Why is Peter Lik's work so valuable?

[orljustin]

Never heard of this guy. And up a few posts, that's a picture of a tree. Not worth $750, IMO.

 

[Ilovemycam]

To write off Eggleston and Sherman and all these others as "garbage" is to a) promote your own opinion as truth and b) to miss a lot of the important aspects of what's going on here.

I don't like Cindy Sherman, my opinion of her work is quite low. However, what she was doing was something interesting and innovative in an era when Performance Art and Conceptual Art were relatively new and interesting ideas. She fit into the milieu of the time, producing intellectually consistent work. She was producing work that could be sold at that time, and she was producing it consistently. Probably there were dozens or hundreds of other artists working similar ideas with similar dedication, and Sherman won the lottery.

The fact that she won a lottery and is now a Name does NOT mean that she wasn't working hard and well. She was. I don't like her work, but I don't deny that she's had a vision and bloody well stuck to it, and produced a coherent body of work and didn't let people see all the crap she no doubt shot at the same time. THIS is what it takes to get a lottery ticket, and it's not easy, and it's not trivial. If you don't have a lottery ticket, you're not going to win.

I think you will find that most successful artists work similarly hard to produce coherent bodies of work that reveal their ideas, and they scrap the stuff that doesn't fit. Their ideas and their art hit the right balance of innovation and evolution to be marketable at the time they're being made. This is real work.

This also has nothing to do with whether you like the art or not. This labor deserves our respect, even if we really hate the work.

Sure, it is just my opinion. People love their stuff. But to me it is crap. Some people love boring photos and like to see how borng they can get things. I'm a street and doc photog, so boring is not my thing. You are welcome to love their stuff. We are all allowed opinions.

 

[Ilovemycam]

I save lots of pix I find online with no name. Love the pix, name means nothing to me, although nice to have a name to put on the back of the print. I list it as 'annonymous' if I don't know.

So, you print photos you find on the internet? What do you do with them?

Put em in a 11 x 14 porfolio. When people look at my stuff. If they are serious and into pix and we talk a lot about them, then I show them some other photogs work that impressed me. Kinda like photo books, but ones you can't buy.

I may even put some of the boring crap in the book, tell them look at what the museums are buying... CRAP! But I limit the crap, don't even like looking at it, not even worth .90 cents for paper and .40 cents for ink.

 

[Buckster]

I save lots of pix I find online with no name. Love the pix, name means nothing to me, although nice to have a name to put on the back of the print. I list it as 'annonymous' if I don't know.

So, you print photos you find on the internet? What do you do with them?

Put em in a 11 x 14 porfolio. When people look at my stuff. If they are serious and into pix and we talk a lot about them, then I show them some other photogs work that impressed me. Kinda like photo books, but ones you can't buy.

I may even put some of the boring crap in the book, tell them look at what the museums are buying... CRAP! But I limit the crap, don't even like looking at it, not even worth .90 cents for paper and .40 cents for ink.

So, you willingly violate others' copyright by doing that without their permission, printing and using their photos as you please.

 

[StoneNYC]

Good thing I put my copy write on that image and only uploaded the small version haha, it's nice to have appreciation but if you're printing my work I would appreciate a referral from viewers

I agree those other pictures were certainly crap on their own, perhaps knowing the back story and seeing an entire collection might make them good somehow but nothing wow'ed me about any of those photos, and that gas station... Really? Haha mine is better I think...

It's not in any way "my best work" but better than his haha.

There are many pictures of trees that have sold for more. If you knew that this was on Kodachrome, taken the last month it was ever processed, that I had 70lbs on my back and was all alone, would that change anything? Maybe not? But it gives some context.

I have many much more beautiful prints, and that is the only one that sold for that much money, it was commissioned by request and really is only one of 3 images I've ever sold as prints....yet....

I forget what else I was going to respond to, other then that yes that's true some forums people ignore you, but I've never seen this amount of bickering over an opinion of someone who hasn't even seen the artist haha



~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dmunsie]

"But we can all learn form Lik...just show your best work."

Agreed. But this is obvious....marketing...done right. Btw...he's using a Nikon D800E, at least for his latest image.

 

[pgriz]

Branding: The consumer’s trust in a name for product value and perceived “goodness”, as a substitute for indepth knowledge about the product itself.

How to recognize:

1. A name brand distinguishes itself from the “no-name” brands as being (perceived) superior.
2. A name brand typically is (significantly) more expensive than the competition.
3. A name brand typically is purchased preferentially to the no-name brands.
4. A name brand embodies an emotional attraction to the consumer, in terms of the “goodness” the consumer is buying, and the aspirational benefits the consumer is hoping to receive.
5. A name brand appeals strongly to a niche of the buying public.

How to develop a brand:

1. A brand identity that encompassed a set of attributes that are attractive to a specific niche of the buying public.
2. Consistency of message, appearance and presentation in line with the brand identity.
3. Frequent exposure over a long period of time using the mediums that the niche uses for its information and entertainment.

This thread has covered many aspects of brand management, without identifying the underlying principles. That in itself is not surprising, since we are immersed in brand messaging, and we accept it as a normal, even essential part of making “informed” choices. Branding is as pervasive for us as water is to a fish.

We, as photographers, are as brand-focused as are most consumers. We associate with “our” brand all the positive attributes that we desire in our “best” products. But being members of this forum, we generally also have enough basic knowledge to be able to go behind the brand image to evaluate (more or less objectively) the attributes of a specific brand. Which is partly why, when we get the questions of “what is the best camera for....” or “what is the best lens for...” (which are part of the brand identity), we generally reply with specifics of what to look for. Our answers are usually still tainted with brand love, but we know enough not to be unquestioning about our loyalties.

And so it is with wine – those who know, don’t need the “name” to know whether they are drinking plonk or the exilir of the gods. And so it is with art. If we use Peter Lik’s brand identity, we can see the consistent application of the principles of brand management, to create a demand from a specific niche of the art-buying public. Chances are, if we’re not buying his $750 prints, we’re not in his target niche. But those in the niche, will buy a Peter Lik print over any one of ours, any and every day of the week.

The lesson here for us to to know our desired market, and to make our art the safe and easy answer when they think of what to buy, either for themselves, or for those they wish to impress and influence.

I think Kathy nailed it noting that the hat is a key part of his image. Peter Lik is selling “Peter Lik” as much as his art. He is using his use of exotic gear, and exotic locations as a branding tool to make himself be exotic. There is much he can teach us if we pay attention.

 

[Ilovemycam]

Now, if name means nothing then why do unsigned photos bring a fraction of a signed photo will bring?

Check out a Sturges shot

Jock Sturges Ballerina s F Ballet Silver Gelatin 8x10 Print Signed | eBay

Nice pix, but it is a $5 - $15 shot on ebay from a no name photog. Only reason Sturges stuff brings big bucks is he made a name for himself by shooting nude kids. Same with the rest of the nude kiddy photogs. OK, Sally Mann is a little better than the rest. but still, without here kiddy nudes she would not be where she is.

 

[Ilovemycam]

What is a photo worth? A few dollars for a no name photog. Our world is just polluted with photos.

8x8 Flower Blossom Photography Print Wall Decor Art Photograph All My Dreams | eBay


Saving things that are enjoyable or remarkable is what humans are about. So should be no surpise people save your pix. Esp other photogs.

"Looking at photographs, like taking them, can be joyful, sensuous pleasure. Looking at photographs of quality can only increase that pleasure." Pete Turner (Looking at garbage hurts, so we don't save them except to show others what garbage looks like.)

"A photograph that has not been shared or at least printed is almost an unexistent photograph, is almost an untaken picture." Sergio Garibay

...and that's the truth! Someday all our pix will be lost most likely...better enjoy them while you can!

 

[Ilovemycam]

Good thing I put my copy write on that image and only uploaded the small version haha, it's nice to have appreciation but if you're printing my work I would appreciate a referral from viewers

I agree those other pictures were certainly crap on their own, perhaps knowing the back story and seeing an entire collection might make them good somehow but nothing wow'ed me about any of those photos, and that gas station... Really? Haha mine is better I think...

It's not in any way "my best work" but better than his haha.

There are many pictures of trees that have sold for more. If you knew that this was on Kodachrome, taken the last month it was ever processed, that I had 70lbs on my back and was all alone, would that change anything? Maybe not? But it gives some context.

I have many much more beautiful prints, and that is the only one that sold for that much money, it was commissioned by request and really is only one of 3 images I've ever sold as prints....yet....

I forget what else I was going to respond to, other then that yes that's true some forums people ignore you, but I've never seen this amount of bickering over an opinion of someone who hasn't even seen the artist haha



~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

I would not save your gas station. Holds no interest to me. But as far as gas sstations go, it is nice.

Yes, your gas station is much better than the crapper the museum bought. But they wanted a color shot. You road shot was worthy of a save, but not a print. I don't have room to print everything that cathes my eye. Road was just a nice, pleasant shot. Pluse I'm not that big in landscapes. i like street photography best. On the other hand, 99.9% of what I see on the forums is not worthy of a save. so says something about your pix if it is saved.

Sure watermark them and use 200 to 400 kb res. If your generous use 600kb. I used to offer 600 - 800 kb with a watermark. I took the watermark off and reduced them to 200 kb. I listed my name on the image and don't need it shown on the image photo. Sure, someone can take my name off the data, but my photos are not easy to confuse with other photogs, so am not too worried about it.

I don't actually print my little collection 11 x 14. The paper is 11 x 14, images smaller. Seldom do you get a high res image online. I have wide white boarders to frame em. Usually prints are 5 x 7 to 6 x 9 with the res you get online. Sadly some photogs send in 50 kb stuff that can't be printed or even looked at very well. I wont archive them, too small.

 

[Ilovemycam]

Branding: The consumer’s trust in a name for product value and perceived “goodness”, as a substitute for indepth knowledge about the product itself.

How to recognize:

1. A name brand distinguishes itself from the “no-name” brands as being (perceived) superior.
2. A name brand typically is (significantly) more expensive than the competition.
3. A name brand typically is purchased preferentially to the no-name brands.
4. A name brand embodies an emotional attraction to the consumer, in terms of the “goodness” the consumer is buying, and the aspirational benefits the consumer is hoping to receive.
5. A name brand appeals strongly to a niche of the buying public.

How to develop a brand:

1. A brand identity that encompassed a set of attributes that are attractive to a specific niche of the buying public.
2. Consistency of message, appearance and presentation in line with the brand identity.
3. Frequent exposure over a long period of time using the mediums that the niche uses for its information and entertainment.

This thread has covered many aspects of brand management, without identifying the underlying principles. That in itself is not surprising, since we are immersed in brand messaging, and we accept it as a normal, even essential part of making “informed” choices. Branding is as pervasive for us as water is to a fish.

We, as photographers, are as brand-focused as are most consumers. We associate with “our” brand all the positive attributes that we desire in our “best” products. But being members of this forum, we generally also have enough basic knowledge to be able to go behind the brand image to evaluate (more or less objectively) the attributes of a specific brand. Which is partly why, when we get the questions of “what is the best camera for....” or “what is the best lens for...” (which are part of the brand identity), we generally reply with specifics of what to look for. Our answers are usually still tainted with brand love, but we know enough not to be unquestioning about our loyalties.

And so it is with wine – those who know, don’t need the “name” to know whether they are drinking plonk or the exilir of the gods. And so it is with art. If we use Peter Lik’s brand identity, we can see the consistent application of the principles of brand management, to create a demand from a specific niche of the art-buying public. Chances are, if we’re not buying his $750 prints, we’re not in his target niche. But those in the niche, will buy a Peter Lik print over any one of ours, any and every day of the week.

The lesson here for us to to know our desired market, and to make our art the safe and easy answer when they think of what to buy, either for themselves, or for those they wish to impress and influence.

I think Kathy nailed it noting that the hat is a key part of his image. Peter Lik is selling “Peter Lik” as much as his art. He is using his use of exotic gear, and exotic locations as a branding tool to make himself be exotic. There is much he can teach us if we pay attention.

Well spoken and true post.

The acid test will be how does the market treat his work after the fad wears off. Will it hold value, increase in value or not?

 

[Ilovemycam]

Set Signed Harry Callahan 1977 Ireland Dye Transfer Print and Color Book | eBay

Harry Callahan was another snapshot shooter that made it big. No name and his work would sell for nothing.

 

[amolitor]

I am astonished at how little you're willing to read and understand, ilovemycam.

You reply to things with remarks that show clearly that you simply couldn't be bothered to read what was written. If you're not going to hold up your end of the conversation, you'll find it difficult to actually discuss anything with anybody.

 

[Ilovemycam]

Forgot to mention...

Lik couln't sell anything cheap is he wanted to. Lik Corp has a huge overhead. Check it out. If he sold things cheap he'd go bust. If you like his work and can't afford a pix, you still can buy his 'big book' for $2000.

Speaking of books...

McCurry has some great ones for low $. For $75 - $100 you can buy 3 or 4 of them used. I have many of his books myself. Esp like the Monsoon book

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/560431_10150868183863511_991036813_n.jpg

I love off beat shots. Here is a nice one from Mel Digiacomo. Everything clicked and the snapshot became a photograph!

http://phototechmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/meldigiacomo.jpg

Eisenstaedt...just wonderful!

http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_3276168_633201_alfred-eisenstaedt.jpg

This is the type of work I like.

 

[imagemaker46]

Ilovemycam, can you post some of your street photography. Generally people that rant and rave about the quality of other people's work being crap, are themselves, producing crap.