| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2014 11:22:44 AM · #1 |
Peter Lik (born 1959) is a photographer from Australia, best known for his nature and panoramic landscape images. Advanced Editing ruleset.
Amazing landscape images
//www.lik.com/news/newsarticle57/
Yes, he's from Australia. This challenge would add an international dimension.
Message edited by author 2014-12-10 11:23:41. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 11:51:26 AM · #2 |
By a complete coincidence i've just this minute finished reading this article here...
Probably fair to say that art critic isn't a fan…
'Yet a closer look at Phantom reveals exactly the opposite. This record-setting picture typifies everything that goes wrong when photographers think they are artists. It is derivative, sentimental in its studied romanticism, and consequently in very poor taste. It looks like a posh poster you might find framed in a pretentious hotel room.'
Message edited by author 2014-12-10 11:57:50. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 11:56:42 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by rooum:
By a complete coincidence i've just this minute finished reading this article here...
Probably fair to say that art critic isn't a fan…
'Yet a closer look at Phantom reveals exactly the opposite. This record-setting picture typifies everything that goes wrong when photographers think they are artists. It is derivative, sentimental in its studied romanticism, and consequently in very poor taste. It looks like a posh poster you might find framed in a pretentious hotel room.' |
LOL! The critic seems threatened and jealous. Oh, well. Aussies' can take the abuse. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 11:58:35 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by rooum:
By a complete coincidence i've just this minute finished reading this article here...
Probably fair to say that art critic isn't a fan…
'Yet a closer look at Phantom reveals exactly the opposite. This record-setting picture typifies everything that goes wrong when photographers think they are artists. It is derivative, sentimental in its studied romanticism, and consequently in very poor taste. It looks like a posh poster you might find framed in a pretentious hotel room.' |
LOL! The critic seems threatened and jealous. Oh, well. Aussies' can take the abuse. |
Probably. I think critics can be. By posting that i was in no way agreeing with the writer (i tend to think Jonathan Jones is a bit of a berk). What would his style consist of though? I tend to think of brightly coloured, highly detailed landscapes but i don't know a huge about him. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 12:02:47 PM · #5 |
two things why lik doesn't make a good challenge-
one, his work is highly dependent on beautiful landscapes and nature. many of us dont have access to that.
two, his work shines when you go into his gallery, otherwise he doesn't really stand out from anyone on the front page pf 500x.
Message edited by author 2014-12-10 12:03:30. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 12:24:02 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Mike:
two things why lik doesn't make a good challenge-
one, his work is highly dependent on beautiful landscapes and nature. many of us dont have access to that.
two, his work shines when you go into his gallery, otherwise he doesn't really stand out from anyone on the front page pf 500x. |
Bloom where you are planted. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 12:34:25 PM · #7 |
When an artist is commercially successful, other artists and critics surround and eat their own. Peter Lik a) markets the crap out of his work and b) shoots images that are not brooding, negative, or unsettling. This means that he is "derivitive and sentimental".
I was unaware that Lik has stopped by Portland before. It looks like he shot the nearly famous Japanese maple at the Portland Japanese Garden. He came at the wrong time (ie, the leaves hadn't changed), but that actually makes the shot fresh.
Message edited by author 2014-12-10 12:37:29. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 12:42:51 PM · #8 |
| Apparently Jonathan Jones just doesn't like photography as an artistic medium. If you click on his name you can see his other articles including one with the title, "Flat, soulless and stupid: why photographs don’t work in art galleries". Haters gotta hate. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 12:43:09 PM · #9 |
A tough challenge and one I would have very little chance of doing well in, so actually an excellent challenge to try and improve/learn from. I believe I have been to one of his galleries quite a while back.
Regarding the $6.5m photo sale, sometimes I feel like super-wealthy art buyers just like to spend more than their buddies on a single item so they can pat themselves on the back until they are one-upped.
It is a very good picture I would give a 9 or 10 in a free study, just to bring a DPC context to it...
The critic's point of it not being a completely unique or new way or portraying a commonly seen subject in the SW US has some validity, though. I've seen a couple photos here from that place or a similar place, and a few members of the camera club I went to when I lived in New Mexico had been there and came away with things quite similar. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 01:11:17 PM · #10 |
The photographer has added nothing to what was there already.
Photography is not an art. It's a technology.
I agree with these 2 statements.
That he got 6.2M $ for this -- good for him.
As a challenge for DPC--what is the visible difference from a shot in the style of Peter Lik and a shot in the everyday popular style of landscape photography?
|
|
|
|
12/10/2014 01:26:11 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
The photographer has added nothing to what was there already.
Photography is not an art. It's a technology.
|
I think this isn't true, especially with a photographer like Lik. His images clearly have processing and maybe lots of it. All that processing (which used to take place in the darkroom but now takes place in the computer) is what is being "added". The original RAW file is equivalent, in ways, to the artist's canvas, and the photographer, as artist, adds his or her touch by choosing what to emphasize, keep, remove, enhance, etc. Lik, for example, favors hyperrealistic color (which, I'm sure, sticks in the craw of the typical elitist art critic). That is part of his "art" or style or whatever you want to call it.
I could see the statements above being true if we could all line up, snap the same picture at the same time, go back to our computers, make our adjustment and always come up with the same image. But we know that isn't true at all.
As a challenge this would probably be better for spring or fall. Winter is going to be hard to find the scenes that lend themselves to something Lik would like to shoot.
Message edited by author 2014-12-10 13:27:52. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 01:29:35 PM · #12 |
| It should definitely be in March, when I will be in Arizona. lol |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 01:43:30 PM · #13 |
Well, sure! Spring, Summer, Autumn in the northern hemisphere would be better for me, too. Sometimes, it takes months for good challenge suggestions to reach fruition, so I'm just hedging the curve. Sometimes, the southern hemisphere should be given an opportunity.
When I first joined DPC in 2006, I was inspired by great photographers here. Attempting to emulate their style and excellence was very helpful to my development. We all have much to learn from photographers, like Peter Lik, who does have a unique style. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 02:06:02 PM · #14 |
I recently actually entered a landscape I thought was pretty similar to Lik's work, and absolutely was processed with his particular style in mind.
Message edited by author 2014-12-10 14:07:11. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 02:27:33 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
The photographer has added nothing to what was there already.
Photography is not an art. It's a technology.
|
I think this isn't true, especially with a photographer like Lik. His images clearly have processing and maybe lots of it. All that processing (which used to take place in the darkroom but now takes place in the computer) is what is being "added". The original RAW file is equivalent, in ways, to the artist's canvas, and the photographer, as artist, adds his or her touch by choosing what to emphasize, keep, remove, enhance, etc. Lik, for example, favors hyperrealistic color (which, I'm sure, sticks in the craw of the typical elitist art critic). That is part of his "art" or style or whatever you want to call it.
I could see the statements above being true if we could all line up, snap the same picture at the same time, go back to our computers, make our adjustment and always come up with the same image. But we know that isn't true at all.
As a challenge this would probably be better for spring or fall. Winter is going to be hard to find the scenes that lend themselves to something Lik would like to shoot. |
Yep I agree. If there is art in photography, it happens mostly in the choices made while PP. And if you can find an utterly unique, never-before-seen shot of Antelope Canyon, I'd like to see it. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 03:28:50 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When an artist is commercially successful, other artists and critics surround and eat their own. Peter Lik a) markets the crap out of his work and b) shoots images that are not brooding, negative, or unsettling. This means that he is "derivitive and sentimental". |
So he's kinda like Thomas Kinkade, but maybe not as gooey. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 04:29:48 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by RKT:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When an artist is commercially successful, other artists and critics surround and eat their own. Peter Lik a) markets the crap out of his work and b) shoots images that are not brooding, negative, or unsettling. This means that he is "derivitive and sentimental". |
So he's kinda like Thomas Kinkade, but maybe not as gooey. |
Possibly. Let's say this. If someone declared "Kinkade is not an artist", I'd politely call them elitist and disagree. So, if having art that is positive, eye catching, warm, and satisfying is "Kinkadian" (to coin a word), then I'd say Lik is probably Kinkadian. They have both successfully capitalized on their work, that's for sure. Just like Ansel, Rockwell, Bono, and many other various artists. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 04:31:01 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by RKT:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When an artist is commercially successful, other artists and critics surround and eat their own. Peter Lik a) markets the crap out of his work and b) shoots images that are not brooding, negative, or unsettling. This means that he is "derivitive and sentimental". |
So he's kinda like Thomas Kinkade, but maybe not as gooey. |
Are you referring to the painter who died on April 6, 2012? Kinkade was a fantasy painter in America! Nothing to compare.
Peter Lik is living. He's a nature and landscape photographer from Australia. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 04:35:15 PM · #19 |
| rotten tomatoes started giving audience ratings since critic reviews dont accurately reflect mass appeal. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 04:44:11 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Yep I agree. If there is art in photography, it happens mostly in the choices made while PP. And if you can find an utterly unique, never-before-seen shot of Antelope Canyon, I'd like to see it. |
You know, if you Google "antelope canyon" and go to images, in the first 300 or 400 images there isn't a single black and white. Maybe Lik's take IS sorta unique. ;)
|
|
|
|
12/10/2014 05:12:57 PM · #21 |
didn't you read the critique?
Phantom is a black-and-white shot taken in Antelope Canyon, Arizona. The fact that it is in black and white should give us pause. Today, this deliberate use of an outmoded style can only be nostalgic and affected, an “arty” special effect. We’ve all got that option in our photography software. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 05:17:34 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Mike:
didn't you read the critique?
Phantom is a black-and-white shot taken in Antelope Canyon, Arizona. The fact that it is in black and white should give us pause. Today, this deliberate use of an outmoded style can only be nostalgic and affected, an “arty” special effect. We’ve all got that option in our photography software. |
Remind me, who was the total brain-wipe who thinks they know something about photography?
Frankly, B&W is usually best suited for images where you want to show off the textural nature of your subject, I think that Antelope Canyon is a GREAT choice for the treatment, and suspect the 'critic' above either has no knowledge of photography, or has some ax to grind when it comes to Lik. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 08:23:26 PM · #23 |
| The dpchallenge terms of service say that you guys aren't out to censor all swear words. one of my posts didn't even have any swear words at all. I'd like to be provided a list of swear words that I may be allowed to use, and some examples of circumstances that they'd be allowed to be used in. Looking forward to it, I'll keep checking back. Thanks. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 11:23:41 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
The dpchallenge terms of service say that you guys aren't out to censor all swear words. one of my posts didn't even have any swear words at all. I'd like to be provided a list of swear words that I may be allowed to use, and some examples of circumstances that they'd be allowed to be used in. Looking forward to it, I'll keep checking back. Thanks. |
"Watch your language. While it is not our intention to censor all use of foul language, please respect your fellow participants. We can and will remove excessive, gratuitous and inappropriate use of foul language."
ANY use of a word that literally means "cloth container for female sanitary equipment", or the word for "orifice in the posterior region", to point at the two we've most recently "censored", is gratuitous and inappropriate at all times, as far as this site's concerned. Where your second post is concerned, you avoided the word but used a "pointer", and the post made no sense when the offending post was chopped.
You KNOW all this, Lanndon; why push us? This site's not a good place for gutter language.
Message edited by author 2014-12-10 23:26:11. |
|
|
|
12/10/2014 11:40:30 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
The dpchallenge terms of service say that you guys aren't out to censor all swear words. one of my posts didn't even have any swear words at all. I'd like to be provided a list of swear words that I may be allowed to use, and some examples of circumstances that they'd be allowed to be used in. Looking forward to it, I'll keep checking back. Thanks. |
"Watch your language. While it is not our intention to censor all use of foul language, please respect your fellow participants. We can and will remove excessive, gratuitous and inappropriate use of foul language."
ANY use of a word that literally means "cloth container for female sanitary equipment", or the word for "orifice in the posterior region", to point at the two we've most recently "censored", is gratuitous and inappropriate at all times, as far as this site's concerned. Where your second post is concerned, you avoided the word but used a "pointer", and the post made no sense when the offending post was chopped.
You KNOW all this, Lanndon; why push us? This site's not a good place for gutter language. |
What made you decide to delete the post, rather than just edit it or put a *bleep* in place? |
|
