Peter Lik - genius or fraud?

[viewfromthenorth]

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.

This section of the NY Times article from the second post suggests that second hand prices of his work are less than the initial price:

A tiny fraction of that sum is the answer. A subscription service called Artnet — which bills itself as the most comprehensive database of its kind — captures the resale value of Lik photographs by cataloging auction results, and the most anyone has ever paid for one his photographs is $15,860, for a copy of an image called “Ghost,” in 2008. (It’s a color version of “Phantom.”) After that, it’s a long slide down, to $3,000 for a copy of “Eternal Beauty (Antelope County, Arizona)” in 2014. Fifteen images have sold for between $1,000 and $2,500, and four have sold for between $400 and $1,000. Another handful failed to sell. And that’s it.

Mr. Hulme usually directs Lik owners to ArtBrokerage.com, a site where they can post images of their art along with an asking price. Currently, there are more than 770 Liks for sale on ArtBrokerage.com, the most of any artist on the site. As of Friday, that included 27 copies of one image, “Tree of Hope,” with prices that ranged from $5,000 to $29,000.

Or you can buy a copy at the gallery, where it has achieved Second Level Peter Lik Premium status, for $35,000.

His work is produced in a factory, so he's hugely successful commercially. If there are more than 100000 copies of his work in circulation though there just isn't the scarcity (other than for the reputed $6.5million one off) in his work for it to appreciate in value longer term.

 

[Pookeyhead]

*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.

It's not pretty.. so it's crap: That's essentially what you're up against here. Images don't have to mean anything: That's what you're up against here.


People just confuse LIKING something with how worthy it is as art. Common mistake made by those who don't really understand art.

Fifteen images have sold for between $1,000 and $2,500, and four have sold for between $400 and $1,000. Another handful failed to sell. And that’s it.

That it? My day rate used to be more that that. (at today's exchange rate... assuming they're US dollars.)

This is the "fraud" being discussed here. There's a massive disparity between what he claims his private sales go for, and the price of his work on the open market. Surely that should set alarm bells ringing. He's clearly manipulating his sales figures to big himself up. I'm just wondering what a tax audit would actually show.

[edit]

Just for the record... I think he's actually very clever, and good luck to him.... doesn't mean his work is art though. Id probably do the same.. as would any of you reading this. It's not actually fraud as in he committed any crime that I'm aware of.

 

[theurbanclown]

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?

That relies on people creating the art to have the same aspirations and directions for their work as those who are judging it. We've all seen award winning work, that lacks story or depth or technical ability, or all three. Doesn't mean it's not art.

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?

Branding, marketing, contacts, luck. Much more important than your ability to take photos.

And you have seen my work.

 

[learningtofly]

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.

I'm sorry, I don't see fraud. I do see some very successful marketing, and a guy who seems to have made a large (perhaps an enormous) amount of money from his photography and gallery businesses.

I think I also detect some sour grapes. I wonder how many people here, given the opportunity to achieve what he's achieved, would walk away on moral grounds... I dare say, not very many.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Branding, marketing, contacts, luck. Much more important than your ability to take photos.

It CAN be... yes. It's not exactly a fact, or nominal though. It also depends what market you're in. Weddings and social? Then of course, as the public are judging your work. That's not exactly representative of all the photographic industry though,.

And you have seen my work.

have I? Sorry.. don't recall. I see a great deal of work. I certainly was not making any comment about your work though.

 

[StewartR]

I'm sorry, I don't see fraud. I do see some very successful marketing, and a guy who seems to have made a large (perhaps an enormous) amount of money from his photography and gallery businesses.

I think I also detect some sour grapes. I wonder how many people here, given the opportunity to achieve what he's achieved, would walk away on moral grounds... I dare say, not very many.

I think you've taken the words straight from my mouth.

 

[ghoti]

I'm sorry, I don't see fraud. I do see some very successful marketing, and a guy who seems to have made a large (perhaps an enormous) amount of money from his photography and gallery businesses.

I think I also detect some sour grapes. I wonder how many people here, given the opportunity to achieve what he's achieved, would walk away on moral grounds... I dare say, not very many.

If someone wanted to buy my rubbish photographs for thousands of pounds I'd probably sell them, yes. I've no moral problem with what Lik is doing. I don't think many people here have.

He's not a particularly interesting or important photographer, though. He'll have no longevity because there are literally millions of people all over the world making exactly those kinds of images, just as capably as Lik. The difference with Lik is that he's marketed himself well. Good luck to him. Nothing against the man (although his Facebook page is amusingly - but harmlessly - pompous), just not interested.