Your pick for most underrated and most overrated photographer

[removed account4]

When you’re doing short form sarcasm, a smiley or two would make it translate better.
Otherwise some people would find it mighty hard to take your opinion on anything seriously in the future.

I was being dead serious ..
as I was earlier in this thread. its all about taste. someone wants to pay millions for his work fine with me
they like it / enjoy looking at it. and then there are people like DREW WILEY who seems isn't really a fan of Lik's work
and even suggests he is not a photographer (whatever that means)

Truly, the Thomas Kincaid of the photography world.

I know! and Kincaid was a pretty impressive painter. not really my taste but he was really the Ansel Adams of the painting world...
sublime beauty .. and he had a pricing structure so anyone who enjoyed his images could afford to buy one.
im more into finding beauty in an industrial wasteland /toxic waste dump or some sort of 1930s surrealism than ecclesiastical light and natural wonders but I can
see why people enjoy colorful serenity and wonder, nothing wrong with that ..

 

[DREW WILEY]

Huh ???? AA was popular and has a multitude of wannabee stylistic clones, but also had a very finely-tuned sense of light and composition, and highly factored not only into the National Parks movement, but also into the acceptance of photography as fine art. Kincade and Lik, on the other hand, are just commercial opportunists catering to the above the sofa decor market, and are frankly just about the two worst, most amateurish colorists I can think of. I meant it when I stated Lik is not a photographer. He's a Fauxtographer of pictures so heavily faked and colorized that any real photographic integrity is non-existent. Why did he even bother with a camera in the first place? As far as so-called taste goes, if one enjoys bowls full of sticky jelly and jam and syrup atop sugar cubes, well then, Kinkade or Lik might fill the bill.

 

[Pieter12]

Huh ???? AA was popular and has a multitude of wannabee stylistic clones, but also had a very finely-tuned sense of light and composition, and highly factored not only into the National Parks movement, but also into the acceptance of photography as fine art. Kincade and Lik, on the other hand, are just commercial opportunists catering to the above the sofa decor market, and are frankly just about the two worst, most amateurish colorists I can think of. I meant it when I stated Lik is not a photographer. He's a Fauxtographer of pictures so heavily faked and colorized that any real photographic integrity is non-existent. Why did he even bother with a camera in the first place? As far as so-called taste goes, if one enjoys bowls full of sticky jelly and jam and syrup atop sugar cubes, well then, Kinkade or Lik might fill the bill.

Not to take anything away from his landscapes, but AA's portraits are dismal.
And off the top of my mind, I think Stephen Shore is overrated.

 

[removed account4]

Huh ???? AA was popular and has a multitude of wannabee stylistic clones, but also had a very finely-tuned sense of light and composition, and highly factored not only into the National Parks movement, but also into the acceptance of photography as fine art. Kincade and Lik, on the other hand, are just commercial opportunists catering to the above the sofa decor market, and are frankly just about the two worst, most amateurish colorists I can think of. I meant it when I stated Lik is not a photographer. He's a Fauxtographer of pictures so heavily faked and colorized that any real photographic integrity is non-existent. Why did he even bother with a camera in the first place? As far as so-called taste goes, if one enjoys bowls full of sticky jelly and jam and syrup atop sugar cubes, well then, Kinkade or Lik might fill the bill.

plenty of people would be happy to disagree with you regarding all 3 of the people you mentioned. It really doesn't matter how many "clones" of AA there are, he was not advising the presidency when US Government first initiated the National Parks. Does it really matter whether a $10,000 kincade is over someone's couch or he was commercialistic or selling his work as decor? AA sold posters and books of his work wasn't he a capitalist wall art person too ? Fautxographer. heavily fake and colorized everything is. There really is no such thing as truth when it comes to photography .. plenty of people who shoot chromes or c41 or even b/w work whose work is exactly the same ... fake.
As stated its all taste it has nothing to do with whether someone is good or not good, or they are over/under rated anything else. its just a popularity contest.

 

[logan2z]

And off the top of my mind, I think Stephen Shore is overrated.

Is that because of the banal subject matter, or something else? Do you feel the same way about William Eggleston?

 

[macfred]

Not to take anything away from his landscapes, but AA's portraits are dismal ...

May be, but I really love his portrait with Georgia O’Keeffe engaged in conversation with Orville Cox, the head wrangler at Ghost Ranch, on the rim of Canyon de Chelly.

 

[Pieter12]

Is that because of the banal subject matter, or something else? Do you feel the same way about William Eggleston?

I'm not big on the "snapshot esthetic."

 

[logan2z]

OK, I'll toss another one out into the 'overexposed' category:

Alec Soth

It's entirely possible that I'm just too stupid to understand his work, but I don't find photos of people blankly starting into the camera overly compelling. There seem to be so many copycats of this style around now too. Printing the images at wall-size doesn't make me appreciate them any more. He has a huge following and his books seem to be highly regarded, but I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Arthurwg]

I wondered how long it would take for someone like Cindy Sherman to take a hit. Threads like this are useless. Shall we take a swipe at Joel Peter Witkin next? Or maybe Larry Clark?

Yes, Witkin should be banned from all photography for all time simply because he is disgusting. On the other hand Larry Clark is one of the greats.

 

[Arthurwg]

And while we're on the subject of Art Photography, how about Lewis Baltz? Love his work.

 

[cullah]

worst: Tomas Struth Best: Cartier-Bresson

 

[DREW WILEY]

Let's look at the conversation from a somewhat different angle. Generally under a like or dislike heading like this, we're comparing a variety of individuals who in one way or another inevitably get sifted in relation to the fine arts market and similar public display venues including museums, fine art auctions etc. involving a degree of general recognition. With people like Kinkade and Lik, you're dealing with an entirely different category of self-enclosed marketing to their own fan base, with zero recognition outside of that temporary circle. They aren't anywhere on the radar. I remember having these names momentarily brought up among a few museum folk around my own dinner table as the object of crude jokes using expletives I can't repeat here. By comparison, I'm rather gentle in my own statement of opinion. Yes, it's all about taste. Some people also think that a greasy burger from Jack in the Box is edible food. I don't. But at least they don't go around claiming it's filet mignon and charging those kinds of prices.

 

[cliveh]

Most overrated for me is probably Annie Leibovitz and 99% of street photographers.

Most underrated, not sure, but probably Eugene Atget, as many people can't understand his genius.

 

[pbromaghin]

And while we're on the subject of Art Photography, how about Lewis Baltz? Love his work.

First I've heard of him. Looking at his stuff, I see that I often try to do what he does. Seeing what it looks like coming from someone who does it well, makes me wonder why I would want to do that.

 

[logan2z]

I find a lot of the new topographics interesting. That “movement” definitely had an influence on me. Baltz has a great eye for sure. I don’t much care for his print aesthetic though. He made strange choices when it came to film, which didn’t leave a whole lot of potential for print tonality besides the soot-and-chalk look. But I guess that’s what he liked/wanted.

I have been heavily influenced by that movement as well. I love the work of Baltz, Henry Wessel, Robert Adams, etc.

Interesting thoughts on his prints. I saw a large number of his prints at an exhibition a couple of years ago and liked the choices he made. I understand what you mean about soot/chalk, but I think that worked well for some of his work, like the Industrial Parks.

 

[MattKing]

The fascinating thing about Peter Lik is that his work is perfect for the Interior Decorator market, but his pricing and his marketing is designed to create the impression that his work belongs in the fine art collectible market.

 

[George Mann]

Is that because of the banal subject matter, or something else? Do you feel the same way about William Eggleston?

Or Vivian Maier for that matter (I have the most in common with these 3).

But in the end, everyone has opinions.

 

[cliveh]

Peter Lik. I am lost for words.

 

[Pieter12]

I have been heavily influenced by that movement as well. I love the work of Baltz, Henry Wessel, Robert Adams, etc.

Interesting thoughts on his prints. I saw a large number of his prints at an exhibition a couple of years ago and liked the choices he made. I understand what you mean about soot/chalk, but I think that worked well for some of his work, like the Industrial Parks.

I have never seen Baltz's work in person, so I can't really judge the print quality. I really like his work as well as Adams, but Wessel falls a bit flat for me. And that includes his prints--the few I've seen are very flat.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Michael - luckily, the "test of time" is quite short when oversized work in color inevitably gets illuminated with some kind of high UV source, and begins fading well within the lifetime of the initial buyer. Call it whatever you wish, either disposable art or disposable decor. And in fact, that's exactly how the kinds of people who have money to waste think of it. Fifty thousand bucks for a party dress worn only once, no big deal. Fifty thousand bucks apiece for a custom silk sofa and a huge glitzy print above it, no big deal. Both will probably get replaced within a decade anyway.

 

[Helge]

I was being dead serious ..
as I was earlier in this thread. its all about taste. someone wants to pay millions for his work fine with me
they like it / enjoy looking at it. and then there are people like DREW WILEY who seems isn't really a fan of Lik's work
and even suggests he is not a photographer (whatever that means)

It’s about taste alright. Bad taste.
It’s basically sub Bob Ross art.
At least Bob was mostly honest about the value and merit of his art.

We have freedom of thought and expression. But not everyone’s expertise, knowledge and tacit instinct is of equal worth.
That’s what difference in taste is.
Quite simple really, but very controversial to some in recent decades apparently.

Liks work is just the essence of the wave of millions of “artists” that popped out of nowhere back when digital took over.
They have a rudimentary idea of composition and knows how to spend on getting to exotic places.
When they get home they have a 2004 style preset that include a lot of tone mapping and colour saturation.

Presto, art! Sell it to rubes and other people who want a quick fix of “some of that culture”.

Please show me just one of Liks photos I should take seriously.

 

[removed account4]

Let's look at the conversation from a somewhat different angle. Generally under a like or dislike heading like this, we're comparing a variety of individuals who in one way or another inevitably get sifted in relation to the fine arts market and similar public display venues including museums, fine art auctions etc. involving a degree of general recognition. With people like Kinkade and Lik, you're dealing with an entirely different category of self-enclosed marketing to their own fan base, with zero recognition outside of that temporary circle. They aren't anywhere on the radar. I remember having these names momentarily brought up among a few museum folk around my own dinner table as the object of crude jokes using expletives I can't repeat here. By comparison, I'm rather gentle in my own statement of opinion. Yes, it's all about taste. Some people also think that a greasy burger from Jack in the Box is edible food. I don't. But at least they don't go around claiming it's filet mignon and charging those kinds of prices.

DREW
I am not a fan of any of the 3 you had mentioned.
I don't appreciate AA, I don't appreciate LIK and I don't appreciate KINCADE, but understand why some people do. Maybe you should have an open mind because my high-horse is a pigmy pony and I have zirconium encrusted tweezers.

You always suggest that you are rubbing elbows with gallery owners, and museum folk and have your nose high when talking about photographers not to mention your own expertise. Me, none of that matters, and yes I used to part own an art gallery and think it is a shame there are so many closed-minded people.
I don't really care if the "great unwashed masses" have taste or like JOB burgers or a hamburger from Craigies on Main that costs $37.
so what is the conversation's different angle how your taste is better than everyone else's because you have dinner with snobs? or how the whitewashed museum or gallery "scene" is more apt to collect or sell one person over another ( typically because of connections, gender/sexual orientation or race ) ?
I'm all ears why LIK or anyone else they didn't appreciate is so terrible because of their ethnicity, showmanship, sexual orientation ( or anything else ) and some old white guy is so much better.

I look forward to hearing something more than "decor" or "not serious" or "unreal color" or ... .. because all of it is artificial and none of it is anything more than taste..
seems even cellphone photographers these days are more interesting then many of the "greats of yesterday" some are more open minded experimental, have better eyes and control/understanding of their medium ... at this point
there is no "faux"tography and it is kind of funny that there are so many people that think "roll film and dry plates are ruining real photography" ( you know trees and rocks )...

Presto, art! Sell it to rubes and other people who want a quick fix of “some of that culture”.

yea its art alright. I have no beef with the fact that people can be creative and make things that others can enjoy,
and if the people that enjoy want to spend their $$ on whatever it is, and the person "making it" can press a button
and have a nozzle excrete something on paper, im not sure what the problem is or why I should be offended.
I don't like whatever the sushi is that is sea urchin, I think it is absolutely disgusting and tastes like ammonia, but
I have friends who tell me I have no idea what I am missing because it is delicious. im not sure what the difference is
they LOVE it, and think its the best, I think it is gross and won't spend the $$ on it and don't really care about what I
might be " missing ".

the photo that was posted before by matt is pretty special looking.
https://vancouver.craigslist.org/nvn/pho/d/north-vancouver-northwest-peter-lik/7231634923.html
to me it is as good as any Ansel Adams photograph I have ever seen.

===

sorry if I seem offensive, don't mean to be.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why should I take any of your argument seriously, jnantz? Some things really do taste better than others if someone has had the opportunity to compare them. And for some reason, black velvet Elvis rugs don't seem to have any serious resale value; neither do Lik's kitchy FAUX-tographs. So get off your own high horse Napoleon complex and admit that people do have the right of personal opinion. Yes, taste matters. Otherwise, why are you even participating on this thread? It's an aesthetic topic by nature. If we were talking about art fraud, the FBI and state laws already have their own definitions, and eventually did help take down one of the actors in question. The kind of customer a gallery is fishing for is evident by the bait they use; and when high-pressure sales tactics are used which somehow imply great investment potential, one should always be wary, whether they have good art instincts or not. That kind of scenario is inherently fishing for a sucker.

 

[MattKing]

Woah you two!
I have no problem with people who like the look of a Peter Lik above their sofa, and I don't think John does either.
But I totally agree with Drew that the Peter Lik high pressure sales approach - "buy this and it will be a great investment in art that is certain to grow in value" - is deplorable.

 

[removed account4]

DREW
I never said your opinion doesn't matter but you certainly have put me in my place ! LOL
some people like Velvis's who am I to tell them they have no taste because I might not appreciate them, or
because my rug doesn't have resale value ? what does resale value have to do with whether something is "good" or not ?
it doesn't ... no, taste doesn't matter, and I am participating in this tread ( or is it thread ? ) because im not an art snob like you ( it seems ? ) and it is too. bad because there is a lot of "art" out there that maybe gagossian wouldn't sell for $100.000 but it is not bad.
FAUX-tographs? seems like sour grapes whenever I see that, and its sad.

I don't have a Napoleon complex DREW and I think it is kind of funny that you have to use insults to get your point across
because your taste is so much better.

Sorry for the short response but I have to get back to my crop of dental floss.
Frank
==. added later but not much later ==

The kind of customer a gallery is fishing for is evident by the bait they use; and when high-pressure sales tactics are used which somehow imply great investment potential, one should always be wary, whether they have good art instincts or not. That kind of scenario is inherently fishing for a sucker.

I didn't know of the sales tactics .. oh well .. gotta move inventory, and who knows if it will go up in value or not, certainly has "POTENTIAL" like everything else...