Peter Lik

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 4,376
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

Teila Day wrote:

lilBuddha wrote:

Marketing outside of the establishment isn't dishonest by default. It's business... No different than some car guy going on and on about how about how an exotic motorcar will increase in value... when most depreciate; but nothing wrong with artificial markets to keep/drive prices up. Again- that's business.

Lying is unethical, regardless of what business it is in. And you are, as an American, using the car business as an ethical guideline?

Police are able to lie.

In America. In the UK, not so much which indicates a different view of ethics.

BTW, legal does not equal ethical.

Attorneys (prosecutors) are able to lie which puts ethics into perspective.

Not in court, as I understand it.

Ethics is a fanciful concept,

No, no it isn't. It is subjective, at least to a point.

especially when you can't rest assured to even be able to find a shining example of ethics at the typical church or Disneyland for that matter.

Ethics is like beauty.. who's beholding it and who controls the context? That's the only real-world thing that matters when it comes to ethics.

Lady Gaga understands the value of personal brand.


Andy Warhol was the master of personal brand and that was generations before a phrase had been coined to identify that concept.

Not a stretch, and practically a true statement.

Peter Lik understands and masters personal brand, as well.

Again.. Fact.


Not agreed.

You don't have to agree with truth, but that doesn't change the truth.

You clipped that and it removes context. My not agreed was followed by the bits below that explained was I was not agreeing with. which is the personal brand comparisons to Lady Gaga and Andy Warhol. More people have heard of wither of them than have heard of Lik. His penetration of public consciousness is fairly small. Unlike either Gaga or Warhol.

.. and I previously addressed that.

Surely you know that you can't compare a photographer to Lady Gaga. Let's not turn our face from reality as even our common sense tells us that there are a number of porn stars that more people can name than Lik. But that's not relevant because it's a ridiculous comparative analysis. Apples and oranges. Likewise...

Ansel Adams has a recognition beyond the photographic world, Maybe not the same penetration as Gaga, but still outside. As do Weston, Brady, Cartier-Bresson, lange and a few others.

He does like photography, but he's never heard of Lik. Whilst anecdote ≠ anecdata, I'd wager Lik's penetration into the collective consciousness is not very deep.

I agree.. because most people don't know artists (outside of what's been rehashed to death in secondary school) dead or alive.

No. Because he markets to a small audience.

I think you mean he simply reaches a small audience, because compared to popular music, hardly anyone is interested in fine visual art if it doesn't contain nudity, so of course the audience is small.

No, markets. He sets up shop in tourist areas where people with money will see them.

Shady marketing is one thing.... but plain ole' common sense defying marketing isn't any more shady than some grubby guy at a Fair telling you to step-right-up and take a crack at winning a $2 teddy bear for $10 worth of tickets in order to make the attempt at winning... again, that's not shady, it's just so fiscally ridiculous that it's considered 'carnival' (figuratively and actually).

His sales people would tell customers that their investment is hanging on their wall. Not ethical when there is no reason to expect an appreciation in value.

Again, it's no difference than a car dealership carrying on about how a an exotic (motorcar) is an "investment" when most lose value no matter how slowly.

One can go to Bonhams and see Ferraris roll across and sell for far more than it sold for. So it happens. Not so much a Peter Lik.

Regardless, that on industry misleads is not an excuse for anyone else doing it.

Unethical by definition.

Let's stop with the "ethics" stuff. Here's the bottom line on ethics. A critical and irrefutable facet of ethics is "obeying the law of the land";

No, it is not. By definition it is not.

when it comes to ethics, different professions have different 'views' (and laws) on ethics. What is not appropriate for a physician (bioethics) may be ok for an attorney per the ABA (American Bar Association) and vice versa... throw common business ethics into the mix and you've added another set of standards to the soup.

Insider trading isn't "ethical" but it's a norm.

It is illegal. Flat out illegal. Ask Martha Stewart.

Remove all the unethical trades and you're left with a trading deficit. I digress.

Add stock markets to what you are not understanding

Adults buying a Lik because they like it is one thing, but for an investment is something else and anyone who can't find the time to do a simple internet search or ask a friend to do it for them is flirting with becoming the next sidewalk 'sucker' getting ripped off.

I won't blame Lik for people having a lack of basic common sense.

People who buy anything for an investment are responible for learing the risks.

That does not then excuse the dishonest. Life is not Zero Sum.

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