Peter Lik

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
biza43 Forum Pro • Posts: 10,803
Re: Peter Lik

lilBuddha wrote:

biza43 wrote:

lilBuddha wrote:

biza43 wrote:

AOC wrote:

There are people who wait months and years to get just the right shot. This guy appears to peddle some fake version of reality that anyone can concoct and digital artists do all the time.

I see nothing more in his images than the cheap, dime a dozen wallpaper backgrounds we see on the Internet.

Well, what is preventing you from doing it and be successful then?

Ethics.

There is nothing in AOC's post related to ethics. So your answer is moot.

moot/mo͞ot/1.subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty.

Sorry, English is not my native language. I meant to say "useless".

Wasn't really commenting on AOC's post, but what would prevent me from adopting Lik's marketing strategy.

Ok. But that just adds more noise.

-- hide signature --

www.paulobizarro.com
http://blog.paulobizarro.com/

 biza43's gear list:biza43's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm +1 more
biza43 Forum Pro • Posts: 10,803
Re: ((chuckle))...

MyReality wrote:

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

Very true. And I would add to that: when you don't have the courage or guts, plus the business acumen, to go out and try to succeed.

-- hide signature --

www.paulobizarro.com
http://blog.paulobizarro.com/

 biza43's gear list:biza43's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR XF 90mm +1 more
Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,880
Re: ((chuckle))...

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.

Best in photography to you!

-- hide signature --
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,765
Re: ((chuckle))...

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.

Best in photography to you!

In the end, will the starving "pure artist" wish he/she had given in a bit to the commercial side of things, or will the commercial "cliche" artist feel like he/she has not contributed much meaning to humanity? At a certain point, you just get old and want to be comfortable and happy. Or so I hear.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
MyReality
MyReality Contributing Member • Posts: 802
Re: ((chuckle))...
1

I think the cliché artist is driven primarily by money.  A good example are the framed b&w prints that you see in chain stores like Target as examples of what can be placed in a frame.

Many "starving" artists are not that full time and become part time artists.  The hunger drive is one of the strongest human drives.  If you don't eat, your art won't matter.

I do not think Andy Worhal was thinking about contributing to humanity while he was dancing at The Factory.

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro +8 more
Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,880
Re: ((chuckle))...

stevo23 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.

Best in photography to you!

In the end, will the starving "pure artist" wish he/she had given in a bit to the commercial side of things, or will the commercial "cliche" artist feel like he/she has not contributed much meaning to humanity? At a certain point, you just get old and want to be comfortable and happy. Or so I hear.

I think that's an easy question to answer.  You can always be true to yourself and shoot, paint, or sculpt your own art; however, you can't always exploit a particular market and wring it for all it's worth before that market bottoms out.

It's a stretch to think that the cliché artist isn't contributing to "humanity" because arguably, many cliche' artists contributes more to humanity and their work directly relates to and illustrates changes in humanity, more-so than many traditional works.

My personal opinion (and I say this in a respectful non-inflammatory, but serious manner) is that  "comfortable and happy" requires more than an average amount of money... especially if you want to be able to choose your neighbors and what side of town your home is on.

Regards

-- hide signature --
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,765
Re: ((chuckle))...

MyReality wrote:

I think the cliché artist is driven primarily by money. A good example are the framed b&w prints that you see in chain stores like Target as examples of what can be placed in a frame.

Many "starving" artists are not that full time and become part time artists. The hunger drive is one of the strongest human drives. If you don't eat, your art won't matter.

I do not think Andy Worhal was thinking about contributing to humanity while he was dancing at The Factory.

Not sure he ever did.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
Bill Ferris
Bill Ferris Veteran Member • Posts: 4,474
What Most Folks Miss...

In the armchair analysis of Peter Lik's success, most folks miss two important points. One, is that Lik has been a trend setter in photography. Whether we're talking about his photos of Horseshoe Bend, Antelope Canyon, various night skyscape compositions or other of his photos, Lik has lead the public infatuation with a variety of locations and subjects. Most anybody who's visited and photographed these places in the last decade, whether they know it or not, have been influenced in those decisions by Mr. Lik.

A second point most comments have missed is Mr. Lik's skill at building and maintaining his personal brand. Lik understands better than most that the reason a person will pay 10s of millions of dollars for a Picasso is, it's a Picasso. 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. Peter Lik understands and masters personal brand, as well.

He's built an image as an adventurer/photographer and social media star. His name is identified as synonymous with quality and every aspect of his business model reflects this. The location of his galleries, the manner in which his prints are created, displayed and presented to the public...his customers all are consistent with and supportive of that brand.

This isn't some guy "appealing to the masses and making a few bucks." His photography has established trends the public and other photographers embrace. He's also built a personal image and brand thay support an elite pricing structure for his product: himself.

People pays tens of thousands for his prints, not because the photos are demonstrably better than all others - though his customers undoubtedly hold them in high regard, it's because the prints are Peter Liks.

-- hide signature --

Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com

 Bill Ferris's gear list:Bill Ferris's gear list
Nikon D610 Fujifilm X-T20 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD +3 more
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,765
Re: ((chuckle))...

Teila Day wrote:

stevo23 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.

Best in photography to you!

In the end, will the starving "pure artist" wish he/she had given in a bit to the commercial side of things, or will the commercial "cliche" artist feel like he/she has not contributed much meaning to humanity? At a certain point, you just get old and want to be comfortable and happy. Or so I hear.

I think that's an easy question to answer. You can always be true to yourself and shoot, paint, or sculpt your own art; however, you can't always exploit a particular market and wring it for all it's worth before that market bottoms out.

It's a stretch to think that the cliché artist isn't contributing to "humanity" because arguably, many cliche' artists contributes more to humanity and their work directly relates to and illustrates changes in humanity, more-so than many traditional works.

My personal opinion (and I say this in a respectful non-inflammatory, but serious manner) is that "comfortable and happy" requires more than an average amount of money... especially if you want to be able to choose your neighbors and what side of town your home is on.

Thought you said it's easy to answer?

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,880
Re: ((chuckle))...
1

stevo23 wrote:

Teila Day wrote:

stevo23 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.

Best in photography to you!

In the end, will the starving "pure artist" wish he/she had given in a bit to the commercial side of things, or will the commercial "cliche" artist feel like he/she has not contributed much meaning to humanity? At a certain point, you just get old and want to be comfortable and happy. Or so I hear.

I think that's an easy question to answer. You can always be true to yourself and shoot, paint, or sculpt your own art; however, you can't always exploit a particular market and wring it for all it's worth before that market bottoms out.

It's a stretch to think that the cliché artist isn't contributing to "humanity" because arguably, many cliche' artists contributes more to humanity and their work directly relates to and illustrates changes in humanity, more-so than many traditional works.

My personal opinion (and I say this in a respectful non-inflammatory, but serious manner) is that "comfortable and happy" requires more than an average amount of money... especially if you want to be able to choose your neighbors and what side of town your home is on.

Thought you said it's easy to answer?

You got me on that one

-- hide signature --
Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,880
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

Bill Ferris wrote:

Whether we're talking about his photos of Horseshoe Bend, Antelope Canyon, various night skyscape compositions or other of his photos, Lik has lead the public infatuation with a variety of locations and subjects. Most anybody who's visited and photographed these places in the last decade, whether they know it or not, have been influenced in those decisions by Mr. Lik.

I was thinking that most people shooting the canyons would've been shooting the canyon(s) irrespective of his work with the plethora of photographs of the popular Canyons and other points of interest posted online.

A second point most comments have missed is Mr. Lik's skill at building and maintaining his personal brand.

Absolutely.  Photography is about business first as far as I'm concerned... if you have that Lik'd (couldn't help myself) then you'll realize a palatable profit irrespective of your level of expertise.

Lik understands better than most that the reason a person will pay 10s of millions of dollars for a Picasso is, it's a Picasso.

I think he understands it like most people understands it... An original Picasso sells for what it does because it's an investment blessed by discerning individuals who heavily invest in art.  Nothing against Mr. Lik, but I don't think he's in that category yet but I hope he hits a home run in that context.

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. Peter Lik understands and masters personal brand, as well.

Agreed

This isn't some guy "appealing to the masses and making a few bucks." His photography has established trends the public and other photographers embrace. He's also built a personal image and brand thay support an elite pricing structure for his product: himself.

To me he does very well at appealing to the masses and making a lot of bucks (excellent by the way) just like McDonald's or Chick-fil-a.

People pays tens of thousands for his prints, not because the photos are demonstrably better than all others - though his customers undoubtedly hold them in high regard, it's because the prints are Peter Liks.

Those buying his prints (probably) don't make up same market as those hunting down and backdoor trading to acquire a particular Picasso.  Two different socioeconomic demographics I'd say.  Again... McDonald's..  which is 100% ok in my book; wish I owned one, especially since the entire San Joaquin valley corridor (California)  is getting fatter by the minute... My goodness!!  A different world from the Bay Area.

I applaud Mr. Lik for his business sense and tenacity.

Great post Bill.

-- hide signature --
Aaron801 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,174
Re: ((chuckle))...

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. 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 unusual and more typical. 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.

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....

-- hide signature --

my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS +1 more
Teila Day
Teila Day Veteran Member • Posts: 4,880
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 --
lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 4,377
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

Teila Day wrote:

Bill Ferris wrote:

Whether we're talking about his photos of Horseshoe Bend, Antelope Canyon, various night skyscape compositions or other of his photos, Lik has lead the public infatuation with a variety of locations and subjects. Most anybody who's visited and photographed these places in the last decade, whether they know it or not, have been influenced in those decisions by Mr. Lik.

I was thinking that most people shooting the canyons would've been shooting the canyon(s) irrespective of his work with the plethora of photographs of the popular Canyons and other points of interest posted online.

A second point most comments have missed is Mr. Lik's skill at building and maintaining his personal brand.

Absolutely. Photography is about business first as far as I'm concerned... if you have that Lik'd (couldn't help myself) then you'll realize a palatable profit irrespective of your level of expertise.

Lik understands better than most that the reason a person will pay 10s of millions of dollars for a Picasso is, it's a Picasso.

I think he understands it like most people understands it... An original Picasso sells for what it does because it's an investment blessed by discerning individuals who heavily invest in art. Nothing against Mr. Lik, but I don't think he's in that category yet but I hope he hits a home run in that context.

I do not. As much as I like marketing outside the confines of the established art world, I'd prefer it done more honestly.

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. Peter Lik understands and masters personal brand, as well.

Agreed

Not agreed. My father doesn't listen to contemporary music, but he's heard of Gaga. He doesn't like "modern" art, but he knows of Warhol. 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.

This isn't some guy "appealing to the masses and making a few bucks." His photography has established trends the public and other photographers embrace. He's also built a personal image and brand thay support an elite pricing structure for his product: himself.

To me he does very well at appealing to the masses and making a lot of bucks (excellent by the way) just like McDonald's or Chick-fil-a.

People pays tens of thousands for his prints, not because the photos are demonstrably better than all others - though his customers undoubtedly hold them in high regard, it's because the prints are Peter Liks.

Those buying his prints (probably) don't make up same market as those hunting down and backdoor trading to acquire a particular Picasso. Two different socioeconomic demographics I'd say.

Well, no. Whilst it is true that most people cannot afford Picasso, the art market contains nearly every range of collectible price. And socio-economic status is not just two points on a graph, but every point on the line between.

Collecting art for value is a gamble, but if one accepts that gamble, there are loads of choice within established paths that have better chance of succeeding than buying a Peter Lik.

Caveat emptor, for certain, but that doesn't mean shady marketing gets a pass.

MyReality
MyReality Contributing Member • Posts: 802
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

I think Lik's photo are bought as investment art by a small minority of people.  Would most people buy his photos if they were not impressed by them?  I doubt it.  I think marketing plays a role in light of how many photos are out there to be bought, but once they see some, content rules.  Mr. Lik is not unique in knowing how to be very successful at what he does.

Another photographer with both photo quality and content and marketing skills is the wildlife and nature photographer Thomas Mangelsen who has three galleries in the US.

There are also others.  Any who visits the art galleries and shops along the west coast of California can see those.

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro +8 more
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,765
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

MyReality wrote:

I think Lik's photo are bought as investment art by a small minority of people. Would most people buy his photos if they were not impressed by them? I doubt it. I think marketing plays a role in light of how many photos are out there to be bought, but once they see some, content rules. Mr. Lik is not unique in knowing how to be very successful at what he does.

Another photographer with both photo quality and content and marketing skills is the wildlife and nature photographer Thomas Mangelsen who has three galleries in the US.

Can Mangelsen fake moons as well as Lik? Or better maybe? I'm looking for one where the fakery is undetectable.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
MyReality
MyReality Contributing Member • Posts: 802
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

If the masses is the US middle class, I do not think they can afford his prints.   The masses eat at McDonald's and other fast food.  I think mister Lik's clients are sit-down restaurant people or maybe upper middle class.

To find people where the majority of them look like they are in good shape, you have to go to the Bay Area or San Diego area in California.

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro +8 more
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,765
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

MyReality wrote:

If the masses is the US middle class, I do not think they can afford his prints. The masses eat at McDonald's and other fast food. I think mister Lik's clients are sit-down restaurant people or maybe upper middle class.

They might be the In-Out or Five Guys crowd. People that sit down at Morton's or better are too discriminating about art to be fooled by Lik's mediocrity.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
MyReality
MyReality Contributing Member • Posts: 802
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

I have been thru two of his physical galleries and have never seen anything that I thought was faked.  He claims his pictures a natural.  I tend to trust someone more who spends a month in a nature blind in a forest. He is not the type of photographer that Lik is.  I consider Lik's photos to be somewhere between a picture and a graphic.

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro +8 more
MyReality
MyReality Contributing Member • Posts: 802
Re: What Most Folks Miss...

Mediocrity is a subjective word.  The work of the impressionistic painters was considered mediocre by the realists that came before them  I can afford to buy black and white prints by some well known photographers, but I cannot afford a Monet painting.

 MyReality's gear list:MyReality's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro +8 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads