At least Peter Lik's was an almost appealing image... Still a very interesting read regarding the value of art and how photography fits into that category.
Posted by Peter Coskun on November 15, 2011 at 3:49 PM
I still don't know what goes through peoples minds when they spend money. That image is not worth that much and I don't care how well known the photographer is. I am still stunned to this day when I first entered the Peter Lik gallery at cesar's palace in Las Vegas and asked how much his image "tree of life" was going for (new release at the time) and was told it was 25k at any size. I don't know about all of you but that seemed ludicrous to me. I have seen better images and far more unique ones of that same exact tree for A LOT less money. I can understand a few thousand dollars for a large print that will last a lifetime but once it goes into double digit k's then I think it's a bit extreme (IMO). I suppose it's all about the marketing and the audience your shooting for, which for Lik are athlete's, celebs, and political figures with money to throw around. And while some may disagree with me, I have always said Peter Lik is a far superior marketing genius than he is an artist. Some of his work is steller, but for the most part I have seen the same places over and over and images that are far superior in terms of originality and light. Again all personal opinions so please don't bring out the pitchforks on me
Posted by Chris Rice on November 15, 2011 at 4:09 PM
Aleks, you ought to change the title of this thread, as the 'tone' of it seems negative, to me...
Like Peter said, Peter Lik is a fantastic marketer, but that doesn't mean he's not a good artist. You know why? Because he shoots iconic locations that many people have been to in their travels. They buy it because Peter has built a personal connection between himself and the buyer. Brilliant idea really, if you are making a living from nature photography.
The enjoyment of having something expensive is a psychological phenomenon (presumably for most of us), that acts on the pleasure centers - a thrill of having the best - and obviously having the financial resources without guilt. The thing is people BUY it. You can scratch your head all you want, but its true. The photo subject could be a image of a piece of dogshit and SOMEBODY would still buy it.
I think we all like to disparage the big marketers because we're just plain jealous of them - who wouldn't want to be Peter Lik? What an awesome gig!!!!
Photography is art, also a science, a discipline of documentation -
Posted by Joe Rogers on November 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM
Stories like this raise the perceived value for landscape photography in the eyes of the buying public and benefit all who are selling their work in my opinion. More power to him.
Joe Rogers
Posted by Stan Rose on November 15, 2011 at 10:08 PM
Similar thread in the main NPN discussion
I totally agree with Peter.
I agree with Chris--but I don't want to be Peter Lik.
I partly agree with Joe--attention given to photography ostensibly should benefit all of us.
I would agree more with the author of this article if he had bothered to use Spell-Check
I became more familiar with Gursky's work as a result of this 'controversy', and some of it is quite interesting--I agree that this particular photo aint exactly the Cat's meow.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on November 15, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Err, Stan, it's Gursky not Gorsky.
Spellcheck probably won't help with that one.
Posted by Brian Jackson on November 16, 2011 at 1:30 AM
This stuff cracks me up. Its the name of the person who took the photo, not the photo that's selling. Almost all the top paying photos are crap, but yup, someone will buy them and someone will pay lots of money as well for the name.
Discussion
6 repliesAt least Peter Lik's was an almost appealing image... Still a very interesting read regarding the value of art and how photography fits into that category.
Like Peter said, Peter Lik is a fantastic marketer, but that doesn't mean he's not a good artist. You know why? Because he shoots iconic locations that many people have been to in their travels. They buy it because Peter has built a personal connection between himself and the buyer. Brilliant idea really, if you are making a living from nature photography.
The enjoyment of having something expensive is a psychological phenomenon (presumably for most of us), that acts on the pleasure centers - a thrill of having the best - and obviously having the financial resources without guilt. The thing is people BUY it. You can scratch your head all you want, but its true. The photo subject could be a image of a piece of dogshit and SOMEBODY would still buy it.
I think we all like to disparage the big marketers because we're just plain jealous of them - who wouldn't want to be Peter Lik? What an awesome gig!!!!
Photography is art, also a science, a discipline of documentation -
Joe Rogers
I totally agree with Peter.
I agree with Chris--but I don't want to be Peter Lik.
I partly agree with Joe--attention given to photography ostensibly should benefit all of us.
I would agree more with the author of this article if he had bothered to use Spell-Check
I became more familiar with Gursky's work as a result of this 'controversy', and some of it is quite interesting--I agree that this particular photo aint exactly the Cat's meow.
Spellcheck probably won't help with that one.
Stan's post made me laugh.