Peter Lik

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,870
Re: ((chuckle))...

Aaron801 wrote:

Teila Day wrote:

MyReality wrote:

There is a lot of money in cliché's and risqué art.

Yes, infect one could reasonably say, unless you're a great dead artist, "cliche's and risqué" art is where the money is generally speaking.

Thomas Kinkade is worth a small fortune. Robert Mapplethorpe left quite an estate. Currently, there are a few stock photographers making very good money with old 3 to 5 mpx cameras for a retro color look. I recently read about one in DigitalPro Magazine.

It is easy to underestimate and put down other photographers when it is not your style.

Agreed wholeheartedly which was my point about photography when it comes to money... much of the time shooting what people want to see, find attractive, or unusually compelling, can often yield a considerably greater income (for far less work) than the typical art -school inspired standard affair.

I don't really see the point in the "attractive or unusually compelling" part of what you're saying.

"Attractive or unusually compelling" relates to other genres of photography such as (but not limited to) nude, glamour (and its many sub categories), porn, etc..

I think that really depends on who's looking at it. it seems to me that in terms of "what people want to see," at least of you're talking about most people, is actually something less unusuaal and more typical.

People pay more directly or indirectly, for the unusually attractive and or compelling subject matter which is why at the height of the internet glamour days, some models got paid considerably more than others.

I see Lik's photos as being pretty typical, as in "I've seen these kind of images numerous times before." I don't feel that they have much in the way of a real stamp of the artist in that they're way too typical... too generic for that.

I think that you may be correct about the possibility of making more money with very populist, generic work than work of a more personal, thoughtful nature. I think though that the real iconoclasts in the long run are the ones who end up being the most successful and what's more is they're the ones that are remembered and talked about long after the artists who work harder to gain popular acclaim (than striving for any kind of singular style) will be. I think about it in terms of music; playing in a cover band, where you play hit songs that everyone is very familiar with note for note at places like casinos is a far surer bet than writing and playing original music in venues that tend to feature that kind of thing. Still, obviously some of the folks who write and perform original music are the ones who will make the most money in the long run, far more than the successful cover band.

We agree on your point, however your point above is a bit different from my McDonald's example.  McDonald's isn't an imitator, yet they offer Joe-average food and will be far iconic in the minds of most, over nearly every top tier fine eatery on the planet.  That's what I'm getting at....  when it comes to money, it's more about business than anything else.

When it comes to getting paid well:  (generally speaking) Business trumps the actual art and Education trumps experience.

Once again to use music analogies, I see Lik as being a bit more like Justin Bieber, someone who's heavily marketed and very financially successful and yet isn't generally appreciated by those who collect music and are more knowledgable about the history and the breadth of it. He's having all of the success that an act like the Velvet Underground never had, but nearly 50 years after that band broke up, people are still talking about them and other musicians are still gleaning influence from their music. Bieber on the other hand, for all the money he's made, I would be willing to bet will be nearly forgotten in 15 years....

Perhaps you think so because Justin Bieber isn't on your (or my) radar?  However Justin Bieber will be forever remembered by many in an age/gender demographic who practically worshipped the poster of him on their bedroom walls.  Also, think about what's important to the respective artist; Fame?  Money?  Fine Art for art's sake?  Many couldn't care less about longevity, rather it's about the lifestyle and being able to maintain that particular lifestyle irrespective of the "art" and increasing one's worth in order to branch out into higher paying lines of work (production, television, etc..).  That's worth more to many artists over being revered.

Brand equity can easily trump skill as well.  When Paris Hilton was relevant, imagine how much a show of her photographing her friends and other famous females (young & old) nude would've fetched... even if the photography was average at best.

More people would click on a real photos of Brittany Spears with a red ball in her mouth while suspended from the ceiling by hooks through her skin, while Justin Bieber whipped her  (unusually compelling), than practically any Picasso, let alone Lik photograph.

Interesting points Aaron.  The different ways that humans measure and consider variables  in human though and behavior is also very interesting.  Fame, Glory, Money... our individual focus runs the gamut...  which makes living in this world so dynamically wonderful.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow