Hi guys, recently I found the videos on Peter Lik's website:
http://www.peterlik.com/videos
Check out the first one (Mt Baker).
I had a good laugh over this.
- This dude talks a lot with his body about the most banal thing -
snow!
- He is dressed up like not even hobby photographers would do in
such conditions (snow, mountain terrain, low temperatures)
- Given the state his clothes are in, the money he makes with his
photography is limited - the sleeves are missing - oh wait that is
on purpose to show off his muscular arms - even necessary to do
this when it's freezing
- He walks around and poses with his tripod but no camera mounted -
ah - that's where all these muscles come from - hauling around
that heavy tripod with no cam on it...
- The self praising and superlative talk in every section of his
website is ridiculous.
Boy, this is not self marketing anymore, it is self parody...
Is it just my European heritage, or is this really too much?
Regards
Dietrich
Posted by Andreas Resch on February 10, 2010 at 2:22 PM
This really is hilarious. Thanks for this little coffee break fun, Didl. I'm now selling all my hiking cloths on Ebay.
Posted by Phil Pogledich on February 10, 2010 at 3:24 PM
Deitrich, as I learned by reading the bio on his website, Peter Lik is the best and most influential photographer alive. You should be more respectful. I also think he may be related to "The Most Interesting Man in the World," who is currently the spokesman for Dos Equis beer (at least here in the US). Check him out on YouTube and I'm sure you'll agree.
He's a character, all right. And using it to his best advantage. I've seen marketing like this before, for a lot of products, as you all have, and while I don't necessarily agree with it, and some people may laugh at it, and at him, he's laughing all the way to the bank. I'd like to meet this guy. He tickles me.
Who else shall we laugh at today? I thought the NPN community was above stuff like this since there is a plenty of it at other photography forums.
Thanks for the responses so far!
Phil - I checked some youtube vids - yes indeed the most interesting man in the world must be his father...
Catherine - well what can I do, usually I refrain from such things, but I just could not resist. I am sure he's a nice guy in person, but why the need for "this" kind of self marketing???
Posted by Mike Moats on February 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM
I read somewhere that his business does around 30 million a year. You may not think much about his maketing, but it seems to be working very well for him.
Posted by Brian Jackson on February 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM
So your making fun of a guy that has Galleries in some of the most expensive locations in the world (Aspen, La Jolla, Las Vegas, Waikiki, New York, Miami) and makes a crap load of money. I'm sure he's having a good laugh as well.
Posted by Phil Pogledich on February 10, 2010 at 4:32 PM
$30 million? Jeez . . . I've never understood with so many great photographers how a select few can do so well. Obviously he has marketed himself quite well, even if his approach is a bit over the top. Holding himself out as the "the best photographer in the world" on his website, however, is still rather silly to me . . .
Mike, I am impressed by his income. I can imagine - he runs galleries across america. That must be a cash cow. But in my opinion nothing justifies sacrificing credibility and personal integrity. If nothing else, at least one should have some consitency and credibility. You either talk a lot about how close you are to nature and what it means to you and how this is reflected in your work (here I start having doubts when I read such things) but then you don't take a camera team with you and pose in an outfit I would not even wear on my holiday in florida. It just does not "fit".Of course just my opinion. And I can't help it, his "acting" is just too funny...
Brian - yes I am making fun out of him. I am not at all intimitated by perceived status and success. Too bad I am not even very impressed by his work...
Posted by Mike Moats on February 10, 2010 at 5:18 PM
Hey Didi, you can love nature and money. Money will allow you to spend more time in nature. You don't have to be poor to appreciate and love nature. He can wear a dress when he goes out to shoot for all I care, people buy his images based on the image, not how he looks or conducts himself. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I agree he looks silly, but hey what ever works for you.
Posted by Jack Graham on February 10, 2010 at 8:41 PM
Anyone been to his gallery in the forum stores at Caesars Palace in Vegas.... It is amazing. The marketing that is.... his photography is quite good, no better than lots of what I see on ES7S here. He has a gang of international investors that have made him what he is.
He is doing big bucks. The old adage... it takes money to make money. Is he a better shooter than lot of the folks here at NPN... certainly not, but he has the $$$ to market, and show is stuff off...... if you get to Vegas be sure to check his place out. It is VERY impressive.
JG
Posted by Stan Rose on February 10, 2010 at 8:58 PM
I think we should be above personal derision...
Just kidding! I think this video is fair game, especially for this forum. I agree its quite funny, but presumably Lik realizes it's funny, hes a smart guy im sure, so i assume its a calculated marketing ploy. Gives me an idea...ill combine porn with landscape photography....
Posted by Luke Ormand on February 10, 2010 at 9:07 PM
I agree with Stan (well... not on the porn thing). This guy is extremely successful and for a reason. he knows his videos are a bit "hokey". I mean, if the Crocodile Hunter wasn't famous, and you saw one of his videos you would think, boy this guy is NUTS! No one wears that outfit in those conditions if they don't know it will get people talking (which OBVIOUSLY has worked) about him. Believe it or not, before I saw this forum posting I'd never heard of this guy (though I don't know much about the Landscape photography world anyway).
That being said, the whole "he's the greatest photographer ever" "He is the best photographer in the world" stuff is over the top and totally turns me off to his work (as opposed to being turned on, which may happen if Stan goes through with his new idea!)
Oh, I know, Didl. It's okay. I got up on the wrong side of the bed this a.m. OTOH, he's not the only one who markets his business in an "over the top" manner. All the major car companies tell you they have the #1 cross over vehicle, or truck, or whatever, e.g. Banks say they're a safe place for your money and they can offer conveniences that'll help you save money, too. But they don't tell you that every time you use said convenience that they're taking money out of the other side of your wallet– a tactic so well marketed that the US Govt had to make a law against it in order to protect bank customers. Advertising/marketing isn't the most credible or consistent endeavor, that's for sure! But Peter Lik has got guts and a big ego, he's got lots of images to market that people seem to want, he's smart enough to know how to get lots of money behind his efforts, and he's very entertaining. He just tickles me. You and I wouldn't do what he does. But then, we're not him and that's why my bank account doesn't look like his, either! So, he's a little outrageous. But has he scammed thousands of people out of their money? I would guess that customers open their wallets voluntarily to purchase his art. He sure knows how to make a lot of money with photography!
Okay, enough. Like Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."
Posted by John Tobias on February 10, 2010 at 9:24 PM
I had never heard of him until this post came up. Took a look at several of his videos. He reminds of Steve Erwin in his style and mannerisums. Humor, yes, outlandish no.
Posted by Luke Ormand on February 10, 2010 at 10:04 PM
I agree with Stan (well... not on the porn thing). This guy is extremely successful and for a reason. he knows his videos are a bit "hokey". I mean, if the Crocodile Hunter wasn't famous, and you saw one of his videos you would think, boy this guy is NUTS! No one wears that outfit in those conditions if they don't know it will get people talking (which OBVIOUSLY has worked) about him. Believe it or not, before I saw this forum posting I'd never heard of this guy (though I don't know much about the Landscape photography world anyway).
That being said, the whole "he's the greatest photographer ever" "He is the best photographer in the world" stuff is over the top and totally turns me off to his work (as opposed to being turned on, which may happen if Stan goes through with his new idea!)
- Luke
Posted by Carl Donohue on February 11, 2010 at 12:30 AM
He reminds of Steve Erwin in his style and mannerisms.
Hey John
My thoughts exactly ... the same clownish, self-aggrandizing nonsense. Sure, it sells well - so do Big Macs and tickets to see inbred white tigers ride bicycles.
And sure, right here, we can mock that nonsense .. right here, on NPN, right here. :)
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Stan Rose on February 11, 2010 at 1:01 AM
tickets to see inbred white tigers ride bicycles.
No way! I have got to see that...where do i get mine, Carl??
He does know how to present his work, having been to both his Key West and Miami galleries. My buddy works for him in La Jolla and said each of his 14 or so galleries do over 7 figures. I'm pretty sure its been said the most successful photogs aren't the best, just the best marketers.
He doesn't have the best rep among other photogs, but he can take a pretty picture here and there and has hit the market that works well for him. No nickle and dime customers, thats for sure....and he does treat his employees well.
Just go on Twitter, you'll find enough photogs patting themselves on the back to all. =)
Catherine - no worries! Yes, this marketing talk by big profit oriented companies is in the same league, and that is my "problem" with Peter Lik. He sells "art" as if it was a car - for me this does not work. I agree with Mike - you can like money and nature. And again, up to everyones own how to make a living. At least Peter Lik makes a good living with his own product and I respect that of course.
The point is, being a photographer myself, I could just never do it they way Peter Lik does it. And yeah he just looks "clownish" doing it.
Like Carl said - because something sells well means it is marketet well and it is an easy-to-consume "product". Not necessarily a measure for quality. Maybe technical quality and well produced. But art in my, view is something else.
I just have that bad habit of getting much more critical if someone "explains" to me how good the stuff is he makes. And since we are all not perfect, and true grandness is not experienced often, I just often come to the conclusion that the words do not agree with what is offered.
This goes a bit further away from the original topic, but I suspect that if a photographer is so market driven and profit-based, then the artistic integrity just takes the backseat. There is this common opinion going on that for true outstanding art, one has to suffer, one has to be poor and one has to be in an unstable (or at least dissatisfied) mental state. I think it comes from the fact that many of the great masters (painters) indeed had a lot of issues, and people correlate this with the quality of their work. I am not fully advocating this view, but I can't help but think it makes a different "art" if you produce it for a market or without restrictive economic considerations.
Recently I was to an exhibition in Vienna - Impressionst paintings. Great work and true art (not just because it was in a musem ;-) ) and what was nice was the fact that next to each painting only the year, the title and the painter's name was written. If the original artist (Renoir, Monet, Van Gogh... you name them) would have commented on their own work like Peter Lik does - boy you get how ridiculous it would sound.
Ok, all for now,
thanks for sharing your views on this!
Regards
Dietrich
Posted by Richard Wong on February 11, 2010 at 1:32 AM
Of course most of us wouldn't market ourselves the way he does, that is why he is so successful because he can live with himself doing it that way. If more of us were like him then he probably wouldn't have gotten his business to the level that it is. Like they say, making a living is 90% business.
I met him once and he answered my question honestly so he's cool by me.
Posted by David Taylor on February 11, 2010 at 1:35 AM
Not that I would follow in the same "mannerisms" that he uses, but he does use them very successfully. Regardless of his motivation; be it as "the best photographer", the most charismatic, the most successful, or the one that brings the most awareness to our worlds beauty - you got to give the guy credit. He's doing what (probably) EVERYONE on this forum wishes they could be doing with their lives. Shooting a lot, making fun videos, traveling the world, and realizing that people who have not been as financially successful in photography probably talk down about him.
Personally, my photographic goals are to have an impact, raise awareness, and hopefully be able to live semi-comfortably.
I say good on him for being a damn good photographer and an insanely talented marketing genius. His photographs have brought a lot of attention to landscape photography and how fragile these areas are to a large audience.
We should all be so successful.
Didl, a few more things.
1)
Just to clarify, I'm mostly on your side concerning the ugly selfpraising of photographers. but I have seen it even from photogs that don't even sell any image at all! you'll also find a great amount of selfpraise on websites of NPN members. it's a free world. (on the www anyways...)
You’re right when you laugh about it, much better then getting upset about it. It ain’t worth it.
2)
you said, that you are a photographer yourself. I don't think so, depending on definiton, of course. You own a camera and are capable of taking (pretty good) pictures. but a photographer you are not. There is much more to it then you might realize.
Peter Lik is one, and with his extreme marketing approach (just consider his HUGE upfront investments in setting up all this galleries - which sure not came from a photography income) he kind of HAS to be such a (even self ironic, to a certain degree) bigmouth. it has nothing to do with the quality of his work or his personality. Speaking for myself, I would NEVER want to trade with him or take his route, but, yes, I do have some respect for that. way too much cashflow, too much hi-society-networking etc.etc. he might make 30 mio $ a year but he makes it by spending probably 50 mio $ and you don’t do that by being lazy. that's pretty tough in my book. if he wasn't rich to begin with, he took big risks.
as for his photography - I would have never found the video, because even though i am aware of his work since many years, I have never checked his website. it's kind of pleasing 08/15 landscape photography. I think, if you would give (f.e.) Marc A. 10 mio $ to invest in that kind of business he would give peter lik a hard time competing - much more defined and recognizeable stuff.
more: if you see the "loud" marketing strategy taken by photographers, you can be very sure the "silent" understating strategy (mainly meaning to let the images speak FOR them) didn't work out with them. that might tell you something, too.
an even more: one of my favorite painters is william turner, and he was more the peter lik kind of guy. very cash oriented. still, I believe he was a great artist.
its the samo samo story, the world aint just black or white, not even tons of greyscales but trillions and trillions of colors.
and last but not least, I believe you have ALL THE RIGHTS IN THE WORLD to bring this topic up here on NPN. if not here where else? I even thank you for that, much more entertaining thread then the usual. (it reminded me of an old gary larson cartoon – ‘the meeting of the people who didn’t like “dances with the wolves” ‘.. check it out)
georg
Posted by Colin Smale on February 11, 2010 at 4:12 AM
The world is full of strange folk, who hasn't got at least one in the mix in his club? However, IMHO I am hoping that this site is not the place to discuss this subject, I have seen this happen on other sites and before you know where you are folk are leaving because of all the sniping.
Hi Georg, thanks for the response, yes I also agree, and thanks for the interesting reflections. I even I agree that I am not a photographer (and that took me some seconds to agree), but only if the definition of a photographer is that he “works” for his photography to “produce” on a regular basis in a competitive field. Certainly this is not what I am and most likely it’s better like that, we all choose our ways for a reason. So, actually I lack the experience and knowledge to understand what it means to compete as a landscape photographer in the US.
I try the silent approach (trying to get a website ready and then wait and see what happens). With a “guesstimated” probability 99.9999% nothing will happen, particularly in Austria, but the point is that I think I enjoy the absolute freedom I have with what I choose as subject and how I present it and I think (like to think) it is what I am as “photographer” and what defines my work.
And here I agree also – I would never trade with Peter Lik, because it would mean to trade my photography with his money – I would never would do this! ;-)
Sorry if some don't like to discuss this here. I am not meaning to offend anyone. But critically remarking some observed habits of photographers should be possible I think.
Dietrich
Posted by Andreas Resch on February 11, 2010 at 5:47 AM
I like where this thread is going. Getting a look into US photography marketing and see some numbers here is pretty interesting. I was aware that a lot of people might be impressed by the way he presents himself with the videos, but his sale numbers keep me speechless.
I have to defend Didl a little bit - not just as a friend but we also talked on the phone about the videos even before he posted them here and I know what the idea about the posting here is. We both agreed that these videos will find an audience and that it's even a clever marketing approach to do it this way. His images aren't bad either - we even agreed on that. So it's all about the videos here and the way he presents them and himself inside of them. He could be a great guy, an awesome photographer and probably a clever salesman - the videos by themselves are hilarious anyway.
Just watch the videos and take them them for what they are ... every other topic is a different discussion.
Cheers, Andreas.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on February 11, 2010 at 6:14 AM
I found the videos fun to watch. I think to the average non-photographer, they also convey the fun and excitement of nature photography.
The Aussie accent does immediately draw comparisons to Steve Irwin. For the style used, I think Peter stacks up well.
If someone can create interest in nature photography, they create interest in nature. Interest in nature leads to interest in preserving it. I don't see any of this as a bad thing.
Thanks for the support Andreas ..;-)
Thanks also Jim for your perspective, no disagreement and a very positive and anti-cynic (yes I am a cynic) attitude. I only stick to my original opinion that no matter you do – please do it with some coherence and self-pride and awareness of the actuall quality and content of your product. There is no need to make a clown out of yourself in pursuit of commercial success and exposure to the public. Here in Austria we have a way to much of such people (politicians, “high-society” etc), but they do not claim that they are a) “artists” and b) the best of the best. And this is what makes me laugh about this guy.
Posted by Peter Barnes on February 11, 2010 at 8:17 AM
Didi, what the heck does it matter what he wears....it worked for the fictional Australian character in the movie Crocodile Dundee, sold very well in the US, then Steve Irwin copied that style and now Peter Lik has his own take on it....whatever works, but (enough) Americans seem to like Australians acting out this stereotype.
"He walks around and poses with his tripod but no camera mounted -
ah - that's where all these muscles come from - hauling around
that heavy tripod with no cam on it..."
The only time I saw him with a tripod in the video he was also wearing a black backpack.
Posted by jeremy moore on February 11, 2010 at 9:12 AM
hey dietrich, this is what your profile says, “No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit” – Ansel Adams"
that being said those videos are funny, but he's making the money and his work is great!
Posted by Ed Cordes on February 11, 2010 at 9:55 AM
Well he certainly has the marketing thing down. His photography seems pretty good. Is income is spectacular. I do hope that new photographers do not think they can dress like that and live in the remote locations he has been to.
I think Peter Lik's marketing savvy has taken a distinct upturn over the past decade. In late summer 2001 I was in San Francisco and wandered down to Pier 39 one afternoon to look at the sea lions and pick up a postcard to send to my niece. I stumbled into Lik's brand new gallery there and spent a good amount of time looking around. He had some (IMO) excellent work hanging on the walls. I'd never heard of him before, and the cost of prints (running well into the thousands for large ones) really raised my eyebrows. One of the gallery employees spent plenty of time answering my questions and even took the time to bring out some a couple of the original transparencies representing images with which I was particularly impressed.
And then he introduced me to Lik himself, who happened to be on site that day, working out some of the logistics of this new venue. He was very pleasant, and after talking photography with him (I pumped him for a bunch of questions about his preferred 617 format, something I had only vague knowledge of at the time), I told him that his gallery was very impressive but that, in my opinion, he'd chosen a poor location. That perked his ears up, and he asked me why I felt that way. I told him that Pier 39 was basically a tourist trap, and a low-end one at that. (If you've been there, you know what I mean; cotton candy and inexpensive souvenirs are the order of the day.) Meanwhile he's trying to sell four-figure prints. I told him his gallery belonged in a different part of The City...or maybe across the bay in Sausalito or down the coast in Carmel. I'd picked up a book he was selling; he offered to sign it (I accepted) and I wished him the best of luck and I went on my way.
A couple of years later something spurred me to check his Web site and I noticed that the SF gallery was gone. Now I'm not saying that my unsolicited advice was the reason of course, but needless to say I wasn't surprised.
If he was still in the midst of figuring this aspect of the business out nine years ago, he seems to have more or less mastered it at this point.
Thanks once again for all the opinions this and also for the comments regarding my own views. It's much appreciated. I just like to learn how others respond to Lik and also to my opposing opinion.
Thanks for sharding your story Kerry! I know the place - Pier 39 - and as a tourist I like it a lot ;-) I have been to the Rodney Lough Gallery there, also visited Rodneys Gallery in Sausalito. I was there with Chris Chamberlain, later Lon and Ben Glatt joined. Chris and I were discussing and exchanging thoughts regarding digital photography, the pale look of raw files and the need for processing and photoshop - kinda implying that every photographer does processing work. Ha, then the employee answered that Rodney and Peter Lik once shared a Gallery - might have been at Pier 39 - and as I understood it they parted ways cause they got into a disagreement regarding "purist" and "cheating" approach - I am not telling who accused whom... ;-)
All I say is I like Rodneys work much more and although he is also pretty big with marketing-words, it's dwarfed by what Lik does...
Posted by Peter Barnes on February 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM
Didl, what the heck does it matter what he wears....it worked for the fictional Australian character in the movie Crocodile Dundee, which sold very well in the US, then Steve Irwin copied that style and now Peter Lik has his own take on it....whatever works, but (enough) Americans seem to like Australians acting out this stereotype.
"He walks around and poses with his tripod but no camera mounted -
ah - that's where all these muscles come from - hauling around
that heavy tripod with no cam on it..."
The only time I saw him with a tripod in the video he was also wearing a black backpack.
Posted by Peter Barnes on February 11, 2010 at 6:13 PM
Oh, and by the way, agressive self-marketing is not typical behaviour of Australians, the cultural norm is to discourage people from 'big-noting' themselves. Unfortunately for photographers, if we don't market ourselves, who is going to do it for us?
Posted by Peter Barnes on February 11, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Apologies for the double post, I didn't realise that if I edited my post it would be re-posted further down the list, and I would have to delete the original - is that how it is supposed to work? Anyway, I was trying to correct my mis-spelling of Didl's name. And on the subject of tripod posing, having looked at some more of the videos, I now agree with Didl, there is an awful lot of unexplained naked tripod hefting over the shoulder going on, with no other gear in sight.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on February 11, 2010 at 6:40 PM
Thanks, that was amusing. It gave me some ideas for promoting nature photography. I can see it now...
SUNDAY! Sunday! sunday! ... At the Coliseum ... World Photography Entertainment presents ...
FULL CONTACT NATURE PHOTOGRAPHY!!!
Watch as The Dark Roomer, sporting a black lens, faces his arch-nemesis The Stitcher, wearing a white lens!
The mind boggles.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on February 11, 2010 at 7:31 PM
Peter Lik and Michael Fatali both strike me as caricatures of a landscape photographer in America. The fact that they personally tripped the shutter is irrelevant in comparison to the oversized self-image they project. I'm not fond of their marketing style, but I don't begrudge them their success. I just don't think I would ever find myself contributing to their windfall. There are others creating equally beautiful work with quiet confidence who I respect much more.
As some others indicated, they sell big time work, but I doubt their work will be considered consequential 50 years after they've passed. In both cases, its mostly (IMO) postcard art printed extremely large and I don't think the soul of the photographer speaks through the prints much if at all. There is a big difference between their work and the work of Gregory Crewdson or Jeff Wall, though all of them are probably comparable in terms of financial success and brand recognition. Certainly Peter Lik has put alot on the line to expand his retail network and his retail shops are impressive, but that also puts him in a situation where he may be severely leveraged if he has not paid back his creditors. With great risks may come great rewards, but the collapse can be spectacular as well.
Georg alluded to an idea that you cannot be a photographer if it is not your primary source of income, but I think this is a completely invalid statement. In painting, Clifford Still is considered one of the most important transforming forces in American painting, and yet I don't think he ever sold much of his work. He was a teaching painter first and foremost. There is another example of such a painter in Paris, but unfortunately I cannot think of his name at the moment and couldn't find it with a quick Google search. His home has become a museum up near Montmartre and he taught many famous painters, but did not make it his business to sell his own work. Alfred Stieglitz and Eliot Porter are a couple examples of photographers who were independently wealthy and not only photographers. Was Eliot Porter a photographer in the 30s when teaching bio-chemistry at Harvard but exhibiting at American Place? What about the 10 years from the American Place exhibit to the time he found a publisher for his bird photography book or the next ten years while he developed the material for "In Wildness..."
In my opinion, having financial independence from ones photography can allow the artist to show something more pure and personal in the same way that photographers who have separated their commercial photography from their personal have maintained uncompromising artistic strength in their personal work. Ansel Adams is not remembered for his commercial work which he pointedly kept apart from his personal, but it put a roof over his head and food on his family's table for most of his life. His real commercial success through his personal artistic photography came much later for the most part. Of course one could argue that much of his commercial success came from the early artistic success, and there is truth in that argument as well.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on February 11, 2010 at 7:57 PM
Jim Wrote:
If someone can create interest in nature photography, they create interest in nature. Interest in nature leads to interest in preserving it. I don't see any of this as a bad thing.
There may be just as much chance that it would inspire someone to extract the value from these natural places through development, tourism or though personal consumption. In my days of consulting and travel, it was my impression that most urban easterners do not understand or appreciate the openness of the American West and the public lands we enjoy as part of our lifestyle and heritage. I also sensed that most urban centric folks were not interested in the wild, and thought it was insane one would wish to go there leaving the comforts of home behind. They'll gladly visit a resort, but have little interest in extending beyond that.
Posted by Daniel Ewert on February 11, 2010 at 10:14 PM
Mel wrote: "Georg alluded to an idea that you cannot be a photographer if it is not your primary source of income, but I think this is a completely invalid statement."
I agree with Mel. I don't think Georg stated that with any ill will, but that kind of sentiment bothers me. Many of us here live and breathe nature photography and it is our passion in life. Yet, many of us support ourselves through other means. That doesn't mean we are not "photographers". It just means we don't make all of our living doing it. I have great respect for those who hack out a living with small or great success doing nature photography, but I don't see those folks as being the only "true" photographers out there. Just a different kind.
Just my two cents
Posted by Stan Rose on February 11, 2010 at 10:46 PM
Mel raises a good point. Equating nature with self-praising reality-tvistic drivel is probably not a good thing.
Hi Mel and Daniel, thanks for your elaborate responses.
"In my opinion, having financial independence from ones photography can allow the artist to show something more pure and personal in the same way that photographers who have separated their commercial photography from their personal have maintained uncompromising artistic strength in their personal work"
"In both cases, its mostly (IMO) postcard art printed extremely large and I don't think the soul of the photographer speaks through the prints much if at all."
100% Agreement!
As for Georg's comment - as I said, I only agree if by "Photographer" one is meant who does it as "business" in one way or another. I think he meant that for me as a hobby photographer with 100% independence it is not fair to judge the marketing-approaches professional photographers take to make their income, and he has a point.
But indeed it depends on the definition. And certainly one who makes photographs with ambition and personal vision is a photographer no matter what. And he understands the difference between creating for the sake of creation and personal expression as opposed to "producing" for the sake of making money. And this is the concept I use to detect the inconsitencies between the "talk" and the "walk".
By the way - found another vid on you tube. He talks about "wilderness", the "extremes" and that "death" and danger is part of his approach. Then he is seen walking atop of mesa arch, on the rim of grand canyon and in front of horse shoe bend and in Yosemite. My mother also has been to all these places in the last 10 years, she now is 69 years old. And all the time his camera team is with him - sure easy to do this is "remote" wilderness. If I want to give the impression in a vid that my work is dangerous and the result of choosing places no other human soul except me (because of my sheer talent and attitude) can access, then I probably should not make my vids in places with wheel chair accessability. But that is just me of course..
Mel, Daniel: I did by no means, write, you have to make a living from photography in order to be a photographer in my opinion. (thats just your assumption or (rather quick) interpretation. I just wrote it takes more then to go out occasionally and take pictures. even if "occasionally" means quite often and the results are fine. there is much more to it, but its not the subject of this topic and too time consuming to explain here, I'm afraid...
while I certainly do make a living from landscape photography, I know many, many photographer-friends and colleagues who do not. (or not exclusively)
But, come on, please dont bring up Elliot Porter or Alfred Stieglitz to compare with Didl! this would be unfair to begin with.
what I also think is, it's rather difficult to make any comparsions between photographers and painters (especially those from past centuries) even when the medium itself seems to be similar - it's not. don't befooled by that. It's even hard enough to make valid comparsions between photographers of different genres. (fashion, landscpae, wildlife, food, stock, portraits - whatever - you name it)
but the theory, that hobbyists (or rich folks) have more freedom and therefore produce more artful work is beyond me... If you take that a little further, only unsuccesfull artists would be good artists. (???)
I can agree with ALL that Mel said (except the part about my own statement...) - he just expressed it better.
over and out
georg
Posted by Andreas Resch on February 12, 2010 at 3:54 AM
Great speech, Mel. You found the words for what I was thinking - especially about the "photographer" issue. Talking about what a "photographer" is or isn't walks along the alley of the never-ending topic "is photography art or not". Talking about it is like a blind stroll into a fluffy cloud. Based on my income I'm no photographer either, based on the time I spend on it - maybe, based on my dedication once I'm out there with my camera - definitely. I stand corrected on the day when I share a cup of warm tea on the summit of a snowy mountain with the passport photographer from around the corner.
“But the theory, that hobbyists (or rich folks) have more freedom and therefore produce more artful work is beyond me... If you take that a little further, only unsuccesfull artists would be good artists. (???) “
There is a spectrum of course, don’t put this so black and white. I am not saying that all this necessarily leads to a bad product or to a “lesser art”. It also depends on the definition of “art” of course.
I just don’t buy the claim that there is absolutely zero influence on the kind of subject matter, the location, the way the subject is presented when having commercial success in mind.
What about this comparison:
Dan Brown vs. Oscar Wilde
You stated it yourself: Peter Lik’s work is standard US. Landscape photography – of course it is! Because he knows that this is what sells well and that is the basis of his living. But one has to acklowledge that he does it on a very high and professional level. That's why people buy it. But sure he thinks of course that he has a very creative and unique approach. Like we all think of us. Everyone that creates and shows it to the world with the aim to please the aesthetic demand of other people has to be convinced that his work is worth being seen. That’s narcissism, but I can live well with it. At the end of the day it is in the eye of those who consume it. Art - in my definition - is not about illustrating for someone else – but for your own inner drive to create and express – everything else that comes into the motivation for creating something affects the final look of the work, but not necessarily in a bad way.
I like what Oscar Wilde wrote:
“We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless”
Open to everyone’s own interpretation, just so much “useful” = “sellable”...
Georg:
"just wrote it takes more then to go out occasionally and take pictures. even if "occasionally" means quite often and the results are fine. there is much more to it, but its not the subject of this topic and too time consuming to explain here, I'm afraid... "
Well then I got you wrong. It was not about what I thought you mean.
As for not being a photographer - well then I am one that photographs images with photographic equipment which are received by other photographers as decent photographs. If this does not make me a photographer, then what?
Try to explain, don't be afraid, as you see I am interested in this subject and this is the place and thread to do it.
Dietrich
Didl, I'll sit down and talk to you about my perspective (just one of millions), but not here. this is too lenghty an endeavour. since we do live in the same city, maybe we can straighten that out over a few beers (they'll all be on me) - much easier and that won't lead to false interpretations.
I just don't have the time for writing all this here on NPN, sorry.
georg
Posted by Mel Ladewig on February 12, 2010 at 3:54 PM
I did not intend to compare Porter or Steiglitz to anyone here on the forum, only to illustrate a point that a photographer does not need to be commercially successful in PHOTOGRAPHY to be a significant artist and that the roles may change over a lifetime.
I don't believe that only successful artists are good artists or that financial ties to the art prevent one from creating new, significant and insightful work. Toulouse-Lautrec is just such an example of a commercial artist whose commercial work was itself significant.
And Salvador Dali is an example of a painter whose ego was too big to fit in any room and whose life itself was made into spectacle and caricature. He was a joke even to himself, and yet he maintains a position as a significant painter.
And sometimes all of these perceptions become lost over time as history chooses the version of the artist to portray and discards the inconvenient portions.
But I do stand by the idea that in our modern advertising, consumerism driven society that those who successfully make art on commission and for personal reasons ofter develop two different styles and at times split personalities. Commercial work is often done to meet the needs or wants of the underwriter or patron, though the artist definitely spills into the work. But the personal work is done solely to fulfill their desire to create what is in their mind and it is often richer in character, more reflective of their interior self and more insightful. This is by no means a rule, just an observation. I'm sure I could find an example of a wildly creative commercial artist whose personal interior is vapid or repulsive and who would be best left to their commercial efforts.
I don't think Didi, or anyone else said Peter Lik was not a good photographer. Nor did he say that his images were not good. I think all he was doing was pointing out the comical way some of the aspects of the videos, and the bio came off. I think it's pretty funny for someone to run around in the altitude with snow all around in a sleeveless shirt too. Or to have a nice side view of yourself looking through the viefinder with your hand clinching the tripod leg in order to flex all the muscles in your arm the most effective way. And personally, I think of it as kind of cheesy to have anything like the world's best in your own bio statement. If it's written in a forward by someone else, great! Or in a review somewhere else, great!
I do have to say that I spent some time in one of his galleries. I think the imagery is stunning!
So why not let it and his achievements do the talking? I was pretty close to throwing down a few grand for two images!!!! Now, I'm glad I exercised some self control. But that aside the images are very nice in my opinion.
I think if you are proficient with your equipment, and can go out and capture a technically correct image related to exposure, and focus. And if you have an eye for composition, and aesthetics, that translates into imagery that connects with you, or a viewing audience, then you are a photographer. I don't think it takes one cent of income, or a gallery, or publication, or recognition of any kind to qualify that! Maybe a photographer on a different level than one that has achieved some, or all of the above criteria, but still a photographer.
What percentage of known photographers out there, are at the income level of Peter Lik? I only know of a handful of landscape/nature photogs that even come close. The late Galen Rowell, Thomas Mangleson, Art Wolfe, Frans Lanting, who else? What fraction of one percent of the rest do these guys represent? I think somewhere in the rest of the 99.99999 percent there are some that are better. There are a number of folks here on NPN that have ability and style that I like better. Sometimes when you do it purely for passion, and fulfillment is when you are at your best.
I recieved a book "A Shadow Falls" by Nick Brandt. I highly recoment this book to anyone that loves nature. The images are some of the most compelling, and emotionally stimulating images of wildlife that I have ever seen! Until now, I had never heard of him. I imagine he has realized some significant success.
Hi Chris, thanks for your contribution to this thread. I am sure I would be very impressed by one of Peter Lik's Galleries if I could visit. These huge prints are lit and hung very well as I saw in Rodneys Galleries. I also agree that technically and aesthetically they the work of the big names is flawless. I just do not see the same level of creativity and novelty in their work - particularly I just do not agree with their opinion to be the best of the best. Just ridiculous to hear this from a landscape photographer. Not even scientists who won the nobel prize talk like that. I never understood why so many photographers behave like a "diva"...
Discussion
54 replieshttp://www.peterlik.com/videos
Check out the first one (Mt Baker).
I had a good laugh over this.
- This dude talks a lot with his body about the most banal thing -
snow!
- He is dressed up like not even hobby photographers would do in
such conditions (snow, mountain terrain, low temperatures)
- Given the state his clothes are in, the money he makes with his
photography is limited - the sleeves are missing - oh wait that is
on purpose to show off his muscular arms - even necessary to do
this when it's freezing
- He walks around and poses with his tripod but no camera mounted -
ah - that's where all these muscles come from - hauling around
that heavy tripod with no cam on it...
- The self praising and superlative talk in every section of his
website is ridiculous.
Boy, this is not self marketing anymore, it is self parody...
Is it just my European heritage, or is this really too much?
Regards
Dietrich
Cheers, Andreas.
georg
Thanks for sharing this!
Sandy r
Who else shall we laugh at today? I thought the NPN community was above stuff like this since there is a plenty of it at other photography forums.
Yep, it's a rant.
Phil - I checked some youtube vids - yes indeed the most interesting man in the world must be his father...
Catherine - well what can I do, usually I refrain from such things, but I just could not resist. I am sure he's a nice guy in person, but why the need for "this" kind of self marketing???
Brian - yes I am making fun out of him. I am not at all intimitated by perceived status and success. Too bad I am not even very impressed by his work...
He is doing big bucks. The old adage... it takes money to make money. Is he a better shooter than lot of the folks here at NPN... certainly not, but he has the $$$ to market, and show is stuff off...... if you get to Vegas be sure to check his place out. It is VERY impressive.
JG
Just kidding! I think this video is fair game, especially for this forum. I agree its quite funny, but presumably Lik realizes it's funny, hes a smart guy im sure, so i assume its a calculated marketing ploy. Gives me an idea...ill combine porn with landscape photography....
That being said, the whole "he's the greatest photographer ever" "He is the best photographer in the world" stuff is over the top and totally turns me off to his work (as opposed to being turned on, which may happen if Stan goes through with his new idea!)
- Luke
- Luke
Okay, enough. Like Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."
That being said, the whole "he's the greatest photographer ever" "He is the best photographer in the world" stuff is over the top and totally turns me off to his work (as opposed to being turned on, which may happen if Stan goes through with his new idea!)
- Luke
Hey John
My thoughts exactly ... the same clownish, self-aggrandizing nonsense. Sure, it sells well - so do Big Macs and tickets to see inbred white tigers ride bicycles.
And sure, right here, we can mock that nonsense .. right here, on NPN, right here. :)
Cheers
Carl
No way! I have got to see that...where do i get mine, Carl??
He doesn't have the best rep among other photogs, but he can take a pretty picture here and there and has hit the market that works well for him. No nickle and dime customers, thats for sure....and he does treat his employees well.
Just go on Twitter, you'll find enough photogs patting themselves on the back to all. =)
Catherine - no worries! Yes, this marketing talk by big profit oriented companies is in the same league, and that is my "problem" with Peter Lik. He sells "art" as if it was a car - for me this does not work. I agree with Mike - you can like money and nature. And again, up to everyones own how to make a living. At least Peter Lik makes a good living with his own product and I respect that of course.
The point is, being a photographer myself, I could just never do it they way Peter Lik does it. And yeah he just looks "clownish" doing it.
Like Carl said - because something sells well means it is marketet well and it is an easy-to-consume "product". Not necessarily a measure for quality. Maybe technical quality and well produced. But art in my, view is something else.
I just have that bad habit of getting much more critical if someone "explains" to me how good the stuff is he makes. And since we are all not perfect, and true grandness is not experienced often, I just often come to the conclusion that the words do not agree with what is offered.
This goes a bit further away from the original topic, but I suspect that if a photographer is so market driven and profit-based, then the artistic integrity just takes the backseat. There is this common opinion going on that for true outstanding art, one has to suffer, one has to be poor and one has to be in an unstable (or at least dissatisfied) mental state. I think it comes from the fact that many of the great masters (painters) indeed had a lot of issues, and people correlate this with the quality of their work. I am not fully advocating this view, but I can't help but think it makes a different "art" if you produce it for a market or without restrictive economic considerations.
Recently I was to an exhibition in Vienna - Impressionst paintings. Great work and true art (not just because it was in a musem ;-) ) and what was nice was the fact that next to each painting only the year, the title and the painter's name was written. If the original artist (Renoir, Monet, Van Gogh... you name them) would have commented on their own work like Peter Lik does - boy you get how ridiculous it would sound.
Ok, all for now,
thanks for sharing your views on this!
Regards
Dietrich
I met him once and he answered my question honestly so he's cool by me.
Personally, my photographic goals are to have an impact, raise awareness, and hopefully be able to live semi-comfortably.
I say good on him for being a damn good photographer and an insanely talented marketing genius. His photographs have brought a lot of attention to landscape photography and how fragile these areas are to a large audience.
We should all be so successful.
1)
Just to clarify, I'm mostly on your side concerning the ugly selfpraising of photographers. but I have seen it even from photogs that don't even sell any image at all! you'll also find a great amount of selfpraise on websites of NPN members. it's a free world. (on the www anyways...)
You’re right when you laugh about it, much better then getting upset about it. It ain’t worth it.
2)
you said, that you are a photographer yourself. I don't think so, depending on definiton, of course. You own a camera and are capable of taking (pretty good) pictures. but a photographer you are not. There is much more to it then you might realize.
Peter Lik is one, and with his extreme marketing approach (just consider his HUGE upfront investments in setting up all this galleries - which sure not came from a photography income) he kind of HAS to be such a (even self ironic, to a certain degree) bigmouth. it has nothing to do with the quality of his work or his personality. Speaking for myself, I would NEVER want to trade with him or take his route, but, yes, I do have some respect for that. way too much cashflow, too much hi-society-networking etc.etc. he might make 30 mio $ a year but he makes it by spending probably 50 mio $ and you don’t do that by being lazy. that's pretty tough in my book. if he wasn't rich to begin with, he took big risks.
as for his photography - I would have never found the video, because even though i am aware of his work since many years, I have never checked his website. it's kind of pleasing 08/15 landscape photography. I think, if you would give (f.e.) Marc A. 10 mio $ to invest in that kind of business he would give peter lik a hard time competing - much more defined and recognizeable stuff.
more: if you see the "loud" marketing strategy taken by photographers, you can be very sure the "silent" understating strategy (mainly meaning to let the images speak FOR them) didn't work out with them. that might tell you something, too.
an even more: one of my favorite painters is william turner, and he was more the peter lik kind of guy. very cash oriented. still, I believe he was a great artist.
its the samo samo story, the world aint just black or white, not even tons of greyscales but trillions and trillions of colors.
and last but not least, I believe you have ALL THE RIGHTS IN THE WORLD to bring this topic up here on NPN. if not here where else? I even thank you for that, much more entertaining thread then the usual. (it reminded me of an old gary larson cartoon – ‘the meeting of the people who didn’t like “dances with the wolves” ‘.. check it out)
georg
I try the silent approach (trying to get a website ready and then wait and see what happens). With a “guesstimated” probability 99.9999% nothing will happen, particularly in Austria, but the point is that I think I enjoy the absolute freedom I have with what I choose as subject and how I present it and I think (like to think) it is what I am as “photographer” and what defines my work.
And here I agree also – I would never trade with Peter Lik, because it would mean to trade my photography with his money – I would never would do this! ;-)
Sorry if some don't like to discuss this here. I am not meaning to offend anyone. But critically remarking some observed habits of photographers should be possible I think.
Dietrich
I have to defend Didl a little bit - not just as a friend but we also talked on the phone about the videos even before he posted them here and I know what the idea about the posting here is. We both agreed that these videos will find an audience and that it's even a clever marketing approach to do it this way. His images aren't bad either - we even agreed on that. So it's all about the videos here and the way he presents them and himself inside of them. He could be a great guy, an awesome photographer and probably a clever salesman - the videos by themselves are hilarious anyway.
Just watch the videos and take them them for what they are ... every other topic is a different discussion.
Cheers, Andreas.
The Aussie accent does immediately draw comparisons to Steve Irwin. For the style used, I think Peter stacks up well.
If someone can create interest in nature photography, they create interest in nature. Interest in nature leads to interest in preserving it. I don't see any of this as a bad thing.
Thanks also Jim for your perspective, no disagreement and a very positive and anti-cynic (yes I am a cynic) attitude. I only stick to my original opinion that no matter you do – please do it with some coherence and self-pride and awareness of the actuall quality and content of your product. There is no need to make a clown out of yourself in pursuit of commercial success and exposure to the public. Here in Austria we have a way to much of such people (politicians, “high-society” etc), but they do not claim that they are a) “artists” and b) the best of the best. And this is what makes me laugh about this guy.
"He walks around and poses with his tripod but no camera mounted -
ah - that's where all these muscles come from - hauling around
that heavy tripod with no cam on it..."
The only time I saw him with a tripod in the video he was also wearing a black backpack.
that being said those videos are funny, but he's making the money and his work is great!
I think he can wear that outfit in the cold because he has a "specially" made helicopter with a hot tub in it!
And then he introduced me to Lik himself, who happened to be on site that day, working out some of the logistics of this new venue. He was very pleasant, and after talking photography with him (I pumped him for a bunch of questions about his preferred 617 format, something I had only vague knowledge of at the time), I told him that his gallery was very impressive but that, in my opinion, he'd chosen a poor location. That perked his ears up, and he asked me why I felt that way. I told him that Pier 39 was basically a tourist trap, and a low-end one at that. (If you've been there, you know what I mean; cotton candy and inexpensive souvenirs are the order of the day.) Meanwhile he's trying to sell four-figure prints. I told him his gallery belonged in a different part of The City...or maybe across the bay in Sausalito or down the coast in Carmel. I'd picked up a book he was selling; he offered to sign it (I accepted) and I wished him the best of luck and I went on my way.
A couple of years later something spurred me to check his Web site and I noticed that the SF gallery was gone. Now I'm not saying that my unsolicited advice was the reason
If he was still in the midst of figuring this aspect of the business out nine years ago, he seems to have more or less mastered it at this point.
Thanks for sharding your story Kerry! I know the place - Pier 39 - and as a tourist I like it a lot ;-) I have been to the Rodney Lough Gallery there, also visited Rodneys Gallery in Sausalito. I was there with Chris Chamberlain, later Lon and Ben Glatt joined. Chris and I were discussing and exchanging thoughts regarding digital photography, the pale look of raw files and the need for processing and photoshop - kinda implying that every photographer does processing work. Ha, then the employee answered that Rodney and Peter Lik once shared a Gallery - might have been at Pier 39 - and as I understood it they parted ways cause they got into a disagreement regarding "purist" and "cheating" approach - I am not telling who accused whom... ;-)
All I say is I like Rodneys work much more and although he is also pretty big with marketing-words, it's dwarfed by what Lik does...
"He walks around and poses with his tripod but no camera mounted -
ah - that's where all these muscles come from - hauling around
that heavy tripod with no cam on it..."
The only time I saw him with a tripod in the video he was also wearing a black backpack.
The mind boggles.
As some others indicated, they sell big time work, but I doubt their work will be considered consequential 50 years after they've passed. In both cases, its mostly (IMO) postcard art printed extremely large and I don't think the soul of the photographer speaks through the prints much if at all. There is a big difference between their work and the work of Gregory Crewdson or Jeff Wall, though all of them are probably comparable in terms of financial success and brand recognition. Certainly Peter Lik has put alot on the line to expand his retail network and his retail shops are impressive, but that also puts him in a situation where he may be severely leveraged if he has not paid back his creditors. With great risks may come great rewards, but the collapse can be spectacular as well.
Georg alluded to an idea that you cannot be a photographer if it is not your primary source of income, but I think this is a completely invalid statement. In painting, Clifford Still is considered one of the most important transforming forces in American painting, and yet I don't think he ever sold much of his work. He was a teaching painter first and foremost. There is another example of such a painter in Paris, but unfortunately I cannot think of his name at the moment and couldn't find it with a quick Google search. His home has become a museum up near Montmartre and he taught many famous painters, but did not make it his business to sell his own work. Alfred Stieglitz and Eliot Porter are a couple examples of photographers who were independently wealthy and not only photographers. Was Eliot Porter a photographer in the 30s when teaching bio-chemistry at Harvard but exhibiting at American Place? What about the 10 years from the American Place exhibit to the time he found a publisher for his bird photography book or the next ten years while he developed the material for "In Wildness..."
In my opinion, having financial independence from ones photography can allow the artist to show something more pure and personal in the same way that photographers who have separated their commercial photography from their personal have maintained uncompromising artistic strength in their personal work. Ansel Adams is not remembered for his commercial work which he pointedly kept apart from his personal, but it put a roof over his head and food on his family's table for most of his life. His real commercial success through his personal artistic photography came much later for the most part. Of course one could argue that much of his commercial success came from the early artistic success, and there is truth in that argument as well.
There may be just as much chance that it would inspire someone to extract the value from these natural places through development, tourism or though personal consumption. In my days of consulting and travel, it was my impression that most urban easterners do not understand or appreciate the openness of the American West and the public lands we enjoy as part of our lifestyle and heritage. I also sensed that most urban centric folks were not interested in the wild, and thought it was insane one would wish to go there leaving the comforts of home behind. They'll gladly visit a resort, but have little interest in extending beyond that.
I agree with Mel. I don't think Georg stated that with any ill will, but that kind of sentiment bothers me. Many of us here live and breathe nature photography and it is our passion in life. Yet, many of us support ourselves through other means. That doesn't mean we are not "photographers". It just means we don't make all of our living doing it. I have great respect for those who hack out a living with small or great success doing nature photography, but I don't see those folks as being the only "true" photographers out there. Just a different kind.
Just my two cents
"In my opinion, having financial independence from ones photography can allow the artist to show something more pure and personal in the same way that photographers who have separated their commercial photography from their personal have maintained uncompromising artistic strength in their personal work"
"In both cases, its mostly (IMO) postcard art printed extremely large and I don't think the soul of the photographer speaks through the prints much if at all."
100% Agreement!
As for Georg's comment - as I said, I only agree if by "Photographer" one is meant who does it as "business" in one way or another. I think he meant that for me as a hobby photographer with 100% independence it is not fair to judge the marketing-approaches professional photographers take to make their income, and he has a point.
But indeed it depends on the definition. And certainly one who makes photographs with ambition and personal vision is a photographer no matter what. And he understands the difference between creating for the sake of creation and personal expression as opposed to "producing" for the sake of making money. And this is the concept I use to detect the inconsitencies between the "talk" and the "walk".
By the way - found another vid on you tube. He talks about "wilderness", the "extremes" and that "death" and danger is part of his approach. Then he is seen walking atop of mesa arch, on the rim of grand canyon and in front of horse shoe bend and in Yosemite. My mother also has been to all these places in the last 10 years, she now is 69 years old. And all the time his camera team is with him - sure easy to do this is "remote" wilderness. If I want to give the impression in a vid that my work is dangerous and the result of choosing places no other human soul except me (because of my sheer talent and attitude) can access, then I probably should not make my vids in places with wheel chair accessability. But that is just me of course..
Mel, Daniel: I did by no means, write, you have to make a living from photography in order to be a photographer in my opinion. (thats just your assumption or (rather quick) interpretation. I just wrote it takes more then to go out occasionally and take pictures. even if "occasionally" means quite often and the results are fine. there is much more to it, but its not the subject of this topic and too time consuming to explain here, I'm afraid...
while I certainly do make a living from landscape photography, I know many, many photographer-friends and colleagues who do not. (or not exclusively)
But, come on, please dont bring up Elliot Porter or Alfred Stieglitz to compare with Didl! this would be unfair to begin with.
what I also think is, it's rather difficult to make any comparsions between photographers and painters (especially those from past centuries) even when the medium itself seems to be similar - it's not. don't befooled by that. It's even hard enough to make valid comparsions between photographers of different genres. (fashion, landscpae, wildlife, food, stock, portraits - whatever - you name it)
but the theory, that hobbyists (or rich folks) have more freedom and therefore produce more artful work is beyond me...
I can agree with ALL that Mel said (except the part about my own statement...) - he just expressed it better.
over and out
georg
Cheers,
Andreas
There is a spectrum of course, don’t put this so black and white. I am not saying that all this necessarily leads to a bad product or to a “lesser art”. It also depends on the definition of “art” of course.
I just don’t buy the claim that there is absolutely zero influence on the kind of subject matter, the location, the way the subject is presented when having commercial success in mind.
What about this comparison:
Dan Brown vs. Oscar Wilde
You stated it yourself: Peter Lik’s work is standard US. Landscape photography – of course it is! Because he knows that this is what sells well and that is the basis of his living. But one has to acklowledge that he does it on a very high and professional level. That's why people buy it. But sure he thinks of course that he has a very creative and unique approach. Like we all think of us. Everyone that creates and shows it to the world with the aim to please the aesthetic demand of other people has to be convinced that his work is worth being seen. That’s narcissism, but I can live well with it. At the end of the day it is in the eye of those who consume it. Art - in my definition - is not about illustrating for someone else – but for your own inner drive to create and express – everything else that comes into the motivation for creating something affects the final look of the work, but not necessarily in a bad way.
I like what Oscar Wilde wrote:
“We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless”
Open to everyone’s own interpretation, just so much “useful” = “sellable”...
Georg:
"just wrote it takes more then to go out occasionally and take pictures. even if "occasionally" means quite often and the results are fine. there is much more to it, but its not the subject of this topic and too time consuming to explain here, I'm afraid... "
Well then I got you wrong. It was not about what I thought you mean.
As for not being a photographer - well then I am one that photographs images with photographic equipment which are received by other photographers as decent photographs. If this does not make me a photographer, then what?
Try to explain, don't be afraid, as you see I am interested in this subject and this is the place and thread to do it.
Dietrich
I just don't have the time for writing all this here on NPN, sorry.
georg
I don't believe that only successful artists are good artists or that financial ties to the art prevent one from creating new, significant and insightful work. Toulouse-Lautrec is just such an example of a commercial artist whose commercial work was itself significant.
And Salvador Dali is an example of a painter whose ego was too big to fit in any room and whose life itself was made into spectacle and caricature. He was a joke even to himself, and yet he maintains a position as a significant painter.
And sometimes all of these perceptions become lost over time as history chooses the version of the artist to portray and discards the inconvenient portions.
But I do stand by the idea that in our modern advertising, consumerism driven society that those who successfully make art on commission and for personal reasons ofter develop two different styles and at times split personalities. Commercial work is often done to meet the needs or wants of the underwriter or patron, though the artist definitely spills into the work. But the personal work is done solely to fulfill their desire to create what is in their mind and it is often richer in character, more reflective of their interior self and more insightful. This is by no means a rule, just an observation. I'm sure I could find an example of a wildly creative commercial artist whose personal interior is vapid or repulsive and who would be best left to their commercial efforts.
I do have to say that I spent some time in one of his galleries. I think the imagery is stunning!
So why not let it and his achievements do the talking? I was pretty close to throwing down a few grand for two images!!!! Now, I'm glad I exercised some self control. But that aside the images are very nice in my opinion.
I think if you are proficient with your equipment, and can go out and capture a technically correct image related to exposure, and focus. And if you have an eye for composition, and aesthetics, that translates into imagery that connects with you, or a viewing audience, then you are a photographer. I don't think it takes one cent of income, or a gallery, or publication, or recognition of any kind to qualify that! Maybe a photographer on a different level than one that has achieved some, or all of the above criteria, but still a photographer.
What percentage of known photographers out there, are at the income level of Peter Lik? I only know of a handful of landscape/nature photogs that even come close. The late Galen Rowell, Thomas Mangleson, Art Wolfe, Frans Lanting, who else? What fraction of one percent of the rest do these guys represent? I think somewhere in the rest of the 99.99999 percent there are some that are better. There are a number of folks here on NPN that have ability and style that I like better. Sometimes when you do it purely for passion, and fulfillment is when you are at your best.
I recieved a book "A Shadow Falls" by Nick Brandt. I highly recoment this book to anyone that loves nature. The images are some of the most compelling, and emotionally stimulating images of wildlife that I have ever seen! Until now, I had never heard of him. I imagine he has realized some significant success.
Chris