Why is Peter Lik's work so valuable?

[Steve5D]

I've heard the 'yeah but when you see the work itself it's totally different and awesome' routine a lot of time, and so far it's never been true. The crud is still crud, the interesting looking stuff that doesn't work for me is still interesting stuff that doesn't work for me, and I still like the stuff I like. Jackson Pollack's stuff was bigger than I expected, but not fundamentally different.

Get back to me after you've actually seen Lik's work in person and have a clue what you're talking about.

Why get all snotty?

Lik's work is excellent. Are his prints worth the associated prices? Well, yeah, to some people. That doesn't make him "great", though.

It's also kinda' stupid to say "Yeah, that figures" when someone says he doesn't know who he is. A lot of people don't know who he is, and probably for not other reason than they've not been exposed to his work. Being critical of someone for that is stupid...

 

[amolitor]

Some of the photos in runnah's link suggest that he uses a panoramic camera.

 

[jwbryson1]

Some of the photos in runnah's link suggest that he uses a panoramic camera.

Yep. Check out this thread:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-equipment-products/225515-peter-lik.html

 

[Buckster]

I've heard the 'yeah but when you see the work itself it's totally different and awesome' routine a lot of time, and so far it's never been true. The crud is still crud, the interesting looking stuff that doesn't work for me is still interesting stuff that doesn't work for me, and I still like the stuff I like. Jackson Pollack's stuff was bigger than I expected, but not fundamentally different.

Get back to me after you've actually seen Lik's work in person and have a clue what you're talking about.

Why get all snotty?

I'll take that as rhetorical, since answering in all truth and honesty would probably just get me into trouble with the mods for hurting you and amolitor's feelings.

Lik's work is excellent. Are his prints worth the associated prices? Well, yeah, to some people. That doesn't make him "great", though.

It makes him and his work "great" to those who value his work to that degree.

I myself didn't think much of it beyond, "yeah - screen savers" until I saw it in person in a gallery in San Francisco - and it reached in through my eyeballs and shook my brain in a way that nearly knocked me to my knees and literally left me with a feeling of tingling, vibrating euphoria that lasted for several hours after the experience. Up until that moment, I was CLUELESS about Peter Lik's work, and was unqualified and unprepared to comment on it in any meaningful way up until then, though you'd never have been able to convince me of that until it kicked my a$$ in person.

Have you seen it large as life in person, or are you similarly unqualified without knowing it? It sounds like the latter, since everyone I've talked to who's actually seen it in person describes it as an unforgettable experience. Like someone earlier in the thread said, they could charge admission just for letting you in to look at it.

Those who haven't seen it in person and make comments like, "yeah - screen savers - blah" or "yeah - printing big makes anyone's stuff look good" (implying "yeah - so this is no big deal - blah") ARE as clueless as people who've never ridden a roller coaster saying, "yeah - a cart riding up and down on hills - blah - boring".

It's also kinda' stupid to say "Yeah, that figures" when someone says he doesn't know who he is. A lot of people don't know who he is, and probably for not other reason than they've not been exposed to his work. Being critical of someone for that is stupid...

My criticism is that some people who don't know what they're talking about LOVE to chime in like they're experts. Wannabe art critic bloggers who can't themselves make work worth spit carry on with their snooty noses in the air about accomplished photographers, saying they suck and their work is gauche and mediocre and cliche and so on, pretending that anything popular is, by default, no good, so they don't like it. THAT is what's "stupid" to me.

THAT is why I laughed my a$$ off recently watching Zack Arias show up here and kick a certain wannabe photography/photographer critic blogger's a$$ over that kind of bullschit, and why he gets very little respect from me. He either makes a valid point and gets credit for it, or he makes yet another bullschit statement and gets called on it, but his too few "attaboys" don't buy him any passes for his bullschit with me, and neither do yours buy any for you.

Don't like it? Can't take it? You know where the Ignore button is.

 

[The_Traveler]

Printing big makes everyone's stuff look better. That's why galleries are filled with giant prints of nothing these days.

Making a compelling and powerful 8x10, now that's a challenge.

Not a comment on Peter Lik's work specifically, since I literally don't even know who he is.

what he said.

 

[timor]

Art, for the most part, has value because it is expensive and is expensive because it is valuable.

I like what Amolitor said, especially the part I am quoting. It sounds really bad, but is close to what we have; a small percentage of true art lovers, a few noisy trend and price setters and the rest playing connoisseurs but in fact just following the fashion and dollar signs.
Lik has impressive collection of shots around the world, but nothing "shocking" as compositions and his color treatment aims for quick, popular acceptance. And office wall calendars.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Printing something big doesn't always make it look pretty, especially if it sucks.

 

[Steve5D]

I'll take that as rhetorical, since answering in all truth and honesty would probably just get me into trouble with the mods for hurting you and amolitor's feelings.

Oh, don't flatter yourself. In order to hurt my feelings, I'd need to have a measurable level of respect for you...

It makes him and his work "great" to those who value his work to that degree.

Um, okay, that's pretty much what I was saying.

So, I guess... thanks for stating the obvious...

I myself didn't think much of it beyond, "yeah - screen savers" until I saw it in person in a gallery in San Francisco - and it reached in through my eyeballs and shook my brain in a way that nearly knocked me to my knees and literally left me with a feeling of tingling, vibrating euphoria that lasted for several hours after the experience. Up until that moment, I was CLUELESS about Peter Lik's work, and was unqualified and unprepared to comment on it in any meaningful way up until then, though you'd never have been able to convince me of that until it kicked my a$$ in person.

Oh, I see.

So because Amolitor is in the same position you once were, you feel justified in calling him out for never seeing Lik's stuff?

Have you seen it large as life in person, or are you similarly unqualified without knowing it? It sounds like the latter, since everyone I've talked to who's actually seen it in person describes it as an unforgettable experience. Like someone earlier in the thread said, they could charge admission just for letting you in to look at it.

I have seen it in person.

His work is excellent. I said that before. Is it unforgettable? Depends, I suppose. I've seen similar images by other photographers, and had you seen those images, and not Lik's, you'd be salivating over those...

Those who haven't seen it in person and make comments like, "yeah - screen savers - blah" or "yeah - printing big makes anyone's stuff look good" (implying "yeah - so this is no big deal - blah") ARE as clueless as people who've never ridden a roller coaster saying, "yeah - a cart riding up and down on hills - blah - boring".

Nonsense. Yours is an opinion. You've sipped the Lik Kool-Aid, and have concluded that no one could possibly view it and not be ridiculously and irrevocably impressed by it.

My criticism is that some people who don't know what they're talking about LOVE to chime in like they're experts. Wannabe art critic bloggers who can't themselves make work worth spit carry on with their snooty noses in the air about accomplished photographers, saying they suck and their work is gauche and mediocre and cliche and so on, pretending that anything popular is, by default, no good, so they don't like it. THAT is what's "stupid" to me.

Amolitor was clear that he didn't know who Lik is, so it's kinda' silly to try to promote the argument that he was chiming in as an expert on it. Not knowing who he is precludes him from commenting on his work.

You've gone off the rails simply because you think someone offered nothing more than an opinion regarding the work of someone you so clearly idolize. Ergo, objectivity will not be your strong suit here.

THAT is why I laughed my a$$ off recently watching Zack Arias show up here and kick a certain wannabe photography/photographer critic blogger's a$$ over that kind of bullschit, and why he gets very little respect from me. He either makes a valid point and gets credit for it, or he makes yet another bullschit statement and gets called on it, but his too few "attaboys" don't buy him any passes for his bullschit with me, and neither do yours buy any for you.

Don't like it? Can't take it? You know where the Ignore button is.

You're not important enough for me to ignore. In fact, I'm getting a real kick out of this.

It's pretty clear you've got an over-inflated sense of self here, to think that my not being able to buy a "pass" from you should bother me.

Really, in the grand scheme of things, you're just some random guy on the internet, and I really tend to not get too spun up by random guys on the internet...

 

[rexbobcat]

I didn't know the name until I looked him up. I've heard of him before and many of his photos are beautiful...

But he dresses like a douchebag.

Also; why do people get all defensive or aggressive when talking about some stranger who doesn't give two ****s about anyone on this forum?

Also also; on the Wiki page for him he's holding a panoramic camera.

He takes nice pictures that I'm sure are incredible in person, but at the same time they don't make me feel much beyond "wow that's gorgeous" since the market is already saturated with image that are in the same surreal style as his. I'm sure I could search Flickr an find just as many amazing shots that blown up huge would be just as staggering.

 

[squirrels]

But he dresses like a douchebag.

No way. That hat is totally brilliant marketing!

 

[Steve5D]

I didn't know the name until I looked him up. I've heard of him before and many of his photos are beautiful...

But he dresses like a douchebag.

Also; why do people get all defensive or aggressive when talking about some stranger who doesn't give two ****s about anyone on this forum?

Also also; on the Wiki page for him he's holding a panoramic camera.

He takes nice pictures that I'm sure are incredible in person, but at the same time they don't make me feel much beyond "wow that's gorgeous" since the market is already saturated with image that are in the same surreal style as his. I'm sure I could search Flickr an find just as many amazing shots that blown up huge would be just as staggering.

Stand by for your verbal flogging from Bucky.

How dare you express your own opinion...

 

[HerkFE]

I have seen his gallery I believe in Vegas and while the scenes he captures are gorgeous and breathtaking they surely don't deserve the price he fetches in my opinion. I think he is a master of good composition and finds ways to capture some extremely beautiful landscapes and scenery that do provide eye popping images. Of course I had never read a single book on photography or exposure when I saw his gallery I may very well return and feel differently. I will say that his images are interesting and compelling visually to me personally.

 

[Steve5D]

Also; why do people get all defensive or aggressive when talking about some stranger who doesn't give two ****s about anyone on this forum?

Unfortunately, some people are absolutely and completely unable to digest the fact that not everyone shares their opinion, and they get truly upset when faced with a differing opinion. They believe their view is the one and only correct view, and all differing views are to be trivialized and scorned. These are often the same people who'll cut in line at the snack bar at a ball game, or will start asking a store clerk questions while that store clerk is in the middle of helping another customer.

I think we're seeing some of that personality trait in this thread...

 

[amolitor]

I kind of want to let this go on without me, but I do want to step in and say one thing.

I don't find it funny at all. I am depressed by Buckster's attitude toward me, not because I crave his praise or anything like that, but because he's clearly got a lot of anger toward me. He's a dude who's dealt with some really really tough stuff in his life, and I don't see how holding some grudge against some bloke on the internet is doing him or anyone else any good. I'm depressed to be involved in making another little spot of darkness in an already very dark universe. I don't really know what the hell I did to accomplish this, but I wish I hadn't.

 

[invisible]

Printing something big doesn't always make it look pretty, especially if it sucks.

I 'liked' your post not for the negative message but because I think it's exquisitely beautiful. What taste!