- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
No one's saying it will die. Just that it's not necessary to produce good work any more. There will always be those who like tinkering... some may even put it to good use.
and the site receives a small commission
Whatever happened to Camera-craft?
- Thread starter chuckles
- Start date
No one's saying it will die. Just that it's not necessary to produce good work any more. There will always be those who like tinkering... some may even put it to good use.
- Messages
- 774
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
I'll just stick to the tinkering, and leave others to decide for themselves what constitutes good use.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 25,356
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
And that is fun in itself, there's nothing 'wrong' with it, in fact it creates a more enjoyable journey for many. Just like taking very ordinary photographs with pinhole cameras or using film and processing it yourself. The joy is in the journey not really in the destination.
But some people just want to 'get there' using Sat Nav and a modern car is easier, to some people it's less fun, but to others there's no fun in struggling with the old tech.
Horses for courses.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes. But we are doing it because we want to (and there isn't really a better reason than that). But the reality is that it is not the necessity which it used to be.
It's a bit like going for a job as a bus driver. You will be put into an automatic metal box and taught how to make it go round corners without knocking down buildings and people and taught how to take fares.
In the really olden days, you would also have had to learn double de-cluching, starting with a hand crank, setting the advance/retard position, etc, etc.
All of this has now been automated but the important things are still getting people to where they want to go without bashing into things. The passenger doesn't car if the bus is diesel, petrol or electric, he doesn't care if it has a manual gearbox or an automatic. He doesn't care if it's a Volvo or a Scania. And the same is true for the majority of photographers and consumers of photography.
We're different though. We're weird and we enjoy all of the things which designers have designed out of our cameras (and buses - it's my ambition to get a class D licence soon and drive a Bristol Lodekka!).
Don't be silly. No one rides horses these days!
Steve.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 774
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
I have to say that this thread has had a little influence on my own thoughts. Although a champion of low budget film photography, I had already deduced that for some schools of photography, that very latest sensor, image stabilisation, and cutting edge technology really does have an impact. It's easy for me to brag that I can have a lot of fun with a 50p 35mm compact, or even cross processing an expired disposable camera film. But I cannot achieve that startling macro, or catch that black backed gull swallowing a live duckling up close. Not with my gear.
Then some here will dare to suggest that Nature photography is not creative, but about recording reality in detail, not in pure aesthetic appeal, but a technical pursuit. The subjects themselves are awesome wonders of adaptation. I can see why as a Nature photographer that I would find that a little insulting. I would imagine that they go to great lengths to build up their experience and abilities, not only technical. I certainly sometimes enjoy browsing some of their galleries. At least it's usually devoid of HDR and hopefully, selective colour (my personal prejudice).
Most of us here are amateurs and enthusiasts. Amateur - for the love of. I don't think that we should demean other schools of photography.
Getting back to Camera Craft. I didn't explain it very well with the case of the Charles Bronica. What I was trying to say, that as amateurs, there will always be some of us who will pursue the challenges and experience of back to basics photography. It isn't dead, just overwhelmed a bit by the burst auto auto photographers. Let them get on with it. I'll continue to enjoy it my way.
Then some here will dare to suggest that Nature photography is not creative, but about recording reality in detail, not in pure aesthetic appeal, but a technical pursuit. The subjects themselves are awesome wonders of adaptation. I can see why as a Nature photographer that I would find that a little insulting. I would imagine that they go to great lengths to build up their experience and abilities, not only technical. I certainly sometimes enjoy browsing some of their galleries. At least it's usually devoid of HDR and hopefully, selective colour (my personal prejudice).
Most of us here are amateurs and enthusiasts. Amateur - for the love of. I don't think that we should demean other schools of photography.
Getting back to Camera Craft. I didn't explain it very well with the case of the Charles Bronica. What I was trying to say, that as amateurs, there will always be some of us who will pursue the challenges and experience of back to basics photography. It isn't dead, just overwhelmed a bit by the burst auto auto photographers. Let them get on with it. I'll continue to enjoy it my way.
No wonder you hate talking about and dismiss artists like Peter Lik, they basically destroy all your arguments. Here are some great quotes and pieces from the NY Times article:
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/b...cipe-for-success-sell-prints-print-money.html
How much must people like him stick in the craw of the elite establishment as he drives past their gallery tooting the horn on his expensive car? He's a marketing genius. Never mind studying photographers or being taught to be blind at art college go and learn how to market yourself.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
But why is that interpreted as insult? It's as if anyone who has aspirations to be a photographer likes to think of what they do as creative, yet those same people have no problem with coming out with the same old "emperor's new clothes" stuff when they are presented with something that is creative. Basically, no one sees any problem with slagging off work they can't appreciate, yet cry like little girls when someone suggests that pictures of birds are very rarely creative. They're not. No one's saying they're rubbish, or useless, or not great to look at. Just that they're not creative? For a bunch of people who are so fast to dismiss the creative work of others, you don't half get all upset when someone merely points out that pictures of birds on twigs is not creative.
Exactly. Not creative. That's all I'm saying. The issue wasn't whether it was creative or not any way, but whether it actually as skilful as it's made out to be.
Why though? Everything you;'ve said yourself so far is that it's about recording reality in detail, not about aesthetic, but purely a technical pursuit, and that nature is an awesome wonder of adaptation. Those are your words there.. not mine. What, of any of that makes it creative? Why is acknowledging that it's not creative an insult. Not once in your OWN description of it did you list creativity as a feature.
If not technical, what else? Woodcraft, botanical and ornithological knowledge? Patience, use of their gear... sure.. we get all that. That's not creative though. creativity is a mental thing... it's about concept, use, and interpretation.. not "recording reality in detail [.... ] a technical pursuit".. your words.
So do I.
Does that include ripping the s**t out of Gursky, Emin or any one else deemed to be perfectly fine to rip the s**t out of? LOL Oh I get it... you mean be nice to those in here.... but it's OK to take the gloves off for anyone FAMOUS. I get it. B******s to that... work is work. You want double standards, then fine, but I'll have no truck with that.
More power to you. I agree. However... images are good or not based on what they do, not on how they were created.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Peter Lik is a fraud though. There's not even any evidence that "that sale" even took place. No one even acknowledges him as an artist, and no one takes him seriously as an artist because all he produces is sentimental, aesthetically and technique driven pap. I don't hate talking about Lik at all.... I'll happily talk about him. He's crap.
- Messages
- 11,823
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Replaced by strip mining for nickel, copper, aluminium - the raping of several south American countries for lithium with total disregard for the environment... all for your digital convenience.
The mass production of film, and the mass processing of silver based imagery was less environmentally damaging than the digital equivalent. Fact... just as the use and manufacture of hybrid cars is almost twice as damaging as the manufacture and use of conventional petrol vehicles.
Try telling that to the muesli and Tofu crowd though... they'll not believe you
I'd be interested to see the evidence.......or is it just an opinion?
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Really? Evidence for what? The damage caused by strip mining in south America that's driven by the electronics industry? What next, denying the holocaust? You can see that s**t from space... not exactly a secret.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,823
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
That claim about hybrid versus petrol cars. Or perhaps, given that this is a photography forum, don't bother.
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm sure I will regret this comment and I don't know for sure, but I would assume that the vast majority of professional photography is not creative at all. There is probably more product photography created professionally than any other type and for this, accurate presentation of the project is more important than artistry. If there is any artistry at all, it would be in the lighting. Although I would refer to it as a craft rather than an art.
Steve.
- Messages
- 11,823
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
The original post was about bird photographers at Bempton using 10 fps motor drives and long lenses. I'd like to suggest that wildlife photography is one of the few areas of photography that really has benefitted from new technology. It's difficult to imagine how the masters of 50 years ago achieved what they did without the equipment that is available to the current generation. The fact that it is now available to everybody (if they can afford it) means there is a lot of technically correct but possibly derivative bird photography around. I for one would never have achieved what I have achieved in bird photography in the last five years without all the advantages of digital.
The elitist tastemakers and curators will hate him but who cares about them or all the penniless artists and their tortured souls when you are selling $440 million worth of prints? His site is a hoot too:
From: https://www.lik.com/news/newsarticle57/
I can imagine all the hand-to-mouth artists and curators twiddling their handlebar moustaches and turtlenecks throbbing with rage reading that. You can play me the world's smallest violin for them.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,958
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 11,823
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
She was clearly well before her time. But even 50 years ago the Hoskings of this world would have loved all the possibilities that digital brings. Even 20 years ago........erm, even 10 years ago......
I'll have a listen to that prog when time allows. The wonders of modern technology........
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Because the claims for hybrids are predicated upon emissions (of the vehicle) only, and not the damage caused by manufacture, and even longevity of the product.
http://www.greenelement.co.uk/blog/article/the-truth-about-hybrid-manufacturing-and-the-environment/
http://www.pitt.edu/~crf30/Writing3.pdf
There's a whole lot more where that came from.
Not sure what point you're making here. You say massive budget, high value art is a con, and when I agree with you, you carry on arguing
Forget Lik and other showmen. I'm talking about proper artists who make a decent living from sales, exhibition and publishing. You belittle them and call them out for essentially fooling people. I'd like to know how that works please? I bought a first edition copy of Niagra by Alec Soth for £45. How have I been ripped off? It's worth around £300 now. I'm happy... Soth's happy, and it's wonderful work and a great book I get a great deal of pleasure looking at even now. Why are you dismissive of this?
Jealousy. Pure and simple. No one wants to buy your work, so you're going to slag off those who's work sells.
Grow up. Oh.. and stop posting articles about Lik. We all know who he is, and we all know the story. There's no proof he even sold that print for that amount. It's just a publicity stunt to get people like you typing the words "Peter Lik" into the internet. No one takes him seriously, so I fail to see why you're discussing him in the same light as proper artists. There's tons of work like Lik's on Flickr. Nothing to see here.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I think that's all anyone is saying here. The fact that so many photographers are taking great imagery in this arena is due to gear, not skill. Skill is not really all it used to be in terms of importance. However, given that is the case, what are we admiring? This is why there is a backlash in the art world against aesthetically driven decorative work: Because it's easy to produce. How can we admire work that anyone with a bit of training can achieve? Where's it's value? So we look for meaning and purpose instead, but find that there's none of that either. So again.. what's it for other than pleasure as a hobby, possibly scientific interest and just something pretty to look at. Nothing wrong with that BTW... let's just stop pretending it's some massive skill based thing, or creative, or art. It's not.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,958
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
You can only use the technology that's available in your era.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Absolutely correct. There was little if any creativity to what I did for a living, which is one of the reasons I stopped doing it.
Not sure what point you're making here. You say massive budget, high value art if a con, and when I agree with you, you carry on arguing
Forget Lik and other showmen. I'm talking about proper artists who make a decent living from sales, exhibition and publishing. You belittle them and call them out for essentially fooling people. I'd like to know how that works please? I bought a first edition copy of Niagra by Alec Soth for £45. How have I been ripped off? It's worth around £300 now. I'm happy... Soth's happy, and it's wonderful work and a great book I get a great deal of pleasure looking at even now. Why are you dismissive of this?
Jealousy. Pure and simple. No one wants to buy your work, so you're going to slag off those who's work sells.
Grow up.
Erm, Peter Lik ring any bells? I mean the hypocrisy in your posts is a work of art in itself. As for your book there is a signed first edition, as new and signed by both Alec Soth and Richard Ford on the title page on Amazon for $275. That dovetails nicely into the way photography as an industry is headed. Someone is offering something equally as good or better than you for cheaper forcing you to drive your price down to compete. Or to put it another way, it isn't worth what you think it is worth.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry... I'm not seeing the hypocrisy. Peter Lik is not an artist, despite what he thinks of himself, or calls himself. You seem to be using him as an example of how the art world is nepotistic and obsessed with celebrity, when the art world itself has dismissed Lik as utter sh*t. If all the art world wanted was someone to market and make money from, they'd have been all over Lik like flies on s**t.
My book is not for sale, so it's irrelevant. £300 was a guess... I've never valued it. I mention value as a measure of it's worth. Most things desirable increase in value because many people want them. That's kind of how it works. If no one wanted it, it would be worthless.
Everything you're saying is irrelevant. You're just having a go at the art world as usual... all of it, for no reason that makes any sense. Clearly you're not involved in it, so why get so upset? Or maybe that's why you're upset. No idea.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,823
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, that was my point. I realise that post could have been read in two different ways....... The bird photographer of even ten years ago would have loved the technology that is available today.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh god yes. Any of us shooting back then would have. The times I've cursed the limit of ISO 800 film and still getting terrible quality, when I can now shoot at ISO800 and at anything up to A2 not even tell it from ISO100.
He's sold half a billion dollars worth of prints, galleries all over the USA, work hanging in expensive hotels and apartments or in the Smithsonian museum as well as hundreds of awards and accolades and has the scrambled alphabet after his name in fellowships and titles and he's not an artist? Then who the hell is?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
So you are measuring artistic talent based on print sales? Is that how you work out musical talent as well? Chart sales? Is that how you work out what car is best? By car sales? You just don't get how ridiculous your argument is do you? He has not sold half a billion worth of anything any way. There was a massive thread about this not long ago.. some interesting research came up about Lik and his sales, and discounting the figures that he himself has given, there was no evidence of sales from all major auction houses in the US and Europe that totalled more than a couple of 10s of thousands. Considering his profile at the moment... that's not really trying very hard is it.
Lik is crap. It's sentimental, aesthetic crap. The whole point f this thread should explain why he is crap. It's easy to produce aesthetically pleasing work these days, which is why there are millions and millions of aesthetically, technically brilliant photographs on Flickr.. all worthless because they're so common.
You speak as if you admire him. Can I ask why? I admire his ability to market himself, but do you admire his work? If so, can you explain what it is about it you think makes it good?
- Messages
- 11,823
- Name
- Jeremy Moore
- Edit My Images
- No
I thought I almost agreed with what you were saying here. But even if the technology available now is incredible compared to what was available even ten years ago, there is still a high level of skill required to operate it. Otherwise anyone with a long lens (etc) would produce great bird photography straight away, and they don't. You appear to recognise that these photographs have value, then contradict yourself in saying that they have no value, either because it is "easy" or just requires a bit of training, or has no meaning or purpose. Some people just enjoy looking at amazing wildlife or landscape images and want no more than that. Many photographers are happy to produce it.
Your world is a different one and you have actually explained it quite well. But to the outsider there appears to be an all-pervading prejudice against anything in the visual arts which is not in some way "conceptual" - even if the results are pretty dismal. The craft, if you like, of putting that concept into visual terms being very poorly developed in many cases. Sixth-form stuff, some might say.
If Lik had taken Rhein II or a Burtynsky slag heap and sold it for millions is he an artist yet or still crap? It sounds like pure snobbery and elitism. 'You can be part of our club, but not you, we don't like your type'. As for him making money I read this post:
From: http://scottreither.com/blogwp/2012/06/11/peter-lik-gallery-photographer-my-story/
In the secondary market scarcity will create value. Who wants to buy a print 200 out of 950 'limited editions' at auction? Not me. I think he has some nice shots of Antelope Canyon but his true genius is his business model and marketing. Any photographer would love to be in his position basically printing money and having awards thrown at him. Anyone jealously calling me not an artist or whatever else could pick a number, get in line, and kiss my hairy arse.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
How much of that is camera skill though, or just experience with the subject being shot? Knowing how each bird flies, it's characteristics, how fast etc. I don't agree that you need a great deal of skill to operate modern camera gear.
I never said they have no value. I said they have no value in terms of art or creative practice. I also question their worth because there's so much of it around. The value I think they have is in pleasure of producing them and looking at them if that gives you pleasure. Nothing is utterly worthless as someone will value it, but generally, as a measure of skill, I think they get less and less relevant as it gets easier and easier to create such images. The easier photography gets, then the more we need to look for other things to measure an image's worth. This is why concept and thought, and communicated meaning, and story, and narrative are more highly valued than technical skill these days: Technical skill is hard to measure now, as it's so easy for even people with little technical skill to make work that looks like it took technical skill. It may fool the man in the street, but it doesn't fool anyone who knows anything about photography, and that includes those who buy it, commission it, and publish it.
There is yes. I've explained why though. It's because there's no longer any worth in aesthetics and decorative imagery. It's easy to produce, and we're drowning in it. It's impossible to sell, market or use. Everyone and his dog can do it, so of course there's a back lash against it. However, how are you deciding upon "dismal"? If work is dismal, no one will appreciate it no matter what... but how are you defining dismal? You mean not necessarily pretty to look at? Well... when you're drowning in pretty... maybe dismal is exactly what is needed as a breath of fresh air.
If that's what you mean, then no, that wouldn't be valued either
Crap is crap after all. It's just that "good" means something else these days. It's never actually meant the same thing to amateurs as it has to anyone who thinks of photography as an art form, but the divide is widening even more as increasing numbers of hobbyists are chasing the same outdated imagery and then processing it to death in this feeding frenzy of "awesome" imagery on Flickr.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
He'd be an artist. However, he didn't.. he took a dreary, aesthetically driven technical exercise, processed it to death, and then sold that instead. He couldn't produce what Gursky or Burtinsky have produced, because he doesn't have what it takes, because he thinks great phgtography is about maing "wow" imagery.
The fact that you dismiss Burtinsky's work as a photo of a slag heap shows exactly why I think you're a knob.
No.. 'You can be part of our club, but not you, we don't like your work'
Fixed that for you. It's not about type.. it;s about work. Lik produces meaningless pap. The end.
I agree completely. WHich is why he is not an artist. However, isn't that the argument you are levelling at Gursky? How come you have disdain for Gurky, yet seem to admire this idiot? At least Gursky's work is actually interesting and has some substance. Lik's work is just identical to so much work on Flickr it's painful.
I'd love to be in Gursky's position, yes. Not Lik's. If all that matters to you is money, then that's how shallow you really are then isn't it. I'd actually hate to be a photographer known for selling outrageously expensive sh*t. I have principles. I have a house, nice car, beautiful wife and daughter , as many gadgets and toys as I can practically use, an interesting job and enough experience and qualifications and cash tucked away to drop it when I get bored and do something else too , and I get to produce work, exhibit work, and enjoy what I do. So sorry to disappoint you, but if I was in Lik's position, I'd have let the cat out of the bag by now that I'm just taking people for a ride. My conscience would have got the better of me. Clearly you don't have one
I'd kill to be in Gursky's position though, yes, but not because of money.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
What exactly would you call Bao Steel #8? Looks like a photo of a slag heap to me, YMMV. As I said earlier you take Rhein II and try to sell it and see how much you get (close to zero). Now Gursky does it and you get $4.3 million. Why can he flog high end art and you can't? Well this is worth a read to the very end:
http://qz.com/103091/high-end-art-is-one-of-the-most-manipulated-markets-in-the-world/
Pap hasn't got much to do with it, pap sells like hot cakes if you've got the right people telling you to collect pap. Bypassing convention, being unorthodox and doing it yourself and flooding your own primary market and destroying the secondary market with no regulation, well that's not going to win you many friends in a carefully managed industry.
Lik or Gursky or Burtynsky are all artists, all talented in their own way, but all marketed extremely well. Gursky's are more artistic but Burtynsky's are more philosophical is the best way I've read them described and Lik's more muzak for the eyes. I'm not going to spend as long looking at a Lik work as I am the other two.
I'd love to be in Gursky's position, yes. Not Lik's. If all that matters to you is money, then that's how shallow you really are then isn't it. I'd actually hate to be a photographer known for selling outrageously expensive sh*t. I have principles. I have a house, nice car, beautiful wife and daughter , as many gadgets and toys as I can practically use, an interesting job and enough experience and qualifications and cash tucked away to drop it when I get bored and do something else too , and I get to produce work, exhibit work, and enjoy what I do. So sorry to disappoint you, but if I was in Lik's position, I'd have let the cat out of the bag by now that I'm just taking people for a ride. My conscience would have got the better of me. Clearly you don't have one
I'd kill to be in Gursky's position though, yes, but not because of money.
If I sold $500 million worth of prints you could say I was shallower than a worm's grave and I wouldn't care. I saw one of your pictures that looked like a pastiche of Gursky's Rhein II and if some collector with more money than sense wanted to buy that for £3 million which started a frenzy of bidding on even photos you took you thought were pap you'd tell them 'no I have my principles'? Please.
Me? I'd sell out in a heartbeat. I could go almost anywhere, buy almost anything and live life exactly how I wanted with almost endless possibilities until I shuffled off this mortal coil. Given the link I posted about manipulation of the market you'd have to be naive to think it is all about being pap or not.
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
That's what it literally is a picture of, yes. Well done for having eyes.
A) It says nothing we don't already know, and B) why are you insisting that the art work IS high end gallery sales.... as if that's all the art world consists of. You're obsessed with money. That bears no resemblance to the art work I'm involved with whatsoever. You've actually got little or no idea what it's all about, because you have already dismissed it in your tiny little closed mind.
yes it does... but it's still pap. Woh cares what sells for how much. What sells does not equal what's good. Again you show total ignorance. You can't blame the art world for getting as much as it can for art work at that level, but the art world has to have work that's actually art though. Lik is despised by the art world.... not really. He's quite despised by it really.
Nope.. and it doesn't. Thankfully the art world you are describing bears no resemblance to teh art world I'm involved in... why's that.... Oh yeah... you've no real idea what it's about and pick up on sensationalist news stories on the internet.
No.. you're wrong. Lik is s**t and quite simply not even in the same game, let alone league as Gursky and Burtinsky.
S**t in other words... eye candy... pap... yes.
Because it's s**t.
Lik hasn't sold anywhere near that amount, but even if he had, so what. I'd wish you luck. I wouldn't say no if someone offered me that either, but I wouldn't actively set my stall out to be the most creative photgrapher in eth world right now (Lik's words) and sell s**t. I just couldn't do it, because while I'm counting all my money, peopel woudl be actually thinking I was s**t.. because I would be if I was creating work like Lik's. SOme things are worth more than money.... like self-respect. Maybe you lack that too.
If you knew what you were talking about you'd realise it owed more to Idris Khan.... but never mind.
It would be entirely their look out, not instigated by me, or a result of me blowing smoke up people's asses. Yes, I'd take the money... it's up to them if they think it' worth it. However. my work is infinitely better than Lik's, so while I'd be surprised and bewildered by it, I'd still take it. Lik is different.... he surely must realise he's producing utter s**t and fleecing people intentionally. I'd not do that no... not matter for how much money. It makes me a douchebag.
Lik is pap. It just is.
I'd sell a print for millions, yes, so long as it wasn't actually me manipulating anything, and if there was actual genuine worth in the artwork. If I was s**t I'd be feeling ever so guilty though. If you wouldn't, then maybe that's your true colours coming through - selfish, shallow and avaricious. All decidedly unpleasant qualities in a human being. Well done.
Last edited:
That link I posted where the guy was selling $100k a month would be a good indication that he was obviously selling well. His auction figures seem dubious but go to Art Brokerage and you'll find quite a few of his works for resale.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Google the ny times article on Lik. See how real his figures are.anyway at $100k a month would take 450+ years to sell the half billion you claim
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh Laudrup isn't bothered about incidental details like that.... LOL
There was a thread on this not long back. We're covering old ground. Lik is a fraud.
Last edited:
So a picture of a slag heap, thanks for agreeing, does that make you a knob too?
The best thing is you are being manipulated by the tastemakers into believing what is and isn't art. I'd highly doubt you are operating at this level in the art world where you influence cultural taste. You're basically a sheep, baaing when they tell you to.
Your desire to restrict what is defined as art or not mean nothing. If anything it is extremely unhelpful and comes across as jealous of the success of someone you deem unworthy.
Nope.. and it doesn't. Thankfully the art world you are describing bears no resemblance to teh art world I'm involved in... why's that.... Oh yeah... you've no real idea what it's about and pick up on sensationalist news stories on the internet.
As I said earlier I did assume you weren't operating at the elite level. The article probably has your and the majority of the markets level covered:
Well art is subjective after all and like it or not Lik does produce art. Rhein II if you took it would be described as s***, I've seen it described as s*** lots of times and I've seen Lik's work said it could have been taken on an iPhone.
Yes you said that.
And that.
You show the population a Lik photo or Rhein II and how many will put the Lik on their wall compared to the Gursky? All your pretentious waffling on and I'd bet the vast majority would be hanging a Lik up on their wall whilst you rock back and forth in the corner muttering 'philistines'.
I was talking about Sustainable 1 not North Pier to South Pier. No matter, it was just an observation, with my eyes.
His answer on looking at an Ansel Adams' famous picture was "Just a nice shot of Yosemite. Right place at the right time.” Maybe he is thinking of his own work, 'nice shot at the right time, this will sell'. A lot of people seem to agree which is why they are buying it. Peter Lik's work is also better than yours.
Oh the tortured artists soul just needing that validation from the elite that he's part of the pretentious club. A club that has reportedly been manipulating the market and brand every step of the way to command these large prices and milk the cash cow, and you think you are there because you've just made the greatest art ever? If you fell out of fashion you'd be dumped like a hot potato, great art or not.
Pretty sure I already linked to that unless there is another one?