people aren't creeped out by the stores the way I was are impressed by the shininess of it all. Fair enough, you can't please everyone, and in this case he's pleasing who he needs to, but not me.

I don't deny him the right to do what he's doing, but at the same time I think it's ok to not like it and to talk about why.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 8, 2015)

horshack said:


> When that Lik photo came out we had a mini-contest on FM for the most ridiculous compositing image. Here was my entry - I call it "Moon over Vegas":


That is a wonderful picture! WOW!!!!!


----------



## zlatko (Mar 8, 2015)

geekpower said:


> And I think that despite it's sloppiness, people wouldn't hate Lik's moon print as much if he presented it as an idealized fantasy of what the moon meant to him, but when he goes to great pains describing the moment it was shot and the emotional impact of having the perfect conditions come together, a once in a lifetime chance, it's just too much. It's literally an insult to his audience.



"It's literally an insult to his audience." — But you can't read his mind. So it isn't "literally" an insult. That's your interpretation. Why deny that he felt the way he describes? After all, he did make the exposures in some way, and while making the exposures may have felt the excitement of the moment exactly as he describes. Even if you work an image in post-production, that doesn't mean it can't have resonance and meaning at the moment you are looking through the camera.


----------



## Click (Mar 8, 2015)

horshack said:


> When that Lik photo came out we had a mini-contest on FM for the most ridiculous compositing image. Here was my entry - I call it "Moon over Vegas":




Cool shot. Nicely done horshack.


----------



## Roo (Mar 8, 2015)

geekpower said:


> I don't deny him the right to do what he's doing, but at the same time I think it's ok to not like it and to talk about why.



Wholeheartedly agree with this...so long as that discussion doesn't descend to petty jealousy. However, his style is not for me - it's not the type that inspires me to go out and try those shots. He has found a model that works for him and his customers and I admire that fact that he is employing people in bricks and mortar galleries. There would be significant overheads in setting up and maintaining those galleries.


----------



## bgran8 (Mar 12, 2015)

For all of those that do not like Peter Lik's work, who is your favorite living landscape photographer? I'm curious what style of landscape photography you think is better.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 27, 2015)

Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I've never heard of Mr. Lik until reading this post. More power to him. Bravo to his success. I wish the same for all of you!


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 27, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Lik's mortal sin was succeeding without going to art school or licking the boots of critics.
> 
> Typical sucess envy informs the entire article.



Exactly! As though one must ask an "expert" what is real or not real art. Somebody thought "Phantom" to be worth $6.5 million and bought it. To that person, it is art. Critics be damned!


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 27, 2015)

Policar said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



Warhol prints of a soup can sell for big $$$. THAT is fine art! Ask any N.Y. critic. http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/251732848740?gclid=CLnh_aeZyMQCFY-Vfgod4EYA8g


----------



## tinkertinker (Mar 27, 2015)

so, in your eyes Warhol is fine art....and worth millions???
i would be interested what people said 40years ago.... :

art has become business for collectors and artist and millionaires....






CanonFanBoy said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 28, 2015)

tinkertinker said:


> so, in your eyes Warhol is fine art....and worth millions???
> i would be interested what people said 40years ago.... :
> 
> art has become business for collectors and artist and millionaires....
> ...



Not at all. You missed my sarcasm.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Mar 30, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I've never heard of Mr. Lik until reading this post. More power to him. Bravo to his success. I wish the same for all of you!



That is a disturbingly mature attitude to have on CR. Must be new here. ;D


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Mar 31, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I've never heard of Mr. Lik until reading this post. More power to him. Bravo to his success. I wish the same for all of you!



Well, to be honest, that is like going into a cycling forum and praising Lance Armstrong for his success. LoL

"I wish all of you great success in lying cheating and doping!"


----------

