Beauty is cheap if you point a camera at a grand phenomenon of nature
December 11, 2014 10:54 AM Subscribe
Is Jonathan Jones a writer?
posted by cjorgensen at 10:58 AM on December 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 10:58 AM on December 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
Yep!
A better question is the one I pose to literally ever website about Art: Is this fucking web design?
posted by Navelgazer at 11:00 AM on December 11, 2014 [39 favorites]
A better question is the one I pose to literally ever website about Art: Is this fucking web design?
posted by Navelgazer at 11:00 AM on December 11, 2014 [39 favorites]
Seriously, I feel dumber for having read his piece.
Photography is not an art. It is a technology.
So is a paint brush.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:00 AM on December 11, 2014 [46 favorites]
Photography is not an art. It is a technology.
So is a paint brush.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:00 AM on December 11, 2014 [46 favorites]
Is Jonathan Jones a writer?
Only in the loose, technical sense.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:01 AM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Only in the loose, technical sense.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:01 AM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Jonathan Jones and Drew Magary would get along just fine.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 11:01 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 11:01 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Is Jonathan Jones a writer?
Don't be ridiculous. Word processors (pens, typewriters etc.) aren't art, they're a technology. Question settled. See also, paintbrushes, oil paints, crayons, pencils, paper, canvas, bronze, marble, sculpting chisels etc. etc. All technologies, ergo nothing they produce is art.
posted by yoink at 11:01 AM on December 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
Don't be ridiculous. Word processors (pens, typewriters etc.) aren't art, they're a technology. Question settled. See also, paintbrushes, oil paints, crayons, pencils, paper, canvas, bronze, marble, sculpting chisels etc. etc. All technologies, ergo nothing they produce is art.
posted by yoink at 11:01 AM on December 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
Wow. That second link is trolling of the worst sort. Shows remarkable lack of understanding of art in general, photography in particular, and commits the classic mistake of confusing "I don't like this art" with "this is not art."
posted by cubby at 11:01 AM on December 11, 2014 [16 favorites]
posted by cubby at 11:01 AM on December 11, 2014 [16 favorites]
Yes, of course. More importantly, what are the stakes? FUCKING NOTHING.
posted by selfnoise at 11:02 AM on December 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by selfnoise at 11:02 AM on December 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
The fact that he got $6.5M for a photograph that's been taken 6.5 million times is exactly why this is art.
Let's try this another way: "As a shark in a tank of formaldehyde, Damien Hirst's work is a valuable record of nature. Instead, it claims to be more than that; it aspires to be “art”. It is this ostentatious artfulness that pushes it into the realm of the false."
Yeah, I dunno, maybe he's right?
posted by GuyZero at 11:04 AM on December 11, 2014
Let's try this another way: "As a shark in a tank of formaldehyde, Damien Hirst's work is a valuable record of nature. Instead, it claims to be more than that; it aspires to be “art”. It is this ostentatious artfulness that pushes it into the realm of the false."
Yeah, I dunno, maybe he's right?
posted by GuyZero at 11:04 AM on December 11, 2014
I reamin utterly suspicious of people who try to tell me what is and isn't art. They usually have a despicable or selfish agenda.
posted by eustacescrubb at 11:04 AM on December 11, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by eustacescrubb at 11:04 AM on December 11, 2014 [11 favorites]
STOP LIKING THINGS THAT I DON'T LIKE!
posted by Talez at 11:05 AM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Talez at 11:05 AM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Photography is not an art. It is a technology.
Clickbait bait clicks, yo. Stieglitz settled this little debate a century ago. How boring.
The photo, on the other hand, is stunning.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:06 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Clickbait bait clicks, yo. Stieglitz settled this little debate a century ago. How boring.
The photo, on the other hand, is stunning.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:06 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
"Tasteless"?
I mean, I can see "hackneyed," even though I don't agree with it. But saying this picture is "in very poor taste"? That's, like, orthogonal trolling. That's like going into a Chicago Bears fan forum and posting "I THINK THAT THE SALSA IN ALBUQUERQUE TAQUERIAS GENERALLY HAS TOO MANY PEPPERS IN IT."
posted by Etrigan at 11:06 AM on December 11, 2014 [15 favorites]
I mean, I can see "hackneyed," even though I don't agree with it. But saying this picture is "in very poor taste"? That's, like, orthogonal trolling. That's like going into a Chicago Bears fan forum and posting "I THINK THAT THE SALSA IN ALBUQUERQUE TAQUERIAS GENERALLY HAS TOO MANY PEPPERS IN IT."
posted by Etrigan at 11:06 AM on December 11, 2014 [15 favorites]
Guardian has got so click-baity recently with frankly rubbish editorial articles. It's a bit sad to be honest.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 11:07 AM on December 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 11:07 AM on December 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
Ok, when I first clicked on that I thought it was an x-ray photo of something up somebody's butt and I couldn't understand why it was worth so much unless it was, I dunno, Prince Charles butt or someone like that.
Then I realized what it was and I realized I've been to the exact same spot*, based on a recommendation in an AskMe question I posted.
*it may not be the exact spot, but it's close
posted by bondcliff at 11:07 AM on December 11, 2014 [11 favorites]
Then I realized what it was and I realized I've been to the exact same spot*, based on a recommendation in an AskMe question I posted.
*it may not be the exact spot, but it's close
posted by bondcliff at 11:07 AM on December 11, 2014 [11 favorites]
Well at least it isn't prime minister making love to a pig is-it-art level of head-desking.. still...
posted by edgeways at 11:08 AM on December 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by edgeways at 11:08 AM on December 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
Yes it's art, but... couldn't he just print 10 more? I could make my own fucking print and hang it up, probably for about 20 bucks.
posted by ReeMonster at 11:08 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by ReeMonster at 11:08 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Well at least it isn't prime minister making love to a pig is-it-art level of head-desking
De gustibus non est disputandum, but I'm pretty sure that episode of Black Mirror is art.
posted by Zerowensboring at 11:10 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
De gustibus non est disputandum, but I'm pretty sure that episode of Black Mirror is art.
posted by Zerowensboring at 11:10 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
The image on the website is high enough resolution for most people to make a small print. Is that an art-heist?
posted by blue_beetle at 11:11 AM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 11:11 AM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yes it's art, but... couldn't he just print 10 more? I could make my own fucking print and hang it up, probably for about 20 bucks.
Hmmm...you've got a point there. You should probably work this idea up into a full-dress article. You could give it a title about works of art in an age in which art can easily be mechanically reproduced. I'm guessing it will be big.
posted by yoink at 11:11 AM on December 11, 2014 [15 favorites]
Hmmm...you've got a point there. You should probably work this idea up into a full-dress article. You could give it a title about works of art in an age in which art can easily be mechanically reproduced. I'm guessing it will be big.
posted by yoink at 11:11 AM on December 11, 2014 [15 favorites]
The fact that we're even talking about it is a good argument that it is, indeed, art.
posted by jeffamaphone at 11:11 AM on December 11, 2014
posted by jeffamaphone at 11:11 AM on December 11, 2014
How many of us take a camera along on any sort of outing and point it, hoping to end up with something suitable for framing and hanging on a wall? Photography isn't necessarily that easy, and i have no idea whether this frame is the result of hours of careful planning, or just a thousand exposures, one of which captures this phantom of dust in the shaft of light, that someone else (with a ton of disposable income) thinks is worth 6.5 million dollars.
The nature of art is that it's subjective, and so is its value.
posted by OHenryPacey at 11:12 AM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
The nature of art is that it's subjective, and so is its value.
posted by OHenryPacey at 11:12 AM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Pfft!
Any four-and-a-half billion year-old could have made this!
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:13 AM on December 11, 2014 [17 favorites]
Any four-and-a-half billion year-old could have made this!
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:13 AM on December 11, 2014 [17 favorites]
The real question is not whether this is art but why the buyer paid so much for it when, as the article says, there are a million variations of this photo.
posted by GuyZero at 11:15 AM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 11:15 AM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Is it art? Yes. Is it worth that price? Apparently, but not to most people.
posted by tommasz at 11:15 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by tommasz at 11:15 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
It is very popular among gallery owners to say photography is not a fine art.
The main complaint of gallery owners is they can't make enough money on it, vs painting or sculpture.
I am so glad Mr. Lik is is laughing all the way to the bank.
A lot of professional photographers ocasionally get an art shot. Artists who work in the photographic medium, always get art shots. They are not always the quality of The Phantom, but they are part of the artist's process. Lik was in Antelope Canyon for a moment created by nature, he caught the statement of the light and the form. Wonderful! It is art! Hooray!
Antelope Canyon can be unforgiving but so breathingly beautiful, it is irresistible. The Navajo have a more private version of Antelope back on their more private land.
posted by Oyéah at 11:16 AM on December 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
The main complaint of gallery owners is they can't make enough money on it, vs painting or sculpture.
I am so glad Mr. Lik is is laughing all the way to the bank.
A lot of professional photographers ocasionally get an art shot. Artists who work in the photographic medium, always get art shots. They are not always the quality of The Phantom, but they are part of the artist's process. Lik was in Antelope Canyon for a moment created by nature, he caught the statement of the light and the form. Wonderful! It is art! Hooray!
Antelope Canyon can be unforgiving but so breathingly beautiful, it is irresistible. The Navajo have a more private version of Antelope back on their more private land.
posted by Oyéah at 11:16 AM on December 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
Hmmm...you've got a point there. You should probably work this idea up into a full-dress article. You could give it a title about works of art in an age in which art can easily be mechanically reproduced. I'm guessing it will be big.
My sarcasm meter is going off.. but I should say, I didn't necessarily mean to poo-poo the photo, I think it's a nice shot. And as Ansel Adams and countless others have proved, photography is indeed a craft and an art and the quality of a true photographer rests not only on their ability to capture an image but also the lighting, enlarging and printing of those images. My comment is more a reaction to such an exorbitant selling price and the artist's blatant bragging about this "world record" on his stupid website. This record will be broken soon and often, much like the "tallest fastest" record in the roller coaster game. And, as you cannot "copy" a fine work of art beyond a high-quality print, truly, what's stopping anybody from somehow finding a high-resolution copy of this photo and going to a professional print shop to have a large format copy made? Are printing shops ethical about this?
posted by ReeMonster at 11:17 AM on December 11, 2014
My sarcasm meter is going off.. but I should say, I didn't necessarily mean to poo-poo the photo, I think it's a nice shot. And as Ansel Adams and countless others have proved, photography is indeed a craft and an art and the quality of a true photographer rests not only on their ability to capture an image but also the lighting, enlarging and printing of those images. My comment is more a reaction to such an exorbitant selling price and the artist's blatant bragging about this "world record" on his stupid website. This record will be broken soon and often, much like the "tallest fastest" record in the roller coaster game. And, as you cannot "copy" a fine work of art beyond a high-quality print, truly, what's stopping anybody from somehow finding a high-resolution copy of this photo and going to a professional print shop to have a large format copy made? Are printing shops ethical about this?
posted by ReeMonster at 11:17 AM on December 11, 2014
Art? Yes. Also, gilded-age lunacy.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 11:18 AM on December 11, 2014 [10 favorites]
posted by jeff-o-matic at 11:18 AM on December 11, 2014 [10 favorites]
there are a million variations of this photo
I've looked at a ton of photos of Antelope Valley. I've never seen one like this; one where it actually took me quite a while to figure out what the hell I was even looking at. In many ways what is remarkable about the photo is that is precisely the fact that it is an image of something we've seen a thousand variants of, and yet it stands out as finding something new to say. Just as a great portrait photograph can make us see the face of an icon who we've seen thousands of images of in a new way.
That's not to say I would pay anything like that amount of money for the photo. I do think it's a little kitschy, in the end. But it is to say that this particular critique of it seems astonishingly naive.
posted by yoink at 11:20 AM on December 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
I've looked at a ton of photos of Antelope Valley. I've never seen one like this; one where it actually took me quite a while to figure out what the hell I was even looking at. In many ways what is remarkable about the photo is that is precisely the fact that it is an image of something we've seen a thousand variants of, and yet it stands out as finding something new to say. Just as a great portrait photograph can make us see the face of an icon who we've seen thousands of images of in a new way.
That's not to say I would pay anything like that amount of money for the photo. I do think it's a little kitschy, in the end. But it is to say that this particular critique of it seems astonishingly naive.
posted by yoink at 11:20 AM on December 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
Lik was in Antelope Canyon for a moment created by nature, he caught the statement of the light and the form
Unless, of course, there was someone out of frame kicking dust into the shaft of light and Lik was just clicking away.
posted by OHenryPacey at 11:20 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Unless, of course, there was someone out of frame kicking dust into the shaft of light and Lik was just clicking away.
posted by OHenryPacey at 11:20 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Or else, maybe Lik is the real troll.. and every year on the same date he makes another print to see how much he can get for it. I mean, hey, if it gives him the freedom and security to continue taking photos then good for him. Now let me get back to figuring out how I can make 6.5 mill playing classical music.
posted by ReeMonster at 11:21 AM on December 11, 2014
posted by ReeMonster at 11:21 AM on December 11, 2014
Follow-up from the Guardian: Photography is art and always will be -- Sean O'Hagan
posted by 1970s Antihero at 11:21 AM on December 11, 2014
posted by 1970s Antihero at 11:21 AM on December 11, 2014
You can read a bit more about Jonathan Jones's impression of photography in this prior essay. My favorite bit:
posted by muddgirl at 11:23 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Paintings are made with time and difficulty, material complexity, textural depth, talent and craft, imagination and “mindfulness”. A good painting is a rich and vigorous thing. A photograph, however well lit, however cleverly set it up, only has one layer of content. It is all there on the surface. You see it, you’ve got it. It is absurd to claim this quick fix of light has the same depth, soul, or repays as much looking as a painting by Caravaggio – to take a painter so many photographers emulate.I love it when critics get a bee in their bonnet about a specific genre of their field of criticism. They can be so obtusely mean.
posted by muddgirl at 11:23 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm more surprised that these printings are limited enough to get these high prices. It looks like he often does editions of 950. It's a lot easier to make $6.5 million by selling 950 copies at $7k each.
posted by smackfu at 11:24 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by smackfu at 11:24 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
The point is not if it's art, many examples are art but not so good. Does the valuation make sense? Was the intellectual property sold or just one large high quality print done by the artist personally with a guarantee that just one of that significance will be done? Rarity may make little sense to most of us, it certainly is valued on many markets.
posted by sammyo at 11:24 AM on December 11, 2014
posted by sammyo at 11:24 AM on December 11, 2014
"At this point, take away the muffin and then say that it was bought to be looked at, not to be eaten."
posted by belarius at 11:25 AM on December 11, 2014
posted by belarius at 11:25 AM on December 11, 2014
Time to ditch music and become a fine-art photographer, where apparently scarcity can still successfully be manufactured.
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:26 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:26 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Does the valuation make sense?
This question has no meaning in our era of market worship. Each person is conceived of as an island completely separate from and with no obligations of any kind to any other person in the world, and whatever someone is willing to pay for a thing is by definition what it is "worth".
Call it art or not art, who cares, but the only reason we are having this conversation (indeed, pretty much the only reason we ever have this conversation) is because someone paid a lot of money for it, and a lot of people think that's stupid (for my part, I am one of them, but this barely merits inclusion on the "dumbest things I have heard people spending ridiculous sums of money for" list).
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 11:29 AM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
This question has no meaning in our era of market worship. Each person is conceived of as an island completely separate from and with no obligations of any kind to any other person in the world, and whatever someone is willing to pay for a thing is by definition what it is "worth".
Call it art or not art, who cares, but the only reason we are having this conversation (indeed, pretty much the only reason we ever have this conversation) is because someone paid a lot of money for it, and a lot of people think that's stupid (for my part, I am one of them, but this barely merits inclusion on the "dumbest things I have heard people spending ridiculous sums of money for" list).
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 11:29 AM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
It is common for the native guides (required to go in the canyons) to pose photographers at a spot, toss a handful of sand into a shaft of light, then step out of the frame. This appears to be one of those shots.
On the "photographer" tours, there are even warnings to protect your gear from sand and dust during these occasions.
This appears to be one of those photos.
As for "is it art?," I dunno. Eye of the beholder I suppose....
posted by CrowGoat at 11:29 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
On the "photographer" tours, there are even warnings to protect your gear from sand and dust during these occasions.
This appears to be one of those photos.
As for "is it art?," I dunno. Eye of the beholder I suppose....
posted by CrowGoat at 11:29 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
At that price, do they throw in the negatives and the copyright? I don't know if it is Art, but whether this is a Business Deal or not should be pretty easy to settle.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:29 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:29 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Photography is about light, form and moment, and many other considerations.. A lot of people shoot in Monument Valley and venture into Antelope Canyon. If the photog sells a work as a monoprint, it is one moment in time and therefore unique.
Let's also face the reality, people have money to spend as they will. The area draws filmmakers, and well paid actors. Tourists from around the world are rightfully awestruck by the beauty. It takes time and skill, and many seasons to capture the look of the place. I was lucky to teach photography to Navajo high school students for a year. I hope they will become the visual conservators of their remarkable space and views.
posted by Oyéah at 11:32 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Let's also face the reality, people have money to spend as they will. The area draws filmmakers, and well paid actors. Tourists from around the world are rightfully awestruck by the beauty. It takes time and skill, and many seasons to capture the look of the place. I was lucky to teach photography to Navajo high school students for a year. I hope they will become the visual conservators of their remarkable space and views.
posted by Oyéah at 11:32 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Saved you 6 million bucks.
Not one of those photographs looks much like the one in the FPP. I mean, this is essentially the same as throwing up a link to Etsy paintings of irises and saying "saved you $60,000,000" if you bought a Van Gogh. Whatever the buyer saw in the photograph was not "oh, wow, at last, a photograph of Antelope Canyon!! I'm pretty sure no one's ever done that before, or will again!"
posted by yoink at 11:34 AM on December 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
Not one of those photographs looks much like the one in the FPP. I mean, this is essentially the same as throwing up a link to Etsy paintings of irises and saying "saved you $60,000,000" if you bought a Van Gogh. Whatever the buyer saw in the photograph was not "oh, wow, at last, a photograph of Antelope Canyon!! I'm pretty sure no one's ever done that before, or will again!"
posted by yoink at 11:34 AM on December 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
You don't have to be with a guide in Antelope, you just have to watch the weather, to avoid flash flood.
posted by Oyéah at 11:34 AM on December 11, 2014
posted by Oyéah at 11:34 AM on December 11, 2014
I wish I could find a more substantial article about Peter Lik. This article makes him sound like the Thomas Kinkade of Photography, although I don't know if Kinkade ever managed to sell an original painting for that much. I also don't remember any art critics using Kinkade to argue that the entire field of painting wasn't art.
posted by muddgirl at 11:36 AM on December 11, 2014
posted by muddgirl at 11:36 AM on December 11, 2014
It's art, sure. Rather prosaic, and tasteless of course. I wouldn't say it rises to the level of transcendent good taste seen in classic works of religious iconography like say Artemisia Gentileschi's Judith Slaying Holofernes or Andres Serrano's Piss Christ.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:37 AM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by [expletive deleted] at 11:37 AM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Antelope is very near the Navajo Power Plant a coal burner, the light penetrating into shadow is often visible because of haze. Don't forget Antelope was formed by blowing sand, and the furious rush of flash flood water.
posted by Oyéah at 11:38 AM on December 11, 2014
posted by Oyéah at 11:38 AM on December 11, 2014
$6.5 Million and it's not even in colour!?
posted by ODiV at 11:39 AM on December 11, 2014 [9 favorites]
posted by ODiV at 11:39 AM on December 11, 2014 [9 favorites]
> "You can read a bit more about Jonathan Jones's impression of photography in this prior essay ..."
As far as I can tell, he appears to be saying, "Paintings take time and effort, whereas photographs don't take time and effort even if they take time and effort! Also, photographs are inferior to paintings because photographs are a two-dimensional visual medium! You'd never catch Caravaggio working in a two-dimensional visual medium!"
What?
posted by kyrademon at 11:39 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
As far as I can tell, he appears to be saying, "Paintings take time and effort, whereas photographs don't take time and effort even if they take time and effort! Also, photographs are inferior to paintings because photographs are a two-dimensional visual medium! You'd never catch Caravaggio working in a two-dimensional visual medium!"
What?
posted by kyrademon at 11:39 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
of course it's art. i mean i don't understand how in the world this work can command these kinds of prices, but if it's presented as art and sold as art, then it is art. this work might be utterly contrived, low grade drivel, and it might share more in common with Thomas Kincaid than it does with William Eggleston, but that doesn't mean it's not art of some kind.
as ridiculous as i find the fact that anyone would pay $6 million for what amounts to a page form a "Views of America" calendar, i find it even more ridiculous for Jonathan Jones to say that photography is not art. i guess he's never heard of William Gedney, or Joel Sternberg or Diane Arbus. i challenge him to look at the depth of humanity conveyed in the eye of one of Peter Hujar's portrait subjects and tell me that's not art. using something as bad as Lik's work to dismiss all of photography is ridiculous, knee-jerk and wrongheaded.
posted by Conrad-Casserole at 11:40 AM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
as ridiculous as i find the fact that anyone would pay $6 million for what amounts to a page form a "Views of America" calendar, i find it even more ridiculous for Jonathan Jones to say that photography is not art. i guess he's never heard of William Gedney, or Joel Sternberg or Diane Arbus. i challenge him to look at the depth of humanity conveyed in the eye of one of Peter Hujar's portrait subjects and tell me that's not art. using something as bad as Lik's work to dismiss all of photography is ridiculous, knee-jerk and wrongheaded.
posted by Conrad-Casserole at 11:40 AM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
It is absolutely art. Why someone pays 6.5 million for it when there are so many more useful and interesting options for spending that kind of money is a more interesting question. (OK, who am I to question the ostentatious spending of the 1 percenters. This is America by God! I will return to my hovel and eke out the rest of my days in silent ignominy.)
posted by jcworth at 11:41 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by jcworth at 11:41 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's been a long time since I've been so effectively trolled by a web article. Like at least 2, 3 days.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:41 AM on December 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:41 AM on December 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
It's funny, but I agree with many of the author's points (i.e. the photo is a bit hackneyed and certainly not worth the price paid), except that I disagree hugely with his main point. Photography is, or at least can be, art.
The definition of art can be very nebulous, and the author didn't provide one. So he doesn't really have any argument here at all except that he basically hates it and you don't have to be highly trained to take great shots of your own. Apparently, for something to be art, it has to be difficult? Why can't photography just be an especially democratic art form?
More importantly, who cares? Whenever someone argues that X isn't Y, what they really mean is that X sucks, and they're looking for a way to disqualify it from being good since they can't actually prove that it sucks. I used to get really annoyed when people would argue that hip hop isn't music, or that games can't be art.
Now, I just shrug my shoulders, hit play on an old Pharcyde album and start up a new game of Spelunky. What does it matter how you categorize them? What matters is that I get something out them. Part of the problem is that it's hard to tell the difference between disliking something because it sucks and disliking something because you just don't "get" it. People are always looking for ways to justify their dislike of something, and their contempt for others who like those things.
Of course, some things do suck, and the people who like them may have poor taste. But that's no skin off my back, and there's no need for me to make that determination.
posted by Edgewise at 11:41 AM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
The definition of art can be very nebulous, and the author didn't provide one. So he doesn't really have any argument here at all except that he basically hates it and you don't have to be highly trained to take great shots of your own. Apparently, for something to be art, it has to be difficult? Why can't photography just be an especially democratic art form?
More importantly, who cares? Whenever someone argues that X isn't Y, what they really mean is that X sucks, and they're looking for a way to disqualify it from being good since they can't actually prove that it sucks. I used to get really annoyed when people would argue that hip hop isn't music, or that games can't be art.
Now, I just shrug my shoulders, hit play on an old Pharcyde album and start up a new game of Spelunky. What does it matter how you categorize them? What matters is that I get something out them. Part of the problem is that it's hard to tell the difference between disliking something because it sucks and disliking something because you just don't "get" it. People are always looking for ways to justify their dislike of something, and their contempt for others who like those things.
Of course, some things do suck, and the people who like them may have poor taste. But that's no skin off my back, and there's no need for me to make that determination.
posted by Edgewise at 11:41 AM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
What a strange and reactionary screed. It seems to be directed against some imaginary person who is deciding that this picture selling for a lot of money means that photography has finaly become an art form. Who thinks that? No one I've ever heard of.
posted by thelonius at 11:43 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by thelonius at 11:43 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm honestly curious to hear what someone like Jones feels about cinematography, not so much out of any interest in the dude's pretty ill-considered opinions but because I suspect he doesn't harbor the same malice towards that particular craft, and I can't think of any way to consistently unite the two opinions given the particular points he marshals against the notion of photography as art. It'd be fun to see the rhetorical contortions involved.
posted by invitapriore at 11:44 AM on December 11, 2014
posted by invitapriore at 11:44 AM on December 11, 2014
Oh man, Jonathan Jones certainly has some opinions about things. For example, did you know that if an artist works in Lego, it's not art, because kids use Lego to make things creatively, and calling that art ruins the fun of childhood? Today I learned.
posted by muddgirl at 11:47 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by muddgirl at 11:47 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
The Art is not in front of us. We don't get to walk up to this hopefully, large image and get taken in by the magic or not magic of it. I would guess the detail is incredible, while another would talk about the Emperor's clothes.
I don't like talking behind art's back.
posted by Oyéah at 11:48 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't like talking behind art's back.
posted by Oyéah at 11:48 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
This guy is like the Armond White of all media.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 11:48 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by overeducated_alligator at 11:48 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Peter Lik has a gallery in Caesars Palace in Vegas. He has three other galleries in Vegas. Presumably that was part of the criticism, that it's for non-art people without much taste but a lot of money to blow on trivial things. Like gambling. Like gambling the photograph will go up in value.
posted by stbalbach at 11:53 AM on December 11, 2014
posted by stbalbach at 11:53 AM on December 11, 2014
OK, I am having way too much fun trolling the archives to develop the Official JJ Taxonomy of What Is Art. Here are a few more: Ancient Abstract Art: Not Art, but Ancient Cave Paintings: Art.
Did you know that "We don't really know what art is, or why it matters so much to our strange species?" Coulda fooled me!
posted by muddgirl at 11:54 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Did you know that "We don't really know what art is, or why it matters so much to our strange species?" Coulda fooled me!
posted by muddgirl at 11:54 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
The trick to getting money for your shitty photography is getting it in front of wealthy buyers. Calling your canyon tourist photographs Phantom and Endless Moods is probably also helpful.
Peter Lik has a gallery in Caesars Palace in Vegas
If shopping mall zeitgeist is embedding in Thomas Kinkade, then the vulgarity and cheez of Vegas is the dna of Peter Lik.
posted by four panels at 11:54 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Peter Lik has a gallery in Caesars Palace in Vegas
If shopping mall zeitgeist is embedding in Thomas Kinkade, then the vulgarity and cheez of Vegas is the dna of Peter Lik.
posted by four panels at 11:54 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
A photographer friend posted a link from a photo magazine about this on his facebook wall; the writer was breathlessly gushing praise for this photo, claiming that a landscape photo done in black-and-white was "rare".
The comments, fortunately, were filled with responses from people saying some variant of "it's 'rare' only if you ignore the entire portfolio of Ansel Adams."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:54 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
The comments, fortunately, were filled with responses from people saying some variant of "it's 'rare' only if you ignore the entire portfolio of Ansel Adams."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:54 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Okay, leaving aside the "is it art" question, which is obviously dumb, I wonder about how the economy plays into the 6.5 million price tag. Hasn't art in general become - like central London real estate, etc - more of aa place where the global elite park their money? Aren't art prices in general rising well out of proportion to inflation? Maybe this is art, whatever; maybe it's valuable art; but the question of how it came to be, in the age of mechanical reproduction, a 6.5 million piece of art - that's interesting.
posted by Frowner at 11:55 AM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 11:55 AM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
"Hollow"? Yeah duh, it's a canyon!
posted by Namlit at 11:56 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Namlit at 11:56 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
To be fair, Adams is best remembered for his government reports to the Department of the Interior rather than a few incidental "technical" accomplishments.
Right?
posted by bonehead at 11:59 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Right?
posted by bonehead at 11:59 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
This says everything, really.
I don't know. Blatantly commercial and aimed at rich mass market doesn't usually cross-over with breaking records.
posted by smackfu at 12:00 PM on December 11, 2014
I don't know. Blatantly commercial and aimed at rich mass market doesn't usually cross-over with breaking records.
posted by smackfu at 12:00 PM on December 11, 2014
The fact that we're even talking about it is a good argument that it is, indeed, art.
Is trolly clickbait art?
posted by Sys Rq at 12:01 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Is trolly clickbait art?
posted by Sys Rq at 12:01 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
I don't know how you could call that commercial. I don't see any bokeh, let alone lens flare.
posted by bonehead at 12:02 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by bonehead at 12:02 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Worth noting that the only source for the "recording-breaking" "sale" of this piece to an "anonymous collector" is a press release put out by the photographer himself. Sure, the photo is art, because art can be bad. The story, though, is nothing but hype.
posted by neroli at 12:04 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by neroli at 12:04 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Art is created by the buyer, not the paint/sculptor/photographer. So yes, this is art, and the pricetag says that it is many times more art than most paintings, though only maybe 10% the art of a Picasso. The similar photographs found on the internet aren't art, because they're free.
posted by Thing at 12:05 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Thing at 12:05 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't know how you could call that commercial. I don't see any bokeh, let alone lens flare.
Be patient, I'm sure the photographer will upload the HDR version as a 4K desktop background.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 12:05 PM on December 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
Be patient, I'm sure the photographer will upload the HDR version as a 4K desktop background.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 12:05 PM on December 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
Art is discussed in art education as a three way process.
1. The art piece, what it is made of.
2. The Artist, skill, style, intent, mastery of medium, artist bio, what the artist brings.
3. The viewer, what the viewer brings to the experience of the art.
The money story is a long tale as varied as we are both for good and bad, what ever those values are. There was a history of Caravaggio posted on Mefi, he pretty much acted out the full sweep.
posted by Oyéah at 12:05 PM on December 11, 2014
1. The art piece, what it is made of.
2. The Artist, skill, style, intent, mastery of medium, artist bio, what the artist brings.
3. The viewer, what the viewer brings to the experience of the art.
The money story is a long tale as varied as we are both for good and bad, what ever those values are. There was a history of Caravaggio posted on Mefi, he pretty much acted out the full sweep.
posted by Oyéah at 12:05 PM on December 11, 2014
I'll bet there is a term for the feeling that I'm having right now: irritation at having been drawn in by obvious clickbait, tempered by the vaguely-smug satisfaction that AdBlocker Plus has prevented the offending clickbaiter from profiting from my errant click, and has instead caused him to pay his ISP for the bits that were transferred across the Atlantic Ocean to my unwitting browser.
I'll bet this term is German.
posted by Mayor West at 12:08 PM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'll bet this term is German.
posted by Mayor West at 12:08 PM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Be patient, I'm sure the photographer will upload the HDR version as a 4K desktop background.
On DeviantArt.
posted by culfinglin at 12:08 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
On DeviantArt.
posted by culfinglin at 12:08 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
I have both given away and sold art. They are both art.
posted by Oyéah at 12:09 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Oyéah at 12:09 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
I don't care about art or not art, shitty question and one that rarely matters. (except when ART bulldozes over everything in sight). However, this is a terrible, derivative photo, that someone vastly overpaid for.
posted by PinkMoose at 12:09 PM on December 11, 2014
posted by PinkMoose at 12:09 PM on December 11, 2014
From this same guy, a year ago: "Photography is the serious art of our time. It also happens to be the most accessible and democratic way of making art that has ever been invented."
Foolish consistency might be the hobgoblin of small minds, but seriously, Mr. Jones, what the fuck?
posted by goatdog at 12:09 PM on December 11, 2014 [16 favorites]
Foolish consistency might be the hobgoblin of small minds, but seriously, Mr. Jones, what the fuck?
posted by goatdog at 12:09 PM on December 11, 2014 [16 favorites]
On DeviantArt.
Man, I knew Flickr had gotten uncool for photogs, but I hadn't realized it had gotten that bad.
posted by bonehead at 12:10 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Man, I knew Flickr had gotten uncool for photogs, but I hadn't realized it had gotten that bad.
posted by bonehead at 12:10 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
"In our world where money talks, the absurd inflated price that has been paid by some fool for this “fine art photograph” will be hailed as proof that photography has arrived as art."
u mad bro
posted by klangklangston at 12:17 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
u mad bro
posted by klangklangston at 12:17 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
If somebody had painted the exact same picture that appears in the photograph, nobody would ask whether it was art. It would be clear that its production required skill--that it was HARD, and not Something My Ten-Year Old Could Do.
People want art to be hard, because people are profoundly uncomfortable with the idea that art can only be judged subjectively. They want a way of knowing whether or not a piece of art is Real Art or Fake Art that has nothing to do with how they themselves feel about it.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 12:17 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
People want art to be hard, because people are profoundly uncomfortable with the idea that art can only be judged subjectively. They want a way of knowing whether or not a piece of art is Real Art or Fake Art that has nothing to do with how they themselves feel about it.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 12:17 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Worth noting that the only source for the "recording-breaking" "sale" of this piece to an "anonymous collector" is a press release put out by the photographer himself.
The press release does give a pretty solid source for confirmation, the lawyer for the buyer. Not the kind of thing you make up.
posted by smackfu at 12:31 PM on December 11, 2014
The press release does give a pretty solid source for confirmation, the lawyer for the buyer. Not the kind of thing you make up.
posted by smackfu at 12:31 PM on December 11, 2014
I propose we create an objective scale for measuring the "art-iness" of a giving thing.
1-5 points based on time taken to create an art (even if the time taken was due to incompetence)
1-5 points based on degree of difficulty (Painting in your studio is worth less points than painting silent lurking monster that only you can see while standing in a field of sunflowers)
1-5 points based on "My Kid Could Do That" (we will identify a child of age 8 with average art ability and ask that child to recreate a given work of art - points will be assigned based on how closely the child's work replicates the work we're evaluating)
1-5 points based on "Did it sell?" (5 points = nobody bought it; 1 point = it sold for a ton of money - if a piece has already made its artist money, the artist doesn't need the comforting thought of knowing it was at least art)
1-5 points based on relative age of the technology used to create an art (if its something stone age people could have done, its worth more points than something done on an iPad)
1-5 points based on "how many other people have covered the same subject matter" (Human faces, nudity and canyons = 1 point, pictures of rocks that they dug up themselves and nobody has seen in centuries = 5 points)
1-5 points based on "percentage of people who are licensed as judges of art who say 'yes this is art'" (licensees must conform to certain popular stereotypes of art critics and be willing to drink wine while crossing both arms and sneering)
0 points can be awarded if the art doesn't meet the base criteria of a category.
Once we add all of these points together, we use the following scale to determine if its art:
0-35 = It is art
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:37 PM on December 11, 2014 [13 favorites]
1-5 points based on time taken to create an art (even if the time taken was due to incompetence)
1-5 points based on degree of difficulty (Painting in your studio is worth less points than painting silent lurking monster that only you can see while standing in a field of sunflowers)
1-5 points based on "My Kid Could Do That" (we will identify a child of age 8 with average art ability and ask that child to recreate a given work of art - points will be assigned based on how closely the child's work replicates the work we're evaluating)
1-5 points based on "Did it sell?" (5 points = nobody bought it; 1 point = it sold for a ton of money - if a piece has already made its artist money, the artist doesn't need the comforting thought of knowing it was at least art)
1-5 points based on relative age of the technology used to create an art (if its something stone age people could have done, its worth more points than something done on an iPad)
1-5 points based on "how many other people have covered the same subject matter" (Human faces, nudity and canyons = 1 point, pictures of rocks that they dug up themselves and nobody has seen in centuries = 5 points)
1-5 points based on "percentage of people who are licensed as judges of art who say 'yes this is art'" (licensees must conform to certain popular stereotypes of art critics and be willing to drink wine while crossing both arms and sneering)
0 points can be awarded if the art doesn't meet the base criteria of a category.
Once we add all of these points together, we use the following scale to determine if its art:
0-35 = It is art
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:37 PM on December 11, 2014 [13 favorites]
Of course it's Art. It's black and white, innit? Everyone knows black-and-white photos are art.
Anyway, I can't figure out why anybody would want to pay 6.5 million for this particular photo. As others have pointed out, it's pretty cliché; "Beam of sunlight in Antelope Canyon" is pretty much in the top three shots on any serious nature photographer's bucket list, partly because it's super pretty and partly because one wants to compare one's own efforts to those of the countless other photographers who have made the same trip and taken (essentially) the same shot. This one doesn't really stand out to me personally. When I saw it, I just thought "huh, it's Antelope Canyon but underexposed and in black and white". Frankly I prefer it in color.
People can pay what they want of course, but when you're talking record-breaking art prices it's never really about the piece in question. The photo is a MacGuffin; what it's really about is some art buyer wanting to show off the fact that she/he can afford to pay six-and-a-half mill for a picture, plus maybe some bad investment logic (anyone with any sense knows that art prices are volatile and that the high end of the market in general is in a ridiculous bubble). And sure, it's pretty enough. You can hang it over the couch in your ultra-modern skyscraper penthouse or whatever, and it'll look good, so you can make sure that all your guests are reminded that you have the World's Most Expensive Photo in your possession every time they come over.
It's still art, though.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 12:39 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Anyway, I can't figure out why anybody would want to pay 6.5 million for this particular photo. As others have pointed out, it's pretty cliché; "Beam of sunlight in Antelope Canyon" is pretty much in the top three shots on any serious nature photographer's bucket list, partly because it's super pretty and partly because one wants to compare one's own efforts to those of the countless other photographers who have made the same trip and taken (essentially) the same shot. This one doesn't really stand out to me personally. When I saw it, I just thought "huh, it's Antelope Canyon but underexposed and in black and white". Frankly I prefer it in color.
People can pay what they want of course, but when you're talking record-breaking art prices it's never really about the piece in question. The photo is a MacGuffin; what it's really about is some art buyer wanting to show off the fact that she/he can afford to pay six-and-a-half mill for a picture, plus maybe some bad investment logic (anyone with any sense knows that art prices are volatile and that the high end of the market in general is in a ridiculous bubble). And sure, it's pretty enough. You can hang it over the couch in your ultra-modern skyscraper penthouse or whatever, and it'll look good, so you can make sure that all your guests are reminded that you have the World's Most Expensive Photo in your possession every time they come over.
It's still art, though.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 12:39 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
The trick to getting money for your shitty photography is getting it in front of wealthy buyers.
This. And it goes for most anything. What makes Peter Lik stand out, like so many commercially successful artists these days, is less his innate skill but rather his slightly above average skill combined with his ability to market and access the modern-day equivalents to Renaissance patrons.
His work as a whole is indistinguishable from most any other contemporary landscape photographer like Marc Adamus, Sean Bagshaw, Floris van Breugel etc etc etc. What distinguishes him is his ability to ingratiate himself with the moneyed classes through marketing or connections.
posted by jnnla at 12:41 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
This. And it goes for most anything. What makes Peter Lik stand out, like so many commercially successful artists these days, is less his innate skill but rather his slightly above average skill combined with his ability to market and access the modern-day equivalents to Renaissance patrons.
His work as a whole is indistinguishable from most any other contemporary landscape photographer like Marc Adamus, Sean Bagshaw, Floris van Breugel etc etc etc. What distinguishes him is his ability to ingratiate himself with the moneyed classes through marketing or connections.
posted by jnnla at 12:41 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
That Jonathan Jones article is just trolling though, plain and simple. Chortles were probably heard during its writing.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 12:41 PM on December 11, 2014
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 12:41 PM on December 11, 2014
The trick to getting money for your shitty photography is getting it in front of wealthy buyers.
Hooray, patronage is back.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 12:43 PM on December 11, 2014
Hooray, patronage is back.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 12:43 PM on December 11, 2014
Sure.
It's also an art form to get someone to pay 6.5 mil for a photograph.
Etc.
posted by freakazoid at 12:43 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's also an art form to get someone to pay 6.5 mil for a photograph.
Etc.
posted by freakazoid at 12:43 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
The thing that makes the valuation hard to understand is that by the nature of it being a photographic print, it is easily reproducible in pretty much identical form. What makes this one print so valuable, when the artist could theoretical print off ten more tomorrow? I suppose that as part of the sale, the artist promises to never make any more prints of this photo.
Thinking about it, I am surprised that I haven't heard of a famous musician cashing in on the extreme limited edition art market, given how inflated it seems to be. Imagine someone, let's say Bob Dylan, writing and recording an album with a single pressing. How much would that single album sell for?
posted by fings at 12:46 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Thinking about it, I am surprised that I haven't heard of a famous musician cashing in on the extreme limited edition art market, given how inflated it seems to be. Imagine someone, let's say Bob Dylan, writing and recording an album with a single pressing. How much would that single album sell for?
posted by fings at 12:46 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
fings, allow me to introduce you to Wu Tang Clan
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:47 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:47 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Aw, that's pretty! I like it!
posted by wenestvedt at 12:48 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by wenestvedt at 12:48 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Art is created by the buyer, not the paint/sculptor/photographer. So yes, this is art, and the pricetag says that it is many times more art than most paintings, though only maybe 10% the art of a Picasso. The similar photographs found on the internet aren't art, because they're free.
Well, if it works for valuing humans, it works for valuing art, right?
posted by muddgirl at 12:54 PM on December 11, 2014
Well, if it works for valuing humans, it works for valuing art, right?
posted by muddgirl at 12:54 PM on December 11, 2014
The author seems to almost disprove his own thesis within his own article:
His very criticism of this piece implies that other pieces of photography might be better. His criticism implies that, if those other pieces were better by his criteria, they _would_ be art. So, by implication, unless he's maintaining that it would be _impossible_ for other photographs to be better, photography is an art form.
posted by amtho at 1:00 PM on December 11, 2014
Little known fact: Peter Lik made his first $6.5 million selling his last name to Mark Zuckerberg who needed it for a button.
True story.
posted by chavenet at 1:13 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
True story.
posted by chavenet at 1:13 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
From this same guy, a year ago: "Photography is the serious art of our time. It also happens to be the most accessible and democratic way of making art that has ever been invented."
Foolish consistency might be the hobgoblin of small minds, but seriously, Mr. Jones, what the fuck?
posted by goatdog
I tend to agree with jones. Take Matthew Brady. He may not have made art but he brought horror, in a visual sence, to a new level as did others. David sketched prisoners on the way to the guillotine. Not art but he also drew/ painted historical events. (Marat) are David's paintings on this subject matter art? Sure.
Did he feel good while hemming the blue suited monster?
Democracy and art are tricky strokes.
posted by clavdivs at 1:21 PM on December 11, 2014
Foolish consistency might be the hobgoblin of small minds, but seriously, Mr. Jones, what the fuck?
posted by goatdog
I tend to agree with jones. Take Matthew Brady. He may not have made art but he brought horror, in a visual sence, to a new level as did others. David sketched prisoners on the way to the guillotine. Not art but he also drew/ painted historical events. (Marat) are David's paintings on this subject matter art? Sure.
Did he feel good while hemming the blue suited monster?
Democracy and art are tricky strokes.
posted by clavdivs at 1:21 PM on December 11, 2014
Guys, it's not about the money
posted by oceanjesse at 1:27 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by oceanjesse at 1:27 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
World record?
What a load of malarky.
There is no way to back up the claim that this sale set a world record price for a photograph because it was a privates sale.
Public sales (auction) are another matter. Prices are recorded and part of the public record.
posted by snaparapans at 1:39 PM on December 11, 2014
What a load of malarky.
There is no way to back up the claim that this sale set a world record price for a photograph because it was a privates sale.
Public sales (auction) are another matter. Prices are recorded and part of the public record.
posted by snaparapans at 1:39 PM on December 11, 2014
One art, please!
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:46 PM on December 11, 2014
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:46 PM on December 11, 2014
it was a privates sale
Hmmm. That really would make it a seminal work of art.
posted by yoink at 1:54 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Hmmm. That really would make it a seminal work of art.
posted by yoink at 1:54 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Hmmm. That really would make it a seminal work of art.
Nah, besides, Acconci did that in 1972 :)
posted by snaparapans at 2:02 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Nah, besides, Acconci did that in 1972 :)
posted by snaparapans at 2:02 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
I own a few Peter Liks. Nice pieces, perhaps overpriced. I bought them because I thought they were beautiful; not necessarily sublime, but colorful and serene. (Side note: the people in the gallery will claim that the photographs are not touched up, but c'mon . . . )
What is curious is the closed ecology of the Lik world, in the sense that he sells his photographs in his own galleries and sets the price himself--the open market and the auction houses are far, far away. A baseline price is set for a given series of photographs upon their first release, but after a certain percentage is sold, the price goes up incrementally until a $3K piece ends up being priced in the lower $100k range.
However, and here's the kicker, you just have to take their word that a certain percentage threshold has been passed to merit a price hike. I've gone into a gallery, admired a photograph, returned a month later, and I was told that a sale percentage was passed and now it's $1-2K more. Their prerogative, of course, but the fact remans: it's their word only.
So it is curious to me that both Peter Lik sales (the $1 million photograph and now this one), went to anonymous buyers. Lik even touted the most recent sale on his website (and in the emails I got). Once again: the closed ecology. Verifiable? Uncertain at best. The email mentioned some lawyers, but otherwise it's quite mysterious.
(PS: I've checked on the secondary market, and it appears that Lik photos don't generally re-sell for nearly as much as the amount they were purchased for.)
posted by Quaversalis at 2:28 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
What is curious is the closed ecology of the Lik world, in the sense that he sells his photographs in his own galleries and sets the price himself--the open market and the auction houses are far, far away. A baseline price is set for a given series of photographs upon their first release, but after a certain percentage is sold, the price goes up incrementally until a $3K piece ends up being priced in the lower $100k range.
However, and here's the kicker, you just have to take their word that a certain percentage threshold has been passed to merit a price hike. I've gone into a gallery, admired a photograph, returned a month later, and I was told that a sale percentage was passed and now it's $1-2K more. Their prerogative, of course, but the fact remans: it's their word only.
So it is curious to me that both Peter Lik sales (the $1 million photograph and now this one), went to anonymous buyers. Lik even touted the most recent sale on his website (and in the emails I got). Once again: the closed ecology. Verifiable? Uncertain at best. The email mentioned some lawyers, but otherwise it's quite mysterious.
(PS: I've checked on the secondary market, and it appears that Lik photos don't generally re-sell for nearly as much as the amount they were purchased for.)
posted by Quaversalis at 2:28 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Thesis: That art quite literally is in the eyes of the beholder, or more precisely: Art is in the perception.
Can't think of anything that breaks that rule. Plus, if it literally doesn't exist in the object, but in one's perception of the object, that explains the idea of "high art": more people perceiving the same basic "artness" increases the chance that this perception will continue.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:30 PM on December 11, 2014
Can't think of anything that breaks that rule. Plus, if it literally doesn't exist in the object, but in one's perception of the object, that explains the idea of "high art": more people perceiving the same basic "artness" increases the chance that this perception will continue.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:30 PM on December 11, 2014
Once again: the closed ecology. Verifiable? Uncertain at best.
Yes first amendment right to unverifiable BS...
caveat emptor
Gursky has the record, Sherman #2...
Even if Lik did sell the piece for $6.5 million, public sales set are the record because no one knows what has historically changed hands and for how much privately. So another photograph may have sold privately for $10M, but the parties involved were not interested, for whatever reason, in shameless self promotion, so no one has ever heard of it.
posted by snaparapans at 2:40 PM on December 11, 2014
Yes first amendment right to unverifiable BS...
caveat emptor
Gursky has the record, Sherman #2...
Even if Lik did sell the piece for $6.5 million, public sales set are the record because no one knows what has historically changed hands and for how much privately. So another photograph may have sold privately for $10M, but the parties involved were not interested, for whatever reason, in shameless self promotion, so no one has ever heard of it.
posted by snaparapans at 2:40 PM on December 11, 2014
What is curious is the closed ecology of the Lik world, in the sense that he sells his photographs in his own galleries and sets the price himself
Yes, this is why I compared him to Thomas Kinkade. A curiosity discovered in researching the price of Kinkade artwork and Kinkade prints - according to Kinkade's galleries, the original paintings corresponding to the more popular prints are worth more than the less popular prints.
posted by muddgirl at 2:44 PM on December 11, 2014
Yes, this is why I compared him to Thomas Kinkade. A curiosity discovered in researching the price of Kinkade artwork and Kinkade prints - according to Kinkade's galleries, the original paintings corresponding to the more popular prints are worth more than the less popular prints.
posted by muddgirl at 2:44 PM on December 11, 2014
I went on a photo shoot in antelope canyon with a group of people one time. It was a surreal experience.
If you're thinking it would be a quiet, serene, thoughtful, slow paced stroll through a beautiful canyon, well, it was pretty much the opposite of that.
First, there was the ride out there, in the back of a Navajo piloted pickup truck specially modified to be a people-hauler through the sandy canyon, along with a bunch of other similarly modified pickups, kind of like a mini desert race to the canyon.
Then, pure combat photography as way too many people are pushed through the canyon.
You see all those footprints in the sand in that photo? Those are the footprints of photographic combatants.
I got a few good pictures, and our guide, a guy name Rob, was very helpful in telling us how to set the camera up to best capture the light, and in shepherding our group through.
Then, after about an hour, it was over, and back into the pickups to race through the sand again.
posted by smcameron at 3:00 PM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
If you're thinking it would be a quiet, serene, thoughtful, slow paced stroll through a beautiful canyon, well, it was pretty much the opposite of that.
First, there was the ride out there, in the back of a Navajo piloted pickup truck specially modified to be a people-hauler through the sandy canyon, along with a bunch of other similarly modified pickups, kind of like a mini desert race to the canyon.
Then, pure combat photography as way too many people are pushed through the canyon.
You see all those footprints in the sand in that photo? Those are the footprints of photographic combatants.
I got a few good pictures, and our guide, a guy name Rob, was very helpful in telling us how to set the camera up to best capture the light, and in shepherding our group through.
Then, after about an hour, it was over, and back into the pickups to race through the sand again.
posted by smcameron at 3:00 PM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
I'm an amateur photographer and I believe that art is what the artists says it is. If I spend a lot of time thinking about a photo and composing it, all to evoke some kind of emotional response, then it's art. I believe all of my photos are art, even if they show the touch of an amateur.
As for Peter Lik, I've seen his stuff at his galleries and it's impressive. He does a nice job of capturing incredible detail in very well composed scenes - all of which holds up when blown up on huge canvases. This takes a lot of care, planning, and effort. His photos do a nice job of evoking a feeling whenever I see them. To me, that makes him both an excellent photographer and an artist.
(All this said, one could have a separate discussion on the relative merits of different pieces of art. Peter Lik may be an artist, but one could easily argue he's not a very good one.)
posted by fremen at 4:15 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
As for Peter Lik, I've seen his stuff at his galleries and it's impressive. He does a nice job of capturing incredible detail in very well composed scenes - all of which holds up when blown up on huge canvases. This takes a lot of care, planning, and effort. His photos do a nice job of evoking a feeling whenever I see them. To me, that makes him both an excellent photographer and an artist.
(All this said, one could have a separate discussion on the relative merits of different pieces of art. Peter Lik may be an artist, but one could easily argue he's not a very good one.)
posted by fremen at 4:15 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
> Peter Lik’s hollow, cliched and tasteless black and white shot of an Arizona canyon isn’t art – and proves that photography never will be
In the sports media world they would call this a HOT TAKE, and this is one of the HOTTEST TAKES you'll ever read. So HOT, this TAKE.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:16 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
In the sports media world they would call this a HOT TAKE, and this is one of the HOTTEST TAKES you'll ever read. So HOT, this TAKE.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:16 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
With music critics, they call that "challops" for "challenging opinion," and it's so challops. (It's the genre of quasi-thinkpieces with headlines like: "Are the Beatles the worst band of all time?")
posted by klangklangston at 4:42 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 4:42 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
I've been to Antelope Canyon. I've taken similar pictures (although I avoid the midday hours, to keep from taking the obvious, "hackneyed" but still awesome photos such as this).
If you've been there, a photo like this is a great echo. If you haven't been there, you can't get it completely.
posted by notsnot at 4:49 PM on December 11, 2014
If you've been there, a photo like this is a great echo. If you haven't been there, you can't get it completely.
posted by notsnot at 4:49 PM on December 11, 2014
Going for the cheese here, Jolie/ Pitt gift, or Depp bought it. It is a great photo in my estimation. If it buys Lik the time to shoot, even better.
posted by Oyéah at 5:17 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Oyéah at 5:17 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Hey, you know what else is also art, even if you don't think especially highly of it? Hackneyed posters in a posh hotels.
posted by adamt at 5:53 PM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by adamt at 5:53 PM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Hey, you know what else is also art, even if you don't think especially highly of it? Hackneyed posters in a posh hotels.
Good point! Can't there be bad art?
posted by Edgewise at 6:46 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Good point! Can't there be bad art?
posted by Edgewise at 6:46 PM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Ok, when I first clicked on that I thought it was an x-ray photo of something up somebody's butt
Seriously - is it meant to echo that as some kind of commentary or is that just an unfortunate accident, because that is exactly what I saw when I clicked on the link.
Whether it "is art" seems like a meaningless question at this point, given that no one's defined what art is... Not that everyone would agree anyway, but what is at issue - skill? beauty? genius/unique capacity? meaning?
If a friend of mine took this photo and showed it to me, I don't know that I would necessarily say something like 'wow, you are really talented, you should be in art school'. I mean, I might tell them it was a pretty cool photo, but - I guess that's the art/technology question. Maybe technology is kind of an art itself - the word comes from the greek word for art... Perhaps the real art of this photo is the creation of the camera capable of taking it.
posted by mdn at 7:17 PM on December 11, 2014
Seriously - is it meant to echo that as some kind of commentary or is that just an unfortunate accident, because that is exactly what I saw when I clicked on the link.
Whether it "is art" seems like a meaningless question at this point, given that no one's defined what art is... Not that everyone would agree anyway, but what is at issue - skill? beauty? genius/unique capacity? meaning?
If a friend of mine took this photo and showed it to me, I don't know that I would necessarily say something like 'wow, you are really talented, you should be in art school'. I mean, I might tell them it was a pretty cool photo, but - I guess that's the art/technology question. Maybe technology is kind of an art itself - the word comes from the greek word for art... Perhaps the real art of this photo is the creation of the camera capable of taking it.
posted by mdn at 7:17 PM on December 11, 2014
Perhaps the real art of this painting is the creation of the brush that spread the pigment?
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:49 PM on December 11, 2014
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:49 PM on December 11, 2014
A much better question is, "Will this work still retain its price tag in 20 years?" My guess is that this is very unlikely...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:08 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:08 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yes, it's art - but more than that, it's an investment.
posted by Vibrissae at 10:59 PM on December 11, 2014
posted by Vibrissae at 10:59 PM on December 11, 2014
Welp, I think this is a crappy-assed piece of self-promotion hung on a snap-shot.
Art? A picture of that picture would be art. The picture itself I would say is just a picture. A nice looking picture. A technically accomplished picture and good for him for milking the 'painter/photographer of light' angle. But for me, personally, it's not interesting beyond the reporting of this phenomenon. Neato but I don't 'need' it; The first time I saw Basquiat, I needed it. The same for many, many, many other artists, both 'famous' and not. But from all I can tell through the computer screen, this is as compelling as the suggested desk-top background pics bundled with my computer's OS. 6.5 million? Cool. Drinks are on you then, right?
posted by From Bklyn at 11:16 PM on December 11, 2014
Art? A picture of that picture would be art. The picture itself I would say is just a picture. A nice looking picture. A technically accomplished picture and good for him for milking the 'painter/photographer of light' angle. But for me, personally, it's not interesting beyond the reporting of this phenomenon. Neato but I don't 'need' it; The first time I saw Basquiat, I needed it. The same for many, many, many other artists, both 'famous' and not. But from all I can tell through the computer screen, this is as compelling as the suggested desk-top background pics bundled with my computer's OS. 6.5 million? Cool. Drinks are on you then, right?
posted by From Bklyn at 11:16 PM on December 11, 2014
"This historic moment only further proves that Peter Lik is undoubtedly a true leader in the world of fine art."
Is this writing?
posted by crazylegs at 2:55 AM on December 12, 2014
Is this writing?
posted by crazylegs at 2:55 AM on December 12, 2014
It is a bauble someone bought for reasons all their own. They had the cash to flash, they did not leave their name.
posted by Oyéah at 3:04 AM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Oyéah at 3:04 AM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
From Bklyn: But from all I can tell through the computer screen, this is as compelling as the suggested desk-top background pics bundled with my computer's OS.I can personally tick off a dozen pieces of art whose magnitude of quality is simply not appreciable in a hi-def computer screen visualizations. Whistler's Symphony in White and O'Keefe's Jack-in-the-Pulpit spring immediately to mind. And most of Mondrian's work. And Seurat's Grand Jetee. Chuck Close's
So, to me, that's like saying "This Lolita may be a good book and all, but from all I can tell from this Cliffnotes synopsis, there's better erotica out there."
*Sorry for the artsy phrasing, but I can't think of a better term.
posted by IAmBroom at 7:56 AM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
mdn: Ok, when I first clicked on that I thought it was an x-ray photo of something up somebody's buttI think that the Turner Prize's apparent affection for the scatological has predisposed us to thinking massively hyped art must have a gross-out factor.
Seriously - is it meant to echo that as some kind of commentary or is that just an unfortunate accident, because that is exactly what I saw when I clicked on the link.
posted by IAmBroom at 7:58 AM on December 12, 2014
I'm not going to dive into the whole what-is-art thing on MeFi (again)*, but I will say that Lik's ability to command this high a price for a photograph introduces new and interesting opportunities in the art forgery market. Valfierni's classic Mona Lisa con is even more possible now, since it is possible to make a reproduction of this photograph that is for all the world utterly indistinguishable from the "real" "original" (queue up the Benjamin here).
That $6.5mil photo you've got? That's the forgery! For a mere $1mil I'll sell you the real Lik, which I've got right here...
* For what it's worth, yes photography is art, but that doesn't mean we have to accept that every photograph is art or even that every photograph produced by an "art" photographer is art and looking at Lik's work I'm totally willing to exclude it from the art domain, just like I'd kick Kinkade out of the art domain... but I have a feeling I'm going to be an outlier on this one.
posted by dis_integration at 8:16 AM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
That $6.5mil photo you've got? That's the forgery! For a mere $1mil I'll sell you the real Lik, which I've got right here...
* For what it's worth, yes photography is art, but that doesn't mean we have to accept that every photograph is art or even that every photograph produced by an "art" photographer is art and looking at Lik's work I'm totally willing to exclude it from the art domain, just like I'd kick Kinkade out of the art domain... but I have a feeling I'm going to be an outlier on this one.
posted by dis_integration at 8:16 AM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
First: I get your point but I don't think Lolita and 'erotica' should be paired up like that.
Second, it's kind of my point - about looking at it on the computer. I've known artist who wrote great grant applications but whose work was lacking and I feel similarly about repro's in print or computer - if it looks good in this medium how will it look, really, live?
Third: I still think it's not art. (Which is a laughable assertion to make but I'm doing it anyway, dammit).
posted by From Bklyn at 8:20 AM on December 12, 2014
Second, it's kind of my point - about looking at it on the computer. I've known artist who wrote great grant applications but whose work was lacking and I feel similarly about repro's in print or computer - if it looks good in this medium how will it look, really, live?
Third: I still think it's not art. (Which is a laughable assertion to make but I'm doing it anyway, dammit).
posted by From Bklyn at 8:20 AM on December 12, 2014
Yes, it's art - but more than that, it's an investment.
It's a terrible investment. There is literally no possible way this photograph will ever sell for that much ever again. The next highest price on a photograph is for a Gursky at $4.3M, then a Sherman, then a Wall, then a Steichen; these are important figures you will find in textbooks, whereas Peter Lik is just some guy whose photos sell for a lot of money -- or so he claims.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:55 AM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's a terrible investment. There is literally no possible way this photograph will ever sell for that much ever again. The next highest price on a photograph is for a Gursky at $4.3M, then a Sherman, then a Wall, then a Steichen; these are important figures you will find in textbooks, whereas Peter Lik is just some guy whose photos sell for a lot of money -- or so he claims.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:55 AM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
new and interesting opportunities in the art forgery market
I wonder if high-profile photographers are using steganography and digital signatures to establish provenance, basically putting information into a print that only the photographer and customer would have and can unlock. If I commanded 6.5mil for a print, it would be good for business to make sure the customer had a verifiable product.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:23 AM on December 12, 2014
I wonder if high-profile photographers are using steganography and digital signatures to establish provenance, basically putting information into a print that only the photographer and customer would have and can unlock. If I commanded 6.5mil for a print, it would be good for business to make sure the customer had a verifiable product.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:23 AM on December 12, 2014
From Bklyn: First: I get your point but I don't think Lolita and 'erotica' should be paired up like that.Pairing those two like that was kinda my point.
posted by IAmBroom at 10:33 AM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
In the same way that "not really science fiction" accounts for the majority of all science fiction, "not actually art" is the most common form of art in the universe.
posted by dng at 10:54 AM on December 12, 2014
posted by dng at 10:54 AM on December 12, 2014
This has been driving me crazy all morning.
Does nobody notice the female figure in the shaft of light -- the phantom herself? I can't not see it. Is it just so obvious that no one has deigned to mention it, not even the writer disparaging the piece for lack of artistry? To me, the eerie features of her face upturned towards the viewer's right are clear. Her form follows with hints of forearms womanly curves into a sensually elongated waist and thighs that fade below the knee back into the amorphous band alighting the sand.
I find that is what makes this photo absolutely charming and most definitely a quality work of art, even if I do question the entirety of the sum connected to it (and the more nuanced connections of the artist to this particular anonymous collector). On it's own, it is such a beautiful capture of a split-second reflection of humanity in a natural local we are too quick these days to be dismissive or jaded about.
posted by equestrian at 11:44 AM on December 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
Does nobody notice the female figure in the shaft of light -- the phantom herself? I can't not see it. Is it just so obvious that no one has deigned to mention it, not even the writer disparaging the piece for lack of artistry? To me, the eerie features of her face upturned towards the viewer's right are clear. Her form follows with hints of forearms womanly curves into a sensually elongated waist and thighs that fade below the knee back into the amorphous band alighting the sand.
I find that is what makes this photo absolutely charming and most definitely a quality work of art, even if I do question the entirety of the sum connected to it (and the more nuanced connections of the artist to this particular anonymous collector). On it's own, it is such a beautiful capture of a split-second reflection of humanity in a natural local we are too quick these days to be dismissive or jaded about.
posted by equestrian at 11:44 AM on December 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
Johnny Wallflower: "Jonathan Jones and Drew Magary would get along just fine."
Unfair to Magary, I think.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:52 AM on December 18, 2014
Unfair to Magary, I think.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:52 AM on December 18, 2014
Does nobody notice the female figure in the shaft of light -- the phantom herself? I can't not see it. Is it just so obvious that no one has deigned to mention it, not even the writer disparaging the piece for lack of artistry?
Do you mean that the dust in the shaft of light sort of resembles a female figure?
I didn't quite see that, no, until you pointed it out and now I can see "I guess those could sort of be boobs".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:34 AM on December 20, 2014 [2 favorites]
Do you mean that the dust in the shaft of light sort of resembles a female figure?
I didn't quite see that, no, until you pointed it out and now I can see "I guess those could sort of be boobs".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:34 AM on December 20, 2014 [2 favorites]
« Older Elevenses | Gotham Central Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Next question?
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:57 AM on December 11, 2014 [20 favorites]