Most expensive photo ever is not good enough for the Guardian

LongLensPhotography

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Suspended / Banned
Messages
18,695
Name
LongLensPhotography
Edit My Images
No
http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless

What do you reckon? Are they spouting total s*** out of their mouths? I would certainly think so and regrettably this is what the whole mobile photography has achieved.

I personally think it is a great image and if you look closely enough there is a lot more going on inside it. It is another debate whether it is worth the full sum, but it clearly was to the person who bought it. I have seen Lik's work in person in LA and I have to admit it is damn good and very well presented.
 
If I could afford the price I would buy it as it would mean I would be insanely rich ..........and one would be worth the other

but it is an insane price but reflects the state of the work we live in

but good luck to the guy
 
Last edited:
"Black and white...an outmoded style"?

I suppose The Grauniad wants everything in shades of pink!
 
Couple of comments

1. You're mixing up the opinions of a single writer for The Guardian with the whole paper and it's opinion, the same as when a writer commented on the poppy display at The Tower Of London.
2. I don't agree with him
3. I wonder how much that makes the 100cm, 1 of 450 limited edition Peter Lik 'Spirit of Australia' print I've had hanging on my wall since I got it in 2001 is now worth ? :D
 
A nothing article, about a nothing photo.

The writer tries to make a point about 'meaningless arty-farty' black and white conversions - why didn't he pick up on the fact that Lik has been selling the colour version of the same image for ages? Surely that would add some weight to his argument.

Or, he could've looked into the fact that none of Lik's big sales are verified, etc.

But yea, Lik isn't an artist. That doesn't say anything about the medium he happens to use in his business.
 
Blasted said:
I suspect he just wanted to be the first one out there being all anti and edgy.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anyone out there who considers Lik a serious artist though, is there? He's a pop landscape photographer, same as thousands of others, Lik just happens to be a more aggressive businessman than most. Pretty sure everyone sees it that way. Not like you can draw parallels with him and Gursky, etc.
 
pop can still be art and these days it is pretty profitable (i.e. pop music vs modern classic). Myself I mostly sell my 'pop-art' images, and not the ones I'd consider more subtle or artistic...
 
Pretty naff article really.

If somebody wants to pay that kind of money on a photo, sculpture, painting or anything else then so be it.

The writer isn't right or wrong - just voicing an opinion which is as pointless as mine.
 
Jayst84 said:
A nothing article, about a nothing photo.

The writer tries to make a point about 'meaningless arty-farty' black and white conversions - why didn't he pick up on the fact that Lik has been selling the colour version of the same image for ages? Surely that would add some weight to his argument.

Or, he could've looked into the fact that none of Lik's big sales are verified, etc.

But yea, Lik isn't an artist. That doesn't say anything about the medium he happens to use in his business.
Click to expand...

Good points, looking at the colour version(probably not wise to post here, comes up quickly with a image search though) it does have something more to it with the very deep reds. I spose you could argue the B&W version highlights the difference in contrast between the less contrasty shadowed canyon walls and the light beam/dust but generally it does give the impression as a bit of an afterthought.

Equally I could see the logic behind "faked" big sales with Lik moreso than most to drive smaller sales that he seems to make quite a lot of.

For me its just a very easy target, I'v seen other photographers(bruce barnbaum comes to mind first) work in the same location produce far superior work.

Not to worry, the same write also says this http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/jan/10/photography-art-of-our-time

I suspect he just wanted to be the first one out there being all anti and edgy.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if the difference is a rather hackeyed idea that pictures looking to make some social/political point however simplistically are "art" whilst those of the natural world looking for a more purely emotional response aren't.
 
Oh God.. Jones is at it again I see.


I agree with him about this image... just not the rest of what he says. Jones is a troll, and a hypocrite.


That image is trite nonsense though. Just a pretty picture, and you can find equally good shots of those canyons on Flickr, so how can it be worth as much as it is? It's simply not original. Despite what you think about "that" Gursky image... it was original at least.
 
Last edited:
The photo is a bit of a cliche, like Durdle Door at sunset or the northern lights in Iceland which have all been done to death. It all looks a bit Thomas Kinkade to me, more about selling prints and I can imagine the staff in the galleries being like used car salespeople 'it's art, it's an investment!'.

Good luck to the guy though, wish it was me making that sort of money.
 
Apart from anything else, the writer's literary style has an effect similar to that of Diazepam.
 
Whoever bought it wasn't buying a photograph, they were buying an autograph.
 
I think he's got a point. He's gone on a bit to drag the story out but I don't consider most photography to be art. If I take a landscape, seascape, northern lights or ice cave photo I believe nature to be the true artist not me. I think I'm good at judging how this beautiful scene needs to be captured but at the end of the day all I'm doing is pressing a button and lets be honest if we don't like the outcome, we can simply look on the back of our cameras to see what needs changing and take another. Yes, we need to be good at composition, reading the sky, weather and so on but that's all we do. Far more to it if I were to sit there and paint the scene. Of course if you can paint or draw (I draw like a 3 year old) you have the advantage of making the weather etc look just how you want it. Which is nice and could save many a wasted outing because you trusted the weather forecast again.

There are other forms of photography which require a bit more "arty" influence but he's talking about a landscape shot. I for one would rather have used the money to visit all the places on my bucket list. Antelope canyon was on there until recently.
 
Some photographers need to take pictures 'of things', the more skilled can 'create things' to photograph. I think its just as possible to create elements to make a great landscape photograph as it is to point your camera at natures beauty. Compare a LPOTY winning image where composition and light is thought about and even a 'boring' row of trees can be made to look spectacular, to bloody Ashness jetty at sunset which requires zero skill and zero creativity just patience to queue up with all the other sheep.
 
the article is a vast quantity of cobblers - but that said i don't rate the photo either , the joe cornish shot (in his book 'first light' in the same location is imo both technically better and more creatively executed (despite being much cheaper). I certainly wouldnt pay £6.5M for the Lik shot , even if i could afford to
 
Last edited:
Merc said:
I think he's got a point. He's gone on a bit to drag the story out but I don't consider most photography to be art. If I take a landscape, seascape, northern lights or ice cave photo I believe nature to be the true artist not me.
Click to expand...

I agree. He has a point but he makes it in a way which makes him appear a total ar$e. Photography is a medium, not an art.

And I also agree that in landscape photography, nature is the artist, not me. It's the same with most types of photography. It is rare for the photographer top be responsible for the creation or arrangement of the subject. Most photography is documentation or illustration rather than art.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
And I also agree that in landscape photography, nature is the artist, not me. It's the same with most types of photography.It is rare for the photographer top be responsible for the creation or arrangement of the subject. Most photography is documentation or illustration rather than art.
Click to expand...

But the photographer is responsible for deciding what part of that arrangement is included or excluded from the frame they put around it and at what moment the exposure is made. Otherwise we'd all point our cameras in the vague direction of something nature has created and make equally good pictures. In the right hands this framing and timing can result in art being created.
 
Ed Sutton said:
But the photographer is responsible for deciding what part of that arrangement is included or excluded from the frame they put around it and at what moment the exposure is made. Otherwise we'd all point our cameras in the vague direction of something nature has created and make equally good pictures. In the right hands this framing and timing can result in art being created.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was about to say. I find it extremely difficult to get my head around the concept some people apparently have that the photographer has absolutely no input whatsoever into how the final image looks and comes across to the viewer. If all you ever do is plonk a camera on a tripod, vaguely point it and press go then you don't even deserve to be called a photographer, never mind an artist.
 
looks like an x ray of somones rectum
 
I once found myself in one of his galleries. I wasn't aware of him before walking through the door, and there was something slightly hypnotic about the assault of bright colours from reflective prints in a dark gallery. But I look at his stuff now, and I see too much over-processed HDR type photos of the sort I'd try to avoid at online photo sharing platforms.

this is not a good look.
 
The W said:
I once found myself in one of his galleries. I wasn't aware of him before walking through the door, and there was something slightly hypnotic about the assault of bright colours from reflective prints in a dark gallery. But I look at his stuff now, and I see too much over-processed HDR type photos of the sort I'd try to avoid at online photo sharing platforms.

this is not a good look.
Click to expand...

Its not good look no. That said (and I hate HDR as much as the next man) that it more or less represents the DR of our own eyes in a sunset situation, but something always looks so artificial about them.
 
I remember when his artist statement (now removed) referred to his 6x17 camera along the lines of something 'primordial' that 'few photographers can comprehend'. Many people describe him as the most important landscape photographer alive however so he must be doing something right.

http://stuckincustoms.smugmug.com/Misc/Website-NonPort-Images/n-kG7LL/i-P3GpxGN/A

Not a fan of his work personally but he seems to have done well out of it.
 
Last edited:
"Here is an example of a photograph which is not art, thus no photograph is art." And so on, and so on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top