According to the Guardian
Newspaper’s art critic, Jonathon Jones, Peter Lik’s “Phantom,” which recently became
the world’s most expensive photograph in a private sale for $6.5 million,
cannot be art because it is a photograph. Jones is on the public record stating
categorically “Photography is not an art. It is a technology.”
Others disagree including the
newspaper’s
photography critic Sean O’Hagen who provides a
laundry list of artist photographers from Edward Steichen to Diane Arbus to
support his case. Conspicuous by his absence from this list is Peter Lik.
Perhaps
it is because Lik is still alive? Pick your Impressionist or Post
Impressionist artist who was ignored until they had shuffled off this mortal
coil. Perhaps, with 14 galleries worldwide,
Lik’s entrepreneurial flair is the problem. Consider Rembrandt and his
studio full of assistances or Andy Warhol’s Factory for the realization that
artistic achievement and business acumen are not mutually exclusive. Or perhaps
it is his videos
channeling the crocodile hunting Steve Irwin laden with enough superlatives to make
a celebrity chef proud that irk.
Whatever, but even Lik’s critics
admit that the large pints, up to 60 inches (1.5 meters) in size, of his work
look better in real life than they do on the internet. A fact confirmed by his
2013 American Aperture Award for best Landscape/Seascape/Nature photograph. As
Lik said in a recent press release “The purpose of all my photos is to capture
the power of nature and convey it in a way that inspires someone to feel
passionate and connect to the image.”
With regard to the larger photographer as artist debate
perhaps the last word should be by photographer Philip
Jones Griffiths “Am I a news photographer? A press photographer? A
photojournalist? An Artist? I deplore the latter moniker because the word is so
misused. For me, art is the melding of form and content, and as that is what I
strive to do, then perhaps ‘artist’ is correct.”
No comments:
Post a Comment