Peter Lik - genius or fraud?

He's a genius... at fraud. Good luck to him if people are dumb enough to buy it.
 
He's a genius business man, he's found a way to generate a demand for his work that pretty much anyone in the art world can only dream of...he dosn't force people to buy his work...

Also to say there's no after sale market for them is a little disingenuous as with anything like this or any investment the value can go up as well as down....who knows where the value will go when theres not more being made ;)
 
MWHCVT said:
Also to say there's no after sale market for them is a little disingenuous
Click to expand...

Not really... as no one regards it as art outside of his own head, or the heads of those he's convinced to buy it. Whether the fame surrounding his work has an effect on this remains to be seen, but seeing as that fame will rely on the fact that he's selling work that's not regarded as art for record breaking prices, kind of suggests not.
 
and also i think the issue is that by selling 100 copies where each one got more expensive means you only made a good purchase at the start. The average price is going to be lower than anyone who bought the last half of the images and having 100 copies in the world makes them less sought after in the first place.

Fine if you never want to sell it though

I really like his photos for what it's worth but then I dont appreciate proper art anyway :-)
 
the article also clear has a predjudice that art shouldnt be pretty or pleasing - strikes me that the 'establshment' (by which NYT probably mean their own art critic) has its head up its arse.

That said as i said when the original story broke i prefer to joe cornish shot of the same location, which can be had for a hundred notes or so as a print (and I think the original went for high 3 figures)
 
He has sold $440 million dollars worth of prints and never took an art class or studied any photographer. The man is a genius marketer.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Not really... as no one regards it as art outside of his own head, or the heads of those he's convinced to buy it. Whether the fame surrounding his work has an effect on this remains to be seen, but seeing as that fame will rely on the fact that he's selling work that's not regarded as art for record breaking prices, kind of suggests not.
Click to expand...

What and utterly incredulous remark, I'm sure there are many who consider his work as art, just because some of the art community have said it's not art! Does that mean it's not? My guess is clearly as smart as the guy clearly is he's not kissed quite the right arses in the community...

To be honest a lot of what I've read recently surrounding this has smacked of art snobbery
 
MWHCVT said:
What and utterly incredulous remark, I'm sure there are many who consider his work as art, just because some of the art community have said it's not art! Does that mean it's not? My guess is clearly as smart as the guy clearly is he's not kissed quite the right arses in the community...

To be honest a lot of what I've read recently surrounding this has smacked of art snobbery
Click to expand...

the ironic thing is that it also works the other way round with all sorts of crap that any reasonable person would say was a loa of old tat but the 'art community' get very defensive of because they've decided that it is art.

it a weird way to see the world

pretty picture of a landscape = clearly not art because its pretty and therefore not saying anything

half a pickled cow = oh man its like genius, don't you mlove the creative vision dahhling

as ive said before the 'art critic' comunity seem to think that their opinion is much more important than it actually is (littery critics likewise - critically aclaimed does not equal will be a good read)
 
MWHCVT said:
What and utterly incredulous remark, I'm sure there are many who consider his work as art, just because some of the art community have said it's not art! Does that mean it's not? My guess is clearly as smart as the guy clearly is he's not kissed quite the right arses in the community...

To be honest a lot of what I've read recently surrounding this has smacked of art snobbery
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'm not sure on what basis he can be called a fraud (or how his business model can be labelled as such) but perhaps those that feel otherwise can clarify precisely why they do.
 
Yes. The art snobs are only jealous because he's not one of some elite that they've been told they should respect. Hilarious.
 
Last edited:
MWHCVT said:
What and utterly incredulous remark, I'm sure there are many who consider his work as art, just because some of the art community have said it's not art! Does that mean it's not? My guess is clearly as smart as the guy clearly is he's not kissed quite the right arses in the community...

To be honest a lot of what I've read recently surrounding this has smacked of art snobbery
Click to expand...

It's the same sort of 'art' Thomas Kinkade churned out. The folk getting duped into thinking their limited edition of 999 prints is an 'investment' are the ones I feel sorry for.
 
MWHCVT said:
What and utterly incredulous remark, I'm sure there are many who consider his work as art, just because some of the art community have said it's not art!
Click to expand...

Obviously.. they've been buying it haven't they? What you just said is quite proposterous though. "just" because the art community say so, like they don't know best or something. That's like defending a crap car "just" because the world's motoring press say it's crap. If they did.. it's probably crap. WHen it comes to art though, we get this bending of the rules and hypocrisy every time, by those who just have a bee in their bonnet

MWHCVT said:
Does that mean it's not? My guess is clearly as smart as the guy clearly is he's not kissed quite the right arses in the community...
Click to expand...

Oohh.. so bitter and unfulfilled aren't we? :)

look.. the people BUYING it clearly think it's art.. good luck to them. However, if they're buying it as an investment, they've thrown their cash away, because the ART WORLD dismisses it as rubbish, and the ART WORLD kind of decides, because in open auction (not private sales like Lik is doing) people who appreciate art would rather stab themselves in the eye with a fork that invest in this man's work. The kind of idiot that spends millions on art want a return on their investment, based on the fact that an artist is highly regarded... and Lik is not. The end.

Whether you LIKE the work is irrelevant.



learningtofly said:
but perhaps those that feel otherwise can clarify precisely why they do.
Click to expand...

Because there's no transparency in his sales, nor any proof that he actually DID sell anything for $6m. We actually only have Lik's word for it that an anonymous buyer did so in a private sale. Whether it's true or not is not the point The fact is though, almost all his work he sells is through his own galleries.. not on the open art market. In open auction, his work only sells for a minuscule fraction of that.


ianp5a said:
Yes. The art snobs are only jealous because he's not one of some elite that they've been told they should respect. Hilarious.
Click to expand...

Not really... as I said further up the thread. Good luck to him... seriously. It's actually re-assuring to see such crap work being sold... it must give many great hope ;)
 
Last edited:
Not really... as I said further up the thread. Good luck to him... seriously. It's actually re-assuring to see such crap work being sold... it must give many great hope ;)[/QUOTE said:
I have plenty of crap, off to warm up the printer now :naughty:
Click to expand...
 
oops how did that happen, even my post editing is crap :p
 
If I'm reading this right isn't this the photography version of limited edition china you see advertised in the back of my grandma's magazines but marketed at people who have more money?
 
Pookeyhead said:
Obviously.. they've been buying it haven't they? What you just said is quite proposterous though. "just" because the art community say so, like they don't know best or something. That's like defending a crap car "just" because the world's motoring press say it's crap. If they did.. it's probably crap. WHen it comes to art though, we get this bending of the rules and hypocrisy every time, by those who just have a bee in their bonnet



Oohh.. so bitter and unfulfilled aren't we? :)

look.. the people BUYING it clearly think it's art.. good luck to them. However, if they're buying it as an investment, they've thrown their cash away, because the ART WORLD dismisses it as rubbish, and the ART WORLD kind of decides, because in open auction (not private sales like Lik is doing) people who appreciate art would rather stab themselves in the eye with a fork that invest in this man's work. The kind of idiot that spends millions on art want a return on their investment, based on the fact that an artist is highly regarded... and Lik is not. The end.

Whether you LIKE the work is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

So because some critics have decided at this time it's not art it can't be art...interesting stance, maybe it's because he's figured out he gets to make more money buy running his own galleries and sales is why they don't like it as he's bypassing the establishment and cutting out their take of the sales...or maybe that idea is to crazy for you...:lol: :lol: :lol:

Bitter and unfulfilled? Nope not me, suspect you must be looking in a mirror...as I've never tried to sell my work, never really considered my work as art, never shot for anything but my own enjoyment I don't really see what I'd have to be bitter and unfulfilled about
 
The man is an astute marketer who happens to use a camera. The pictures are pleasant enough if hilariously overpriced, in my opinion. From an art perspective they fall under the 'decorative' rather than 'idea' side if you want to dichotomise things. But limited editions of 995? Hmmmmmmm.......
 
learningtofly said:
Well, it's good to know that if I don't like someone's work I can accuse them of being a fraud without fear of retribution :)
Click to expand...
Not sure how you've got to that conclusion.

He's not a 'fraud' because people don't like his stuff... He's a fraud if he's misrepresenting, or he's being dishonest. Which it appears he may be. :(
 
Think the word fraud is a bit much. The guy is clearly a very good business man, who has developed a good model.
There appears to be some jealousy within the 'art community' and so what, personally I decide for myself what I like, I don't need anyone to tell me :-)

There has been a suggestion that art collectors buy 'art' as an investment, perhaps they are the idiots and not those who are buying things they actually like ;-)
 
Last edited:
learningtofly said:
Well, it's good to know that if I don't like someone's work I can accuse them of being a fraud without fear of retribution :)
Click to expand...


"Fraud" relates to the fact that there's a great deal of smoke and mirrors regarding the sales of his artwork, and certainly regarding the $6m sale. Whenever it goes on open auction, it fails to get even remotely close to that. "Fruad" is nothing to do with his work, or whether I like it or not.. in fact "fraud" is nothing to do with his work at all. Clearly there's nothing fraudulent with the work... it's his work.. no one is doubting that.

theurbanclown said:
They don't know best. Art is subjective.
Click to expand...

So... there's absolutely no criteria regarding how art is judged? You actually believe that?

What you LIKE is subjective. There are actually criteria by which art is judged you know... people don't just sit around and decide at random. I know that would be very convenient for many, but sadly, it's not true, and just something that people who know sod all about art say. Can you please let us know what qualifies you to make such a statement.. that art is subjective? You seem to speak with certain authority... and with great confidence. So what is that opinion based on please?

theurbanclown said:
Same with every area of photography. It's got very little to do with how good your photos are.
Click to expand...

So how good your photos are in EVERY area of photography is irrelevant? That must e reassuring for your wedding clients to hear :)
 
The art community know what is best for the art community. However that's where the buyers, sellers, critics and other people of influence are. That's where the money is and that's where the deals are done. Peter Lik operates outside of that and by his own rules, so you've got to admire him for that. However, in choosing to do so, his artwork is also outside of the art community and consequently not only is it not taken seriously, the secondary (second hand) prices are a fraction of what they initially sold for. If the buyers are happy to pay a lot of money for brilliantly marketed, factory produced art that they have no intention of ever selling on, then no harm is done.
 
MWHCVT said:
Bitter and unfulfilled? Nope not me, suspect you must be looking in a mirror...
Click to expand...

the ignore button makes much more sense than having the 'what is/isnt art' argument all over again ;)
 
Pookeyhead said:
...So how good your photos are in EVERY area of photography is irrelevant? That must e reassuring for your wedding clients to hear :)
Click to expand...

To be fair to Ben (I'm ignoring the bingo), his work is more than 'good enough', but I'm prepared to bet he has local 'well established' competition who's work isn't as good, and is more expensive and in higher demand. In short, he has a point, and it's a point you raise regularly re Joe Cornish too.
 
Phil V said:
To be fair to Ben (I'm ignoring the bingo), his work is more than 'good enough', but I'm prepared to bet he has local 'well established' competition who's work isn't as good, and is more expensive and in higher demand. In short, he has a point, and it's a point you raise regularly re Joe Cornish too.
Click to expand...

I wasn't making any comment about Ben's work... I've never seen any of it. I was highlighting that you can't just say that how good your work is isn't important. If it's not... what IS important?
 
viewfromthenorth said:
The art community know what is best for the art community. However that's where the buyers, sellers, critics and other people of influence are. That's where the money is and that's where the deals are done. Peter Lik operates outside of that and by his own rules, so you've got to admire him for that. However, in choosing to do so, his artwork is also outside of the art community and consequently not only is it not taken seriously, the secondary (second hand) prices are a fraction of what they initially sold for. If the buyers are happy to pay a lot of money for brilliantly marketed, factory produced art that they have no intention of ever selling on, then no harm is done.
Click to expand...

to be honest we can't predict what the second hand prices for Liks work will be , because he hasnt been arround long enough, it may be that the fact that someone paid $6.5M will mean that that shot has a similar worth if/when it changes hands.

End of the day most art only has a value because of what people think its worth - the actual inherent value of some canvas and paint is the square root of f*** all whether its the mona lisa or something a 3 year old whipped up at play group, all that makes it valuable is that people think it is and want to own it - so theres no particular reason why that shouldnt also apply to Lik
 
Pookeyhead said:
I wasn't making any comment about Ben's work... I've never seen any of it. I was highlighting that you can't just say that how good your work is isn't important. If it's not... what IS important?
Click to expand...
When it comes to 'the commercial value', quality is always less important than marketing, not that quality is unimportant. You and Ben broadly agree here, or I'm an eejit (there's a chance).
 
big soft moose said:
the ironic thing is that it also works the other way round with all sorts of crap that any reasonable person would say was a loa of old tat but the 'art community' get very defensive of because they've decided that it is art.

it a weird way to see the world

pretty picture of a landscape = clearly not art because its pretty and therefore not saying anything

half a pickled cow = oh man its like genius, don't you mlove the creative vision dahhling

as ive said before the 'art critic' comunity seem to think that their opinion is much more important than it actually is (littery critics likewise - critically aclaimed does not equal will be a good read)
Click to expand...
This seems like a pretty insecure attitude. Nobody is saying that it's wrong to enjoy a pretty picture or a trashy Dan Brown* airport novel. Just that they're not art. Why do you feel threatened by that?
To try to illustrate the point by moving away from photography to your example of literature (because it's easy to get bogged down in the minutiae of photography on a photography forum, and comparison with another discipline broadens the discussion somewhat): I quite enjoy the novels of Stephen King if I'm on a plane or on holiday or just looking for a bit of escapism. King is an able narrator, who spins a good yarn, but I don't ever really recall coming away from a King novel feeling particularly enriched or inspired to think about something beyond the novel itself. Hence, I don't really consider it literary art. I worry that your phrase "good read" is actually meant to mean "easy read" - a page turner, a gripping narrative, easy to digest. All of these things are worthy, and require a particular skill set, but there are also other ways to enjoy literature. Sometimes I will read a dense and difficult piece of literature, something that requires that you work hard to keep your attention. What drives one on with literature like this is not the immediate and superficial "enjoyment", but the fact that you're gaining some deeper enrichment from it. You go away from the text with something to think about, some challenge to your perspective, a new way of looking at a subject. This is what art does. That's not to say that everybody interested in literature will enjoy EVERY dense, difficult text (or, indeed, that every enriching text is dense and difficult) - there will be disagreements. This is why it's also a mistake to pull up individual and controversial examples of critically acclaimed art (like the half a cow) - not everyone in the art establishment is going to agree that it's a worthwhile piece, the "establishment" is not some kind of hive mind.

Lik is a Stephen King.

There's nothing wrong with what Peter Lik or Stephen King do; but to accuse the "art establishment" of somehow unjustifiably ignoring them because they make accessible and popular work just means you have the wrong end of the stick. You're comparing apples and oranges. The "art establishment" isn't interested in them because they're not doing (or trying to do...or event intending to do...) anything beyond entertainment. Individuals within the "art establishment" may well enjoy the work of Peter Lik (or Stephen King) on a personal level, but they're not going to consider it professionally. The same way as some, say, food critics will likely enjoy a big bag of fish and chips...but they're not going to write about it, because there's nothing interesting to write about.

*Despite all of the above I will (somewhat facetiously) defend my opinion that Dan Brown is utter trash, is a woeful narrator and an inept writer.
 
Last edited:
ref the establishment response its a bit odd that the response to Liks massively expensive photo (with value only established by what people will pay) is so diametrically oposed to Gursky's also masively expensive photo (with value established only by what people will pay)

What is that makes Rhine 2 amazing art, but Phantom a photographic fraud ? (otherthan predjudice against aesthetically appealing , pretty shots being art) - Personally if i had the spending power to buy one of them I'd far rather have phantom on my wall
 
ghoti said:
This seems like a pretty insecure attitude. Nobody is saying that it's wrong to enjoy a pretty picture or a trashy Dan Brown airport novel. Just that they're not art. Why do you feel threatened by that?
Click to expand...

Threatened ? - seriously you arent good at reading people are you, I'm not threatened by It, its just my opinion that a lot of what passes for art these days is overhyped tat with the required artistic ability that god gave a retarded chimpanzee., and yet the art world (or the art critic world) seem determined to trash Lik's picture as "prretty and banal" despite it being significantly more aesthetically pleasing than a lot of the tat they promote.

If you want to talk about insecure , and threatened - I'd look at the "art worlds" response to Lik - they clearly feel the need to put him down because if he's sucessful it will threaten their carefully structured world where they get to decide what is art and what isnt, rather than letting quality (or the lack of it) speak for itself
 
big soft moose said:
ref the establishment response its a bit odd that the response to Liks massively expensive photo (with value only established by what people will pay) is so diametrically oposed to Gursky's also masively expensive photo (with value established only by what people will pay)

What is that makes Rhine 2 amazing art, but Phantom a photographic fraud ? (otherthan predjudice against aesthetically appealing , pretty shots being art) - Personally if i had the spending power to buy one of them I'd far rather have phantom on my wall
Click to expand...
Rhein 2 isn't something that particularly rocks my world but I can see that it, unlike Lik's work, provides something interesting to talk about. It's a picture of an industrialised area with the industry stripped from it. That in itself, and moreso within the context of Gursky's wider work*, provides interesting food for thought. Though, like I say, I'm not hugely inspired or awed by the theme, so don't expect a passionate defence. I can simply see why it can be distinguished from Lik's purely aesthetic work.

*Even if you google image search "gursky" and look through the images sequentially, you can see how Rhein 2 stands out, almost like a punctuation mark.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top