Posted by Gary Reed on February 23, 2015 at 3:00 PM
I always said I had a 6.5 million shot laying around my house somewhere too....
Posted by D.A. Edwards on February 23, 2015 at 6:58 PM
I'd never even heard of the guy until I happened upon the original story in the NYT. My first thought upon reading it was that here was a career arc that would make Thomas Kincaide proud.
@ Gary, ya me too, although I miss placed it last week and I had to settle on a lesser sale. You know how it is when you've got so many of them laying around, or maybe the word is "lying" around, I just can't recall........
@ Dave, what's really sad is that Peter started out as just a good photographer and some how became more of a pitch man I guess you'd say. He's been in the Vegas area for years now as I recall.
He might have taken on the adage I heard from an excellent pro-photog years ago. I've stated this numerous times I know, but it still resonates to this day.
I was a photo seminar in the 90's down in San Diego. The presenter at a coffee break stated to me about his competitors: "it's not the better photographer that I have trouble with, it's the better salesperson". How true those words were.....
Posted by Keith Bauer on February 23, 2015 at 9:16 PM
There is nothing in that article that says the sale is a fraud. It does point out that he is very good at marketing. Believe me, I'm not a Peter Lik fan, but he clearly knows how to sell images.
Posted by Mark Seaver on February 23, 2015 at 10:05 PM
Interesting that you posted this, Paul. I read it yesterday and thought about posting a link. My major take home is that there are a lot of rich folks with more money than sense, otherwise no one would fall for his sales push and the sales tactic of increasing the price as more prints sell. (That's actually the opposite of most of the art world as the earlier prints in an edition are considered to show more details and better colors due to degradation of the plates, negatives, etc.) As the owner of two original prints by well (??) known photographers, I bought them because I really enjoyed the images, not because I expected them to appreciate in value.
@Keith, you're correct. However the title of the article was stated as "New York Times Exposes Peter Lik Photography Fraud". And you're also correct about his "salesmanship", a point I made in a comment back to Dave about another pro-photographer I met years ago.
Also, as I recall Peter started out like many photographers and actually has grassroots beginning with some nice work overall, so that cannot be taken away IMO.
@Mark, ya I was not too understanding about that point either, as time goes by and less product the price and value goes up. I mean I understand the prospective goal there. Like lets say there were only three 1963 split window Corvette Stingrays left being sold with zero miles on the odometer. Well now, who knows where that would end up in price and value.
Additionally, the more I've run across articles there is no "resale" value established on Peter's works, so it is only worth what one is willing to pay at the time and nothing more.
I guess I could stand corrected on the no "resale" value established. Although, unless it's sold or resold again it is only worth what one will pay at the time.
Here is a link that shows what appears to be a lot of folks trying to sell his works. Still shaking my head on this one.....
Posted by David Chauvin on February 24, 2015 at 10:28 AM
According to a recent NYT article, the highest price paid for a Lik print at auction is $15,860. The big dollars are paid through his galleries and in the wider art world his prints have a much lower dollar value. Not a problem for Lik's bottom line but anyone buying one expecting increasing value is probably going to be disappointed but stranger things have happened.
Posted by Bill Chambers on February 25, 2015 at 9:29 AM
Peter Lik himself is a fraud in my mind. There are much better artists here on NPN and other places. He's no Master Photographer that's for sure, but he is a master at marketing.
@David, ya I saw that auction price too and wondered who would spend that kind of money and what the print actually was in the end. But, then again, it's worth what people are willing to pay I guess.
@Bill,.......could not have said it any better. Maybe it's just me. But seeing the prints represented in the broker's listing that had scenes double exposed and with lens flare too, .....say what? Again, maybe it's just me and I need to start double exposing things on purpose, or better yet triple expose with sheets of 4x5. It would save the cost of the sheet film & processing and heck I get three images on one sheet.....
Discussion
10 replies$6.5 million sale a fraud
@ Dave, what's really sad is that Peter started out as just a good photographer and some how became more of a pitch man I guess you'd say. He's been in the Vegas area for years now as I recall.
He might have taken on the adage I heard from an excellent pro-photog years ago. I've stated this numerous times I know, but it still resonates to this day.
I was a photo seminar in the 90's down in San Diego. The presenter at a coffee break stated to me about his competitors: "it's not the better photographer that I have trouble with, it's the better salesperson". How true those words were.....
Also, as I recall Peter started out like many photographers and actually has grassroots beginning with some nice work overall, so that cannot be taken away IMO.
@Mark, ya I was not too understanding about that point either, as time goes by and less product the price and value goes up. I mean I understand the prospective goal there. Like lets say there were only three 1963 split window Corvette Stingrays left being sold with zero miles on the odometer. Well now, who knows where that would end up in price and value.
Additionally, the more I've run across articles there is no "resale" value established on Peter's works, so it is only worth what one is willing to pay at the time and nothing more.
Here is a link that shows what appears to be a lot of folks trying to sell his works. Still shaking my head on this one.....
Peter Lik Art Work
@Bill,.......could not have said it any better. Maybe it's just me. But seeing the prints represented in the broker's listing that had scenes double exposed and with lens flare too, .....say what? Again, maybe it's just me and I need to start double exposing things on purpose, or better yet triple expose with sheets of 4x5. It would save the cost of the sheet film & processing and heck I get three images on one sheet.....