| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/11/2014 05:26:46 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
......... Lik's work is just glorified computer wallpaper..........
And what do you think does best in most challenges here?
I never said he wouldn't absolutely succeed in DPC. =)
It's just a shame that it does absolutely nothing for the brain and that's what money is being spent on. Whoever bought that photograph could have helped find an ebola vaccine, fed a lot of hungry people or, at the very least, given money to an artist who made challenging, relevant work (and was more concerned with making art rather than being a self-aggrandizing marketing machine. Kinkade, his twin in pandering garbage (who used a paintbrush himself) painted a life he (and possibly Walt Disney) always wanted but never actually had. He was a drunk who treated his family like garbage. No one's perfect, but his art was such a lie, and that's what bothered me about it. I don't begrudge anyone creative their success, but it's frustrating to see such terrible taste rewarded when there are a lot of other ways that society can benefit. You can call him what you want, but I'd call Lik a (quite savvy) businessman a million times before I'd call him an artist.
Those caught up in the formalities and technicalities of the photo (post processing, color etc) and who say that anyone criticizing the work as being elitist usually don't want art that challenges them - they just want to look at pretty stuff. Which is fine, but it's not the kind of art that contributes anything to society except for maybe the background for some cliche motivational posters that don't actually mean anything. Personally, I don't think the world needs any more of it. 100 years from now is anyone gonna look at Lik's print? Doubtful, unless they are researching what art sold for what in whatever year. I'd guess work that will last and will qualify as art will probably look to photography that will speak to the issues that defined our time in an honest, challenging and engaging way. They'll look at people like those mentioned in this article. //www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/dec/11/photography-is-art-sean-ohagan-jonathan-jones - not those who have the gall and feel it necessary to claim themselves a 'Master Photographer' on their website. At least that's my guess.
Pardon my rant - I just really care about photography, and I really think people like Lik detract from its potential. As soon as photography is reduced to pretty pictures it teeters ever more close to being completely disposable. I see better stuff (ie less cliche, more engaging, maybe not quite as perfectly exposed and printed) on Instagram every day.
Message edited by author 2014-12-11 17:31:10. |
|
|
|
12/11/2014 05:52:46 PM · #52 |
I find myself agreeing with a lot of Peter's views above in this debate. The Guardian article he linked to here is a very good response to Jonathan Jones' earlier article.
Message edited by author 2014-12-11 17:53:44. |
|
|
|
12/11/2014 05:56:33 PM · #53 |
I respect your opinion petrakka, but I disagree with it. One would assume ALL art would stand subservient to the interests of public wellness. What photograph or painting would suddenly stand to your criticism that the money could have been spent finding an ebola vaccine? Also, ALL art is banal and meaningless to some portion of viewers. Landscape photography is never meant to provide the thought and impulses that, I think, you are looking for. Even Ansel Adams' work, who would at least be a common answer to someone who has taken landscape photography to its heights, could be declared to do "nothing for the brain". One uses color while the other uses tone. They both uses texture and composition.
I apologize for ranting as well, but I get annoyed that landscape photography is the white trash of genres. You are trying to find something that is never meant to be there and so the deficit isn't in the art but in the appreciation.
EDIT: I'll add that I'm not meaning to argue that a lack of appreciation for landscape art is WRONG; it isn't. There are genres of art I have little appreciation for as well. Everybody is welcome to their opinion (and, hey, I think 6.5 million for Lik's photo is insane as well). I was more trying to maybe give a point of view from someone who does appreciate the genre for what it has to offer.
Message edited by author 2014-12-11 18:18:22. |
|
|
|
12/11/2014 06:16:43 PM · #54 |
| To say you don't like Lik's work is fine everyone is entitled to an opinion, BUT if you say there is no room for him in the art/photography world well I have a 6.5 million dollar bill that says your wrong. |
|
|
|
12/11/2014 06:43:50 PM · #55 |
Hey Doc
"Landscape photography is never meant to provide the thought and impulses that, I think, you are looking for"
I think there's a misunderstanding here - or I think we're providing a really myopic view of what landscape photography is. I can say that I stand side by side with you in appreciating landscape photography.
Landscape photography is probably my favorite 'genre' actually - though I don't look at photography divided in that way usually. But going by the types of books I spend the most money on I'd venture to say that landscape projects dominate my small collection.
To just name a few to maybe illustrate what I think is work that provides some depth - Victoria Sambunaris, Edward Burtynsky, Terry Evans, Andreas Gursky, Robert (not Ansel) Adams etc etc - there are so many wonderful artists who critically approach the landscape and show us beauty while also asking us to question the world around us. There are so many its overwhelming really. It's also the most difficult type of photography to do well, I think. But maybe that's because I mostly do editorial portraiture.
I really love landscape photography, I just don't think Lik's version of it does anything to contribute to photography as a whole, or landscape photography in particular. It's cheap (6.5 mil selling point not withstanding, I don't care what it's 'worth' - like I said I think Lik is a businessman first and foremost). I don't think that anyone thinks that landscape is the 'white trash' of genres - at least I've never heard that. It's only a certain subsection and certain type of landscape that I might see scorned, and it's really less about the subject matter and more about the approach behind the work. You'll find the same schmaltz in portraiture, wedding, commercial, journalism and any other type of genre one might explore, the same places where you can find good versions of all of this type of work as well.
The job of a photographer/artist is to get past those cliches, I believe. It's not to just make pretty pictures. The person that does that is just fine in my book, but it's a different role. I don't think Lik's work does anything at all to push the medium forward. It's regressive, derivative work and his body of work over the years proves it. It's not like he made one derivative photograph but as a whole he is committed to pushing the boundaries. His entire catalog is one giant cliche. Which he has total license to profit off of. There's a lot of stuff in this world that costs a lot of money and deserves little or no respect from a viewer who wants to see work that isn't just looking for an eyeball massage.
Sidenote - I logged into the site today to try to find a picture I made like 10 years ago that I couldn't find in my archives (didn't end up finding it here either) and I don't think I've been on here for years, but it's kinda cool to see some of the same names that were around when I was active here.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2014 07:12:16 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
I don't think I've been on here for years, but it's kinda cool to see some of the same names that were around when I was active here. |
And we wish you'd be active again. :-) |
|
|
|
12/12/2014 07:49:00 AM · #57 |
even a cliche was once a novel idea at some point.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2014 11:13:53 AM · #58 |
So well put. I was thinking the same thing. The photo is splendid - but not a photo that will go down in history for anything other than being a pricey item.
Someone could have bought 10 galleries of (arguably more engaging) photographs. Or, yeah, given boat loads toward disease, famine, etc.
Originally posted by petrakka:
It's just a shame that it does absolutely nothing for the brain and that's what money is being spent on. Whoever bought that photograph could have helped find an ebola vaccine, fed a lot of hungry people or, at the very least, given money to an artist who made challenging, relevant work (and was more concerned with making art rather than being a self-aggrandizing marketing machine. Kinkade, his twin in pandering garbage (who used a paintbrush himself) painted a life he (and possibly Walt Disney) always wanted but never actually had. He was a drunk who treated his family like garbage. No one's perfect, but his art was such a lie, and that's what bothered me about it. I don't begrudge anyone creative their success, but it's frustrating to see such terrible taste rewarded when there are a lot of other ways that society can benefit. You can call him what you want, but I'd call Lik a (quite savvy) businessman a million times before I'd call him an artist.
Those caught up in the formalities and technicalities of the photo (post processing, color etc) and who say that anyone criticizing the work as being elitist usually don't want art that challenges them - they just want to look at pretty stuff. Which is fine, but it's not the kind of art that contributes anything to society except for maybe the background for some cliche motivational posters that don't actually mean anything. Personally, I don't think the world needs any more of it. 100 years from now is anyone gonna look at Lik's print? Doubtful, unless they are researching what art sold for what in whatever year. I'd guess work that will last and will qualify as art will probably look to photography that will speak to the issues that defined our time in an honest, challenging and engaging way. They'll look at people like those mentioned in this article. //www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/dec/11/photography-is-art-sean-ohagan-jonathan-jones - not those who have the gall and feel it necessary to claim themselves a 'Master Photographer' on their website. At least that's my guess.
Pardon my rant - I just really care about photography, and I really think people like Lik detract from its potential. As soon as photography is reduced to pretty pictures it teeters ever more close to being completely disposable. I see better stuff (ie less cliche, more engaging, maybe not quite as perfectly exposed and printed) on Instagram every day. |
Message edited by author 2014-12-12 11:15:15. |
|
|
|
12/12/2014 12:48:42 PM · #59 |
I tend to agree with Peter and don't believe any genre of photography, or art for that matter, is white trash. I might prefer one genre over another but that's just my personal preference. There are good and bad artists in all genres and that's a preference too. To disagree about art is a healthy thing. Comments like "your an elitist because you we disagree" are beneath dignifying. This discussion should be about Mr. Lik and his photographs. What motivates him? Why do so many adore him and his work?
What I find fascinating is the 6.5 million spent on a photograph. Records like this don't last that long and soon another photograph will be purchased for more. I wouldn't be surprised if it's another photograph by Lik himself. Collectors of art are business people and so are the artists. Price tags like this, that are not uncommon, seem dangerous to the industry. Artists are catering to the 1% at this point. That's there audience and they decide what art should be. If the price tag isn't high enough it's not art because anybody could own it. Maybe it has always been this way but it seems more obvious in recent years.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2014 01:33:38 PM · #60 |
| It's quite possible someone out there wanted to be able to say he had the most expensive photograph in the world and Lik happened to be in the right place at the right time. Anybody could have done. |
|
|
|
12/12/2014 01:42:21 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
Originally posted by petrakka:
It's just a shame that it does absolutely nothing for the brain and that's what money is being spent on... |
while I am not a big fan of Peter Lik and his stuff by a long stretch, to play the devil advocate I think that not every piece of art has to do something to the brain, at least not in a literal sense. Universally recognized great art doesn't always have a social subtext or a "meaning". Sometimes it is just ...beautiful, like Cezanne's still lives. Nothing wrong with that. As for the amount of money spent on this or that piece, this is the realm of business... I could also think of better ways of spending that money, but unfortunately, it is not my money :) |
|
|
|
12/12/2014 02:32:42 PM · #62 |
Its all about opinion and taste.
I would hang any one of Lik's images before I hung the Rhein II in my house.
Gursky's work if fine by me but I enjoy Lik's work more.
Why I don't know I just like it, I can't explain why I like milk with pizza.
I just like it. |
|
|
|
12/13/2014 03:48:43 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by insteps:
I tend to agree with Peter and don't believe any genre of photography, or art for that matter, is white trash. I might prefer one genre over another but that's just my personal preference. There are good and bad artists in all genres and that's a preference too. To disagree about art is a healthy thing. Comments like "your an elitist because you we disagree" are beneath dignifying. This discussion should be about Mr. Lik and his photographs. What motivates him? Why do so many adore him and his work?
What I find fascinating is the 6.5 million spent on a photograph. Records like this don't last that long and soon another photograph will be purchased for more. I wouldn't be surprised if it's another photograph by Lik himself. Collectors of art are business people and so are the artists. Price tags like this, that are not uncommon, seem dangerous to the industry. Artists are catering to the 1% at this point. That's there audience and they decide what art should be. If the price tag isn't high enough it's not art because anybody could own it. Maybe it has always been this way but it seems more obvious in recent years. |
I'm not sure that many actually do adore Lik and his work. I think he creates that perception through marketing and aggressive salespeople. I think creating notoriety motivates him. All of his accompanying media is self-aggrandizing puffery. The brand he creates reminds me of a caricature of how a hack photographer would be played in a romantic comedy. I digress.
Here are the words of others
//blog.photoshelter.com/2014/12/the-most-expensive-photo-in-the-world-or-the-best-marketing-stunt/
//www.ripoffreport.com/r/Peter-Lik-Fine-Art-Photography/nationwide/Peter-Lik-Fine-Art-Photography-Peter-Lik-Scammed-Me-Las-Vegas-Nevada-Nationwide-1143219
The one other think that I think needs to be discussed here is that while art collectors may love art, they also consider it an investment. Lik's work has absolutely negligible resale value. His work will never command a higher figure than what it does in one of his galleries. Once it's out the door you're out your money and you better just absolutely love that print because you just got gouged. His editions are too plentiful, his pictures too commonplace for it ever to actually be rare and collectible as a piece of art. Sketchy details about the purchase and his completely inflated ego make me wonder if he paid someone 6.5 mil to buy his picture, or if he bought it from himself.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2014 04:05:55 PM · #64 |
As the OP, I am chuckling at the amount of jealousy and vitriole aimed towards a very accomplished and successful photographer, like Peter Lik. It's really a phenomenon. My advice to the naysayers is to let your own photography speak for itself. When this becomes a DPC challenge, show us YOUR money shot.
âCritics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves.â
Brendan Behan
Message edited by author 2014-12-13 16:07:29. |
|
|
|
12/13/2014 05:10:47 PM · #65 |
| So are we gonna do the challenge? Seems like it might be a good one for soon, when the massive sale is fresh in our minds. |
|
|
|
12/13/2014 05:19:34 PM · #66 |
How about we push it to spring time?
|
|
|
|
12/13/2014 05:37:34 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by nygold:
How about we push it to spring time? |
It's springtime in the southern hemisphere. Give peace a chance.
Peter Lik photographs in winter, too.
At any given point in time, there are opportunities for landscape photographers. Life is short and the world offers much beauty, regardless of one's latitude. |
|
|
|
12/13/2014 07:57:24 PM · #68 |
If the challenge suggestion does become reality then I think panoramas should be allowed as entries, if anyone should want to enter a panorama since Lik is so accomplished at them and really is a large part of his work.
Message edited by author 2014-12-13 19:57:47. |
|
|
|
12/13/2014 08:07:55 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Dennisheckman:
If the challenge suggestion does become reality then I think panoramas should be allowed as entries, if anyone should want to enter a panorama since Lik is so accomplished at them and really is a large part of his work. |
Good point. I added a proposed flag to the challenge criteria. |
|
|
|
12/14/2014 11:44:59 AM · #70 |
FYI -- Peter Lik's recent record for the sale of most expensive photograph in history was just broken (by 10 cents).
Artist Jeff Frost Inches Past Recently Set World Record for Most Expensive Photograph Ever Sold |
|
|
|
12/14/2014 12:24:12 PM · #71 |
Nobody, in their right mind, would have bought it for eleven cents less ;-) |
|
|
|
12/14/2014 12:27:06 PM · #72 |
No saturated colors -- check
Hard to interpret subject matter -- check
Never heard of the artist -- check
Doesn't have a gallery in Vegas -- check
This is the most amazing confirmation of photography as an art form! I am so impressed with the artist and it was an excellent investment by the buyer for their 6.5 million dollars! I couldn't think of something better to spend it on!
;) |
|
|
|
12/14/2014 01:04:20 PM · #73 |
| That press release is hilarious. |
|
|
|
12/14/2014 04:33:25 PM · #74 |
| He has the same counsel as Walter White. |
|
|
|
12/15/2014 02:56:07 PM · #75 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/23/2025 10:29:03 AM EDT.
