Bill McCarthy
Member
Any comments on Peter Lik's 6.5 million doilar sale of "Phantom" this past November?
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
expensive photograph
- Thread starter Bill McCarthy
- Start date
Don Ferguson Jr.
Well-known member
Lik had a good day his Illusion ($2.4 million) and Eternal Moods ($1.1 million) were also sold to the same buyer. 
Don
Don
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
Hi Bill,
I'd say, good for him. I hope the buyer enjoys his new print(s), and that they don't deteriorate too fast over time.
Cheers,
Bart
Wolfgang Plattner
Well-known member
Yet no one knows what really happened ...
Bill McCarthy
Member
Yet no one knows what really happened ...
Hmmm. Got any ideas as to possibilities?
Wolfgang Plattner
Well-known member
Just rumors that say that those pics may even not have been sold ...
Tom dinning
Registrant*
Does a person need to have $6.5m to decide that something else is worth that much?
I have $700 in my account at the moment. I'd buy the print for at least half that.
I have $700 in my account at the moment. I'd buy the print for at least half that.
Andy brown
Well-known member
$700, woohoo! Party at your place Tom!
Yeah, good luck to him I guess. I guess!!
Peter Lik is an adopted Aussie son so it really is good to see him doing well.
But $millions for his prints? I can't say, I haven't seen the print/s and the guy clearly has one part of the prerequisites of success (marketing and creating some kind of buzz) cornered.
He must have improved out of sight and again, good luck to him but I can think of whole books he's done that have sold really well which don't contain a single shot that would compare artistically, or compositionally with anything Maris or Tom (to name a couple Aussies) would be particularly proud of.
A waterfall, a sweeping beach, wide angle, panoramic, colour saturated, not rocket science.
End sour grape session.
Yeah, good luck to him I guess. I guess!!
Peter Lik is an adopted Aussie son so it really is good to see him doing well.
But $millions for his prints? I can't say, I haven't seen the print/s and the guy clearly has one part of the prerequisites of success (marketing and creating some kind of buzz) cornered.
He must have improved out of sight and again, good luck to him but I can think of whole books he's done that have sold really well which don't contain a single shot that would compare artistically, or compositionally with anything Maris or Tom (to name a couple Aussies) would be particularly proud of.
A waterfall, a sweeping beach, wide angle, panoramic, colour saturated, not rocket science.
End sour grape session.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Yet no one knows what really happened ...
Wolfgang,
What makes you suspicious? do the prices seem to high for this fellows work?
Asher
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well, the photograph is noticeable and different.
A critic Jonathan Jones from the Guardian of London, (a paper with political views generally so opposite to mine), said the following in his December 10, 2014 piece. “Peter Lik’s hollow, cliched and tasteless black and white shot of an Arizona canyon isn’t art, and proves that photography never will be.”
That complicates the debate, for sure!
There's no reason why photography cannot be art, either privately celebrated, publicly acknowledged or mistakenly overvalued in commercial sales.
It's a fact of life that well known artists using real painter's paint and/or sculptural media, are often dead before their work fetches such astronomical amounts. Also, there is a very limited supply of classical artwork. It's mostly already in collections or museums. Photography, however, provide an easy avenue for galleries to "create" a market amongst their mailing lists of followers. The money tied up in the pictures can be very small. Unlike a major painting which represents months of an artist's time, most photographs have just 2-20 hours of work in their production and one can readily have an edition of 3, 6 or 10 important works with little to no incremental cost in obtaining these extra copies. As a result, selling "special" photography to one's eager followers has become very profitable for galleries who have mastered all the necessary components of making gold out of "photography as Art".
I am not sure that what is presented as the best photography is really deserving of their standing, but at least, it does establish that photography can be very financially rewarding if one can be good enough and lucky enough to coordinate the necessary alignment of the stars!
Asher
Wolfgang Plattner
Well-known member
Hi,
for me it is a fine piece of photograph. I like it.
But I don't like the money-bubble around it, the rumors that say, that the selling circumstances are possibly a fake created by Mr Lik himself ...
for me it is a fine piece of photograph. I like it.
But I don't like the money-bubble around it, the rumors that say, that the selling circumstances are possibly a fake created by Mr Lik himself ...
Don Ferguson Jr.
Well-known member
Forbes ain't Rolling Stone.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelh...expensive-photograph-arizona-antelope-canyon/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelh...expensive-photograph-arizona-antelope-canyon/
Robert Watcher
Well-known member
My personal feeling has always been that the "dollar" value of something in our current society, is only what people will pay for it. So if someone has paid $6million dollars, that is the value isn't it. I could have the greatest work in the world and if no one is willing to give me 2 cents, then that is what it is worth to anyone other than myself. I really don't concern myself with what self-professed experts think on such things.
If I didn't feel that way, when I was in the prime of my professional portrait and wedding career, I would never have ben able to ask for and justify people paying $5,000 or $7,000 to have me shoot a wedding for half a day - or pay me $2,500 for a 40x60 print - - - but because someone initially paid those prices I knew that was the value of my photography. And most of the money paid for a wedding or portrait went to my skill and ability, not what I provided them in tangible products.
I always joked that I would be my own worst customer - I could never afford my prices. I was just a small player in a small town market that was loaded with "pros" doing wedding still for $395 including album and doubling the $2.00 cost of an 8x10 print to make a profit.
I knew nothing about this sale until this post - - - and my first search sent me to this satirical summary on PetaPixel, of the extreme opinions viewpoints being argued back and forth:
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/13/just-peter-liks-record-breaking-photo-sale-may-constitute-torture/
If I didn't feel that way, when I was in the prime of my professional portrait and wedding career, I would never have ben able to ask for and justify people paying $5,000 or $7,000 to have me shoot a wedding for half a day - or pay me $2,500 for a 40x60 print - - - but because someone initially paid those prices I knew that was the value of my photography. And most of the money paid for a wedding or portrait went to my skill and ability, not what I provided them in tangible products.
I always joked that I would be my own worst customer - I could never afford my prices. I was just a small player in a small town market that was loaded with "pros" doing wedding still for $395 including album and doubling the $2.00 cost of an 8x10 print to make a profit.
I knew nothing about this sale until this post - - - and my first search sent me to this satirical summary on PetaPixel, of the extreme opinions viewpoints being argued back and forth:
http://petapixel.com/2014/12/13/just-peter-liks-record-breaking-photo-sale-may-constitute-torture/
Bill McCarthy
Member
Art
When I posted this, my thought was that this was significant in advancing the photography as art issue. I think it really does. To much of the public, money describes value.
As far a the Jonathan Jones comment, There are millions of critics with millions of opinions, but for the most part, they are not "shopping" for art. Many just want to play their role in the creation of art (which is ok if they like what I do). My sister was one of my harshest critics. After seeing a painting of mine in the '60s that had received international attention, she said "I don't have to taste a stiking egg to know it's rotten" (she's one of my biggest fans now).
The conversation about photography as art has helped all of us working with images.
When I posted this, my thought was that this was significant in advancing the photography as art issue. I think it really does. To much of the public, money describes value.
As far a the Jonathan Jones comment, There are millions of critics with millions of opinions, but for the most part, they are not "shopping" for art. Many just want to play their role in the creation of art (which is ok if they like what I do). My sister was one of my harshest critics. After seeing a painting of mine in the '60s that had received international attention, she said "I don't have to taste a stiking egg to know it's rotten" (she's one of my biggest fans now).
The conversation about photography as art has helped all of us working with images.
James Lemon
Well-known member
I found this link to be an interesting read.
http://blakeandrews.blogspot.ca/2014/12/tortured-logic.html
http://blakeandrews.blogspot.ca/2014/12/tortured-logic.html
Maris Rusis
Member
I'll believe the $6.5 million sale price when Peter Lik shows the world the cheque made out to the IRS covering his tax obligation on the deal.
Tom dinning
Registrant*
I could get on my high horse here and suggest the buyer, or any buyer with that much money to waste on a photograph might consider the number of houses that could be built for the homeless, or how much scientific research into a well known disease, or maybe a school or two in a remote community.
Whether we call it art or not is irrelevant. Calling it art justifies the wasteful spending on someone's ego. Sure, it's their money. Do I give a ****? Probably. The argument about art and photography is a dead horse. It really isn't worth the oxygen. Nor is the value of a piece of paper. Stupid people will spend stupid money on stupid things. They probably feel good about it.
I don't know Lik from a bar of soap. He might be a nice bloke. His photos are trite, boring, hackneyed, commercial wall paper, suitable for calendars, post cards and to hang above the couch next to the TV. He's about as innovative as cat piss in a litter tray. He needed to go to America to be 'recognised'. We're too smart for him here.
And if he's conning us he aught to be congratulated for sucking in enough customers to keep his name in lights. Few will remember him when the lights are off.
Whether we call it art or not is irrelevant. Calling it art justifies the wasteful spending on someone's ego. Sure, it's their money. Do I give a ****? Probably. The argument about art and photography is a dead horse. It really isn't worth the oxygen. Nor is the value of a piece of paper. Stupid people will spend stupid money on stupid things. They probably feel good about it.
I don't know Lik from a bar of soap. He might be a nice bloke. His photos are trite, boring, hackneyed, commercial wall paper, suitable for calendars, post cards and to hang above the couch next to the TV. He's about as innovative as cat piss in a litter tray. He needed to go to America to be 'recognised'. We're too smart for him here.
And if he's conning us he aught to be congratulated for sucking in enough customers to keep his name in lights. Few will remember him when the lights are off.
Bill McCarthy
Member
Alain Briot
pro member
We should not forget that these are all primary market sales. The value of art, or of any product for that matter, is defined by both primary and secondary market sales, with the primary market establishing the current retail value and the secondary market establishing the historical investment value.
There is nothing wrong buying something on the primary market a record breaking retail pricing. This is a frequent event in the world of luxury. However, the historical investment value can only be defined by looking at how products from the same company, or in this instance pieces from the same artist, are faring on the secondary market.
We should also remind ourselves that while the primary market is 'closed', because prices are defined by the seller, the secondary market is '0pen', because prices are defined by offer and demand. The secondary market is therefore representative of the actual value of the object in the context of a large field of interested parties, while the primary market is representative of the value in the eyes of a limited number of individuals. In other words, on the secondary market prices are defined by mutual consent, often under the format of public auctions, while in the primary market prices can be defined by intentionally rarefied availabilty with the prices defined solely by the seller or through an agreement between buyer and seller.
There is nothing wrong buying something on the primary market a record breaking retail pricing. This is a frequent event in the world of luxury. However, the historical investment value can only be defined by looking at how products from the same company, or in this instance pieces from the same artist, are faring on the secondary market.
We should also remind ourselves that while the primary market is 'closed', because prices are defined by the seller, the secondary market is '0pen', because prices are defined by offer and demand. The secondary market is therefore representative of the actual value of the object in the context of a large field of interested parties, while the primary market is representative of the value in the eyes of a limited number of individuals. In other words, on the secondary market prices are defined by mutual consent, often under the format of public auctions, while in the primary market prices can be defined by intentionally rarefied availabilty with the prices defined solely by the seller or through an agreement between buyer and seller.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Alain,
You make a great distinction and it's worth emphasizing:
The gallerist or the private dealer gets exclusive access to a living photographer's work and markets them to its list of exclusive rich collectors. It's a group gamble, but likely to be fairly safe! Best you should really love hte photograph! The clients here trust the gallerist because of reputation and standing and believe that the picture will be worth at least what they pay for it on a secondary market, but really, it's a considerable risk in the beginning for a relatively unknown photographer. An exhibition with 30-40 photographs at $40,000 each at first offering is acceptable for upper level galleries. Within 2 years such pictures will be selling for $65,000 at that gallery. That "confirms" the impression of increase in value as promised.
As Alain points out, the test for the gallery and the first buyers is what happens to painting reaching an auction house. Here there is no longer and exclusive arrangement and that picture has to compete with thousands of others in the open market of competing buyers. Id the gallerist predicted well, then those pictures he sold for $40,000 with sell for that or more or may not sell at all unless that gallery slips in and rebuys it for itself to protect its stock!
Asher
You make a great distinction and it's worth emphasizing:
"Primary market prices can be defined by intentionally rarefied availability with the prices defined solely by the seller."'
The gallerist or the private dealer gets exclusive access to a living photographer's work and markets them to its list of exclusive rich collectors. It's a group gamble, but likely to be fairly safe! Best you should really love hte photograph! The clients here trust the gallerist because of reputation and standing and believe that the picture will be worth at least what they pay for it on a secondary market, but really, it's a considerable risk in the beginning for a relatively unknown photographer. An exhibition with 30-40 photographs at $40,000 each at first offering is acceptable for upper level galleries. Within 2 years such pictures will be selling for $65,000 at that gallery. That "confirms" the impression of increase in value as promised.
As Alain points out, the test for the gallery and the first buyers is what happens to painting reaching an auction house. Here there is no longer and exclusive arrangement and that picture has to compete with thousands of others in the open market of competing buyers. Id the gallerist predicted well, then those pictures he sold for $40,000 with sell for that or more or may not sell at all unless that gallery slips in and rebuys it for itself to protect its stock!
Asher
Alain Briot
pro member
And in the case discussed here, the artist is selling through his own galleries, thereby bypassing the need to have a pricing agreement with an independently operated gallery or the need to compare his prices to those of other artists represented by the same gallery. This in effect gives total pricing freedom to the artist. The only necessity is finding a single buyer willing to pay the asking price. if your client list is 'adequate,' and you set your highest prices carefully, this is not a significant problem.
In practice this approach is no different than offering a whopper, a process that I describe in my book Mastering Landscape Photography and that I recommend all artists and photographers use as part of their marketing arsenal.
http://beautiful-landscape.com/Ebooks-Books-1-2-3.html
In practice this approach is no different than offering a whopper, a process that I describe in my book Mastering Landscape Photography and that I recommend all artists and photographers use as part of their marketing arsenal.
http://beautiful-landscape.com/Ebooks-Books-1-2-3.html
Alain Briot
pro member
The problem with the example discussed here is how to establish actual value. A reliable way to establish actual value in through the auction process. Very important advantages are offered by the auction process. It goes like this.
Suppose you want to buy a specific object, say a rare, uncommon or collectible car for example (although this applies to many other type of objects). If you look at the classified ads, and you find one listed at say $1 million, how do you know that the car is worth one million? Because the seller is aking for it? Because other cars of similar make, model and condition have sold at this price before? Because it has been appraised for this value? If so, how do you know that the price fetched for prior sales is still valid now or that the appraised value is correct? How do you know this price is not higher, or lower today?
Fact is, you don't know because you rely on information that is either uni-sided (the sellers' opinion) or outdated (past sales) or on expert knowledge based on facts that may or may not be relevant to the buying community.
The value of an auction is that when the object is offered for sale, the sale is public, takes place in real time, with all the buyers in the same room or on the telephone. At that time, through the bidding process, there is a consensual agreement among bidders that the object is worth a specific price. This decision is not unisided, is not based on prior sales, and is not solely based on expert opinion. Instead, it is based on what interested parties are willing to pay for it right here right now.
Suppose you want to buy a specific object, say a rare, uncommon or collectible car for example (although this applies to many other type of objects). If you look at the classified ads, and you find one listed at say $1 million, how do you know that the car is worth one million? Because the seller is aking for it? Because other cars of similar make, model and condition have sold at this price before? Because it has been appraised for this value? If so, how do you know that the price fetched for prior sales is still valid now or that the appraised value is correct? How do you know this price is not higher, or lower today?
Fact is, you don't know because you rely on information that is either uni-sided (the sellers' opinion) or outdated (past sales) or on expert knowledge based on facts that may or may not be relevant to the buying community.
The value of an auction is that when the object is offered for sale, the sale is public, takes place in real time, with all the buyers in the same room or on the telephone. At that time, through the bidding process, there is a consensual agreement among bidders that the object is worth a specific price. This decision is not unisided, is not based on prior sales, and is not solely based on expert opinion. Instead, it is based on what interested parties are willing to pay for it right here right now.