Peter Lik makes more money in a year than some small countries

[MOREGONE]

I like Lik's work and admire that he found a way to support himself and create many jobs and operate a successful business.

I've met a variety of successful people and am not at all surprised that another one would be their own biggest fan... Just the same as I don't care what Ray Rice does off the field I don't care what Peter Lik is like personally.

When someone doesn't conform to Normal practices you shouldn't bastardize them, you should consider why it is working and what the future may hold in the ever changing landscape of photography.

I'd rather hang a Lik on my wall than a Gursky..

 

[W.Y.Photo]

There are some important lessons in selling and human psychology revealed in that article. "Value" is shown to be a construct of a process that is quite rigorous in application, whether it is done by the art galleries and auction houses, or by Peter Lik's own retail outlets. In both cases, it is the process that confers a "value" on an object, and the value is not inherent in the object itself. And despite the disdain that each group shows for the other, the only difference in their processes is the differing emphasis during what is in fact a very similar process.

This article reinforces my observation that salesmanship is about creating something in the buyer's mind that has something to do with the object or service being sold, but has much more to do with the buyer's ideas, perceptions, and aspirations. "Sell the sizzle, not the steak".

The difference is that the art world validates a work as worthy of that type of money and Peter Lik validates himself through a corporation using advertising. He sells to people who think they are making a good investment but the god's honest truth is that the value of his work will die with him while the value of the work of artist's that have the backing of museums and galleries will be retained if not increased.

He's kind of scamming his customers if you look at it in that sense. Like a stockbroker selling bad stock.

 

[rexbobcat]

When someone doesn't conform to Normal practices you shouldn't bastardize them, you should consider why it is working.

lol Lik isn't a "nonconformist." He's really good at business and creating initial value. His sales team is also very aggressive.

Being and outlier doesn't mean that he's somehow doing something different that should be admired.

Sometimes the loud, obnoxious kid in the class isn't a misunderstood genius as much as they're a jerk who knows that being a jerk will get them what they want.

There are many other photopreneurs who are much more commendable and ethical. I'd rather learn from people I feel are relatable, than try to poke around for the positive qualities of someone whose philosophies of doing business are already at odds with my own.

 

[photoguy99]

Yup. Lik is a businessman and quite a good one. There's no magic here. There's a ton of work and a certain predatory mindset. Much like virtually every other successful business.

 

[pgriz]

There are some important lessons in selling and human psychology revealed in that article. "Value" is shown to be a construct of a process that is quite rigorous in application, whether it is done by the art galleries and auction houses, or by Peter Lik's own retail outlets. In both cases, it is the process that confers a "value" on an object, and the value is not inherent in the object itself. And despite the disdain that each group shows for the other, the only difference in their processes is the differing emphasis during what is in fact a very similar process.

This article reinforces my observation that salesmanship is about creating something in the buyer's mind that has something to do with the object or service being sold, but has much more to do with the buyer's ideas, perceptions, and aspirations. "Sell the sizzle, not the steak".

The difference is that the art world validates a work as worthy of that type of money and Peter Lik validates himself through a corporation using advertising. He sells to people who think they are making a good investment but the god's honest truth is that the value of his work will die with him while the value of the work of artist's that have the backing of museums and galleries will be retained if not increased.

He's kind of scamming his customers if you look at it in that sense. Like a stockbroker selling bad stock.

"Value" is whatever someone else is prepared to pay. The art world's "value" is more generalized than Peter Lik's "value", but in both cases the buyers are asked to perceive a value. Without Lik's sales methods, how much "value" would buyers associate with his work? No-where near what he sells the prints for. Also, the ratcheting up of price as the number of prints go up is a brilliant yet cynical method of getting the buyers to perceive "value".

On the other hand, the art world (galleries, museums, evaluators, buyers) are also taking part in a little scamming, but spread over a larger number of people who are all willing to play the game. After a while, it's not the art piece itself, but the bragging rights that go with saying "I spent a cool $4.6 million for this canvas" that make the artwork "worth" something. This is also known as the "greater fool" theory of investing, in that one expects to have a greater fool pay even more money than what you did.

Certainly, some works are truly magnificent. But not every work by the well-known artists deserve to be sold for millions, except when people are buying the name, not the artwork. If the work was truly only related to the piece itself, then copies or even pieces painted during the same period and showing the same technique, style and subject matter should be worth similarly large amounts - but they are not. Branding is worth serious money, whether it is artwork or cars or soft-drinks. And that's the lesson in this - more "value" is created by brand management than by anything inherent in the work itself.

 

[photoguy99]

Money is a human construct, as are markets, prices, and so on. You can go down that rathole forever.

Luxury items are, more or less by definition, devoid of any inherent value. You cannot eat them, the do not provide warmth or shelter (although many Pollocks would make a fine lean-to.) The point about "real" fine art versus Peter Lik's stuff is that there is a secondary market. Yes, like all markets, especially markets for luxury items, it is an artifical, human, construct. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, though. I can sell a Gursky or a Sherman or an Adams or a Weston or or or... for real money. Perhaps more than I paid, perhaps less, but a) I can sell it and b) I can get a reasonable sum for it.

Peter Lik's stuff has no secondary market. Literally none. You essentially cannot sell this stuff for anything unless you get lucky, and even then you're taking a massive haircut.

Secondary Market, by the way, is a term of art here (he he Art see what I did there?) which means "buying it from someone who bought it from someone else".

Neither "real Fine Art" nor Peter Lik's work (or Rodney Lough's or or or) has any inherent value. None of it is made out of food. It's all luxury.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

There are some important lessons in selling and human psychology revealed in that article. "Value" is shown to be a construct of a process that is quite rigorous in application, whether it is done by the art galleries and auction houses, or by Peter Lik's own retail outlets. In both cases, it is the process that confers a "value" on an object, and the value is not inherent in the object itself. And despite the disdain that each group shows for the other, the only difference in their processes is the differing emphasis during what is in fact a very similar process.

This article reinforces my observation that salesmanship is about creating something in the buyer's mind that has something to do with the object or service being sold, but has much more to do with the buyer's ideas, perceptions, and aspirations. "Sell the sizzle, not the steak".

The difference is that the art world validates a work as worthy of that type of money and Peter Lik validates himself through a corporation using advertising. He sells to people who think they are making a good investment but the god's honest truth is that the value of his work will die with him while the value of the work of artist's that have the backing of museums and galleries will be retained if not increased.

He's kind of scamming his customers if you look at it in that sense. Like a stockbroker selling bad stock.

"Value" is whatever someone else is prepared to pay. The art world's "value" is more generalized than Peter Lik's "value", but in both cases the buyers are asked to perceive a value. Without Lik's sales methods, how much "value" would buyers associate with his work? No-where near what he sells the prints for. Also, the ratcheting up of price as the number of prints go up is a brilliant yet cynical method of getting the buyers to perceive "value".

On the other hand, the art world (galleries, museums, evaluators, buyers) are also taking part in a little scamming, but spread over a larger number of people who are all willing to play the game. After a while, it's not the art piece itself, but the bragging rights that go with saying "I spent a cool $4.6 million for this canvas" that make the artwork "worth" something. This is also known as the "greater fool" theory of investing, in that one expects to have a greater fool pay even more money than what you did.

Certainly, some works are truly magnificent. But not every work by the well-known artists deserve to be sold for millions, except when people are buying the name, not the artwork. If the work was truly only related to the piece itself, then copies or even pieces painted during the same period and showing the same technique, style and subject matter should be worth similarly large amounts - but they are not. Branding is worth serious money, whether it is artwork or cars or soft-drinks. And that's the lesson in this - more "value" is created by brand management than by anything inherent in the work itself.

I agree with you 100%


I think my problem with this whole thing is that Artist's have been making an honest living for a long time selling their works for a value that actually represents something about their work rather than a value gained by advertising and up-selling.

Sure, Lik makes images that look beautiful.. but Coke makes soda that tastes beautiful.. It doesn't mean I'm going to buy a Coke for 100 thousand dollars.

All I'm trying to say is really.. There's a huge difference between a Cindy Sherman Photograph and a photograph some random person puts on facebook.. That difference is the thought, vision, and concept of the photographer; it's like the difference between a $5 bottle of wine and a Chateau Margaux..

The only Difference between Peter Lik and some random facebook photographer's landscapes is that Peter Lik is selling a $5 bottle with a Chateau Margaux Label.


I mean, the guy shows little to no regard for ANSEL *expletive* ADAMS and he's working in the same field of photography. It's demeaning to the entire art-form.

 

[weepete]

I like Peter Lik's photos. Sure, they don't set the art world on fire, they don't challenge our preconceptions and the traditional art world turns their noses up at them. However, his work does seem to capture the imagination of ordinary people. Folks that don't normally buy art are buying his work which in itself is a feat.

Don't get me wrong the dudes persona leaves a lot to be desired (a smidge of humility being top of the list) and his marketing and sales strategy is moraly reprehensable but he does produce somthing pretty to hang on a wall. And there's nothing wrong with that in itself.

The real value of art is social, historical and anthropological rather than monetary and any judgement on the worth of any work of art based on monetary value is pretty much meaningless.

I'm reminded of a Scottish painter, Jack Vettriano, who takes similar critisisms (of his work) to Lik. The art world pretty much snubs the guy as an ordinary painter, yet go in to many houses in my part of the world and you'll find a Jack Vettriano print or framed poster on the wall.

 

[luckychucky]

Was this advertisement for the guy? Never heard of him. Now I have.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[bribrius]

There are some important lessons in selling and human psychology revealed in that article. "Value" is shown to be a construct of a process that is quite rigorous in application, whether it is done by the art galleries and auction houses, or by Peter Lik's own retail outlets. In both cases, it is the process that confers a "value" on an object, and the value is not inherent in the object itself. And despite the disdain that each group shows for the other, the only difference in their processes is the differing emphasis during what is in fact a very similar process.

This article reinforces my observation that salesmanship is about creating something in the buyer's mind that has something to do with the object or service being sold, but has much more to do with the buyer's ideas, perceptions, and aspirations. "Sell the sizzle, not the steak".

The difference is that the art world validates a work as worthy of that type of money and Peter Lik validates himself through a corporation using advertising. He sells to people who think they are making a good investment but the god's honest truth is that the value of his work will die with him while the value of the work of artist's that have the backing of museums and galleries will be retained if not increased.

He's kind of scamming his customers if you look at it in that sense. Like a stockbroker selling bad stock.

"Value" is whatever someone else is prepared to pay. The art world's "value" is more generalized than Peter Lik's "value", but in both cases the buyers are asked to perceive a value. Without Lik's sales methods, how much "value" would buyers associate with his work? No-where near what he sells the prints for. Also, the ratcheting up of price as the number of prints go up is a brilliant yet cynical method of getting the buyers to perceive "value".

On the other hand, the art world (galleries, museums, evaluators, buyers) are also taking part in a little scamming, but spread over a larger number of people who are all willing to play the game. After a while, it's not the art piece itself, but the bragging rights that go with saying "I spent a cool $4.6 million for this canvas" that make the artwork "worth" something. This is also known as the "greater fool" theory of investing, in that one expects to have a greater fool pay even more money than what you did.

Certainly, some works are truly magnificent. But not every work by the well-known artists deserve to be sold for millions, except when people are buying the name, not the artwork. If the work was truly only related to the piece itself, then copies or even pieces painted during the same period and showing the same technique, style and subject matter should be worth similarly large amounts - but they are not. Branding is worth serious money, whether it is artwork or cars or soft-drinks. And that's the lesson in this - more "value" is created by brand management than by anything inherent in the work itself.

I agree with you 100%


I think my problem with this whole thing is that Artist's have been making an honest living for a long time selling their works for a value that actually represents something about their work rather than a value gained by advertising and up-selling.

Sure, Lik makes images that look beautiful.. but Coke makes soda that tastes beautiful.. It doesn't mean I'm going to buy a Coke for 100 thousand dollars.

All I'm trying to say is really.. There's a huge difference between a Cindy Sherman Photograph and a photograph some random person puts on facebook.. That difference is the thought, vision, and concept of the photographer; it's like the difference between a $5 bottle of wine and a Chateau Margaux..

The only Difference between Peter Lik and some random facebook photographer's landscapes is that Peter Lik is selling a $5 bottle with a Chateau Margaux Label.


I mean, the guy shows little to no regard for ANSEL *expletive* ADAMS and he's working in the same field of photography. It's demeaning to the entire art-form.

That was the part of the article that made it worth reading for me. Too funny!

Can't say if i would like Lik or not. Never met him. Does appear quite the facade has been developed in these business ventures, assuming the article has any validity. But hey, it is art and vegas. It is about the show. The have a fake Eiffel tower there too.

 

[rexbobcat]

I like Peter Lik's photos. Sure, they don't set the art world on fire, they don't challenge our preconceptions and the traditional art world turns their noses up at them. However, his work does seem to capture the imagination of ordinary people. Folks that don't normally buy art are buying his work which in itself is a feat.

Don't get me wrong the dudes persona leaves a lot to be desired (a smidge of humility being top of the list) and his marketing and sales strategy is moraly reprehensable but he does produce somthing pretty to hang on a wall. And there's nothing wrong with that in itself.

The real value of art is social, historical and anthropological rather than monetary and any judgement on the worth of any work of art based on monetary value is pretty much meaningless.

I'm reminded of a Scottish painter, Jack Vettriano, who takes similar critisisms (of his work) to Lik. The art world pretty much snubs the guy as an ordinary painter, yet go in to many houses in my part of the world and you'll find a Jack Vettriano print or framed poster on the wall.

I've seen him compared more often to Thomas Kinkade.

 

[ChurchillMaris]

it's cool when the opinion of a person differs between "jerk" and "genius who earns huge money". "
This makes me think that when a person has haters-he goes in the right direction

 

[cgw]

Too bad there's no sort of morgue for these zombie posts...

 

[AlanKlein]

Well, an update is worthy. After all, with his business of galleries very dependent on travelers on vacation, Covid must have dented his sales a lot.

 

[Space Face]

Too bad there's no sort of morgue for these zombie posts...

Yeah, I agree. One of all too frequent one hit wonders.