12-10-2014, 07:17 AM
#1
  • CRAusmus
  • Senior Member
  • Going from Texas to Georgia
User Info
This photo sold for $6.5 million...
[Image: peterlikphantom.jpg]

Shattering the previous record of $3.8 million...
[Image: 96sherman.jpg]

The same photographer who sold the print for 6.5 (Phantom), also sold this one for $1 million...
[Image: one.jpg]

As well as a couple of others for 2.4 and 1.1 (Illusion and Eternal Moods).

Thoughts?

18 1,186
Reply
 12-10-2014, 08:04 AM
#2
User Info
While any art - and photography can be an art - is worth whatever someone wants to pay for it, 6.5x10^6 USD is a LOT of money for a print... for that amount of money, I hope the negatives changed hands too so someone else can't just run off a few more copies later.

Beautiful photo though Smile

3 4,374
Reply
 12-10-2014, 08:22 AM
#3
  • CRAusmus
  • Senior Member
  • Going from Texas to Georgia
User Info
It is a gorgeous print and I'm quite sure there was a contract drawn up about the future usage of the print because it has also been produced in full color and called Ghost.

For those of you that want to check out his portfolio, here is the link:
http://www.lik.com

His use of color, light and composition is quite stunning. Very talented photographer indeed.


I have seen work just as beautiful from some members of our own community as well.

18 1,186
Reply
 12-10-2014, 10:16 AM
#4
  • TheMonk
  • Super Moderator
  • Porto, Portugal
User Info
He definitely has stunning pictures, but IMO it's too much money for a photograph. Also, it seems his records are all due to one (huge and definitely wealthy) fan:

Quote:The private collector, who purchased the $6.5 million “Phantom” in November 2014, also acquired Lik’s masterworks “Illusion” for $2.4 million and “Eternal Moods” for $1.1 million.

26 4,896
Reply
 12-10-2014, 10:43 AM
#5
User Info
Shall we start the bidding at a modest $100 for this original?! Biggrin


[Image: c6n2.jpg]

82 21,056
Reply
 12-10-2014, 10:50 AM
#6
User Info
for the items i'm in* Biggrin

......

regarding the prices on the pics: it's just business (as usual) - trying to up an artist - then put money in it - just like stock. it does not necessarily reflect what the general art viewing public will pay or like. in 400 years it will be worthless because only a genius can survive time.


* i think Tongue

7 1,624
Reply
 12-10-2014, 11:43 AM
#7
User Info
From my perspective, all creations should have no monetary value and should just be enjoyed, but what do I know about money and its influence on us.

The Tibetan art of 'mandala sand painting' is such a powerful and exemplary display of what all art should be like; time to create the work, appreciate it and then wipe it clean/let it go and start something new. Thumbup

How a pic like this can be worth anything more than $100 or even $1,000 is beyond me. No offence to the artist, but...
Nonetheless, I may alter my view if someone offers me $1,000 for one of mine. Biggrin

82 21,056
Reply
 12-11-2014, 09:27 AM
#8
  • CRAusmus
  • Senior Member
  • Going from Texas to Georgia
User Info
Here's a different take on the price of this photo...
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/...-tasteless

Although I don't agree entirely with his statements as I believe that Photography is definitely an art form; and to suggest that anyone can point a digital camera at something, push a button and make something equally and technically as beautiful as any other photograph is just plain wrong. IMO anyway.

Photography is a skill just like painting, except you are using the light present, or bending and directing the light present to create the image you want. It takes vast knowledge and understanding of how light, how much light, and how you use that light to create even a passable image. It's a craft, that many of us have devoted years of our life to try and perfect, and I don't know about y'all, but everyday I learn something more. This is of course all dependent on the fact that you want to learn this skill. Sure you can go out and purchase a $4k camera and stay in program mode, and at that point you aren't creating art, because you aren't using the tools to make the light do what you want it to do. Once you leave program mode you take full control in what you create. And at that point you take on the role of creator, artist. Never again in history will that light be at that angle so that you lens is open this far, as you expose for that brief moment. When you combine all those elements together, you have taken the task on for yourself and not let the camera do the work for you.

However this is all just my opinion. If you are happy with the images you create, then that is truly all that matters. If you are happy creating them, I will be more than happy to enjoy them right along side you.

18 1,186
Reply
 12-11-2014, 10:08 AM
#9
User Info
Clinton, thanks for the link. It was an interesting read and I agree with his major premise that the photo wasn't worth the money, but that is as far as I would go. Biggrin

I also believe photography is an art form as many folks just don't know how to use a camera to its fullest; just as I don't know how to use a paint-brush and canvas to create a lovely painting! However, give me a guitar or a football/soccer ball and that is a different story! Biggrin

He implies that every single person that uses a camera is an artist, but that is just unrealistic, unless they dedicate time to that art form. Furthermore, he alludes to the fact that being an artist is some kind of divine right or inherited trait, some how, when you can also learn and dedicate yourself to an art form and become adept or exceptional at it.

82 21,056
Reply
 12-11-2014, 11:57 AM
#10
User Info
(12-10-2014, 11:43 AM)celestino Wrote: From my perspective, all creations should have no monetary value and should just be enjoyed

i can follow you. almost. but it is difficult to acquire paper, brush and ink without giving something back to the artisans that makes them.

i don't view sand paintings as art at all: momentarily happenings like these are made for philosophical/religious and meditative reasons, like cave paintings, and have little to do with enjoyment. it was not meant for just everyone to see, but for a group with relatively common understanding, just like private letters are best understood by the receiver, the receiver being a close friend or a close enemy.

i don't believe in 'art' for display.

7 1,624
Reply
 12-11-2014, 11:33 PM
#11
User Info
Excellent discussion guys! Sorry, that's all I got. Although I do appreciate art, I haven't given the topic much thought. But I have found truth in all posts thus far.

1 169
Reply
 12-13-2014, 11:51 AM
#12
User Info
(12-11-2014, 11:57 AM)tonsorius Wrote:
(12-10-2014, 11:43 AM)celestino Wrote: From my perspective, all creations should have no monetary value and should just be enjoyed

i can follow you. almost. but it is difficult to acquire paper, brush and ink without giving something back to the artisans that makes them.

i don't view sand paintings as art at all: momentarily happenings like these are made for philosophical/religious and meditative reasons, like cave paintings, and have little to do with enjoyment. it was not meant for just everyone to see, but for a group with relatively common understanding, just like private letters are best understood by the receiver, the receiver being a close friend or a close enemy.

i don't believe in 'art' for display.


Marius, I understand your point, but any action taken to create something, for me, is art, my friend! It doesn't have to be publicly displayed for it to be an artistic expression. Just as children playing, winds blowing, waves crashing against the shore, laughter being heard or, even, a blade gliding across a lathered face are artistic movements/expressions.

I also concur with your statement of 'no art should be displayed' as it should just be seen in the moment and let go until something else is created, materializes or is transformed. Smile

82 21,056
Reply
 03-11-2015, 07:50 PM
#13
User Info
It's worth what someone will pay for it.

It's really as simple as that.  Hype.

A guy like Banksy can put something on canvas and sell the $hit out it.  Someone else can make a VERY similar creation and it'd end up at a flea market somewhere.

Marketing baby.  

2 50
Reply
 03-11-2015, 08:56 PM
#14
  • CRAusmus
  • Senior Member
  • Going from Texas to Georgia
User Info
(03-11-2015, 07:50 PM)sabbaticaljim Wrote: It's worth what someone will pay for it.

It's really as simple as that.  Hype.

A guy like Banksy can put something on canvas and sell the $hit out it.  Someone else can make a VERY similar creation and it'd end up at a flea market somewhere.

Marketing baby.  

Very true.  However since posting this thread I've learned a bit more about Mr. Lik and found this fascinating article about how he has made so much as a fine art photographer and why it's not very good for business.

If you're interested.  It's a great read and very eye opening, IMHO...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/busine....html?_r=0

18 1,186
Reply
 03-12-2015, 12:48 AM
#15
  • robk
  • Senior Member
  • New Jersey
User Info
Lik is a con artist, as there is no secondary market for his prints. He preys on gullible folks with money and no knowledge of the art market. The person who bought the Cindy Sherman can resell that someday,  possibly at a profit. Not so the Lik. Read the Times article. Like 'em or not, there are established markets for work from folks like Stieglitz, Adams, Man Ray, Strand, Weston, etc. Good luck trying to get Sotheby's or Christies to take a Lik on auction consignment with a reserve in the millions. The print may be pretty, but the business model is a sham.

Anyway, I prefer Celestino's work!

11 517
Reply
 03-12-2015, 12:59 AM
#16
  • robk
  • Senior Member
  • New Jersey
User Info
Buy a Sebastiao Salgado.

Buy a Weegee.

Buy a Dorthea Lange or Walker Evans or Kertesz or Helen Levitt or Vivian Meyer.

Buy a print from my buddies Angel Franco or Damaso Reyes (google them).

11 517
Reply
 03-12-2015, 04:34 AM
#17
User Info
I wish I made that type of money for my images.

When I was selling one-time photo rights to my images I was averaging 3-4k per image. However, if I sold 2-3 per month I was doing well. Normally I sold 1 every 2 months, not enough to quit my day job.

Now I'm strictly into commercial work. Mostly catalog items and some ad stock.

1 125
Reply
 03-12-2015, 06:01 AM
#18
  • CRAusmus
  • Senior Member
  • Going from Texas to Georgia
User Info
(03-12-2015, 12:48 AM)robk Wrote: Lik is a con artist, as there is no secondary market for his prints. He preys on gullible folks with money and no knowledge of the art market. The person who bought the Cindy Sherman can resell that someday,  possibly at a profit. Not so the Lik. Read the Times article. Like 'em or not, there are established markets for work from folks like Stieglitz, Adams, Man Ray, Strand, Weston, etc. Good luck trying to get Sotheby's or Christies to take a Lik on auction consignment with a reserve in the millions. The print may be pretty, but the business model is a sham.

Anyway, I prefer Celestino's work!

I love the line in the article where he says "It's like a Mercedes.  Once you drive it off the lot it loses half it's value."  Wonder what will happen to his sales after this article? 

His pricing structure is designed to do one thing...Make him rich...

18 1,186
Reply
 03-12-2015, 08:10 PM
#19
User Info
(03-12-2015, 12:48 AM)robk Wrote: Lik is a con artist, as there is no secondary market for his prints. He preys on gullible folks with money and no knowledge of the art market. The person who bought the Cindy Sherman can resell that someday,  possibly at a profit. Not so the Lik. Read the Times article. Like 'em or not, there are established markets for work from folks like Stieglitz, Adams, Man Ray, Strand, Weston, etc. Good luck trying to get Sotheby's or Christies to take a Lik on auction consignment with a reserve in the millions. The print may be pretty, but the business model is a sham.

Anyway, I prefer Celestino's work!

Biggrin Biggrin Biggrin Very sweet of you, my friend! 


Clinton, the article as very insightful! I still don't understand the concept of paying money for images, but what do I know!  Blush

82 21,056
Reply
 03-13-2015, 02:24 PM
#20
  • Lando
  • This deal is getting worse all the time
  • Bellevue, WA
User Info
+1 prefer celestino's images.  makes me want to shave!  and go for a walk

17 437
Reply
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)