Larry Colen wrote: > It's not so much that people offer him that sort of money for his > photos, but that they are told that the photos are a good investment, > when in reality, they are nearly guaranteed to lose money: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/business/peter-liks-recipe-for- > success-sell-prints-print-money.html > > Here is another interesting article: > http://scottreither.com/blogwp/2012/06/11/peter-lik-gallery- > photographer-my-story/
It's the world of the bizarre, and I can't help feeling that most of those paying extreme amounts of money for prints (one off or limited edition), must be getting them to offset tax in some way. I can look on these images a very different way. I'm not in any way connected with the industry and my photographic interest is as a hobby only, and I have no desire to it ever becoming more than it is. I very much enjoy looking at local galleries and occasionally I'll see something I think that I will have a go at shooting my own version of. However, when I see prints selling at these sums, I think the more expensive they are moves them further away from art and photography all the time. They become financial instruments, or items bought because 'x' person has one. This all smells of money with multiple galleries; it is the fast art equivalent of a fast food franchise. Malcolm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
