« on: Today at 12:18:17 AM »
What concocted fables? I'm not familiar with his career, but I didn't see that in the NY Times article. The price of the Phantom print does sound unbelievable. But I wouldn't claim it's a "stunt" without some proof that is.
What outright lies about the origins of the moon photo? Again, I'm not familiar with his career and didn't see this in the NY Times article.
This will get you started on the moon photo. The tl;dr is that he claimed it was a single frame, but that's physically impossible for several reasons. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3084.0
Due to the fickle nature of the valuation of art works, it's common practice (so I hear, no personal experience) for a person considering an expensive work to hire one or more experts to evaluate the purchase. They might hire an academic art historian and an art appraiser, etc. They'll want to know things like: is it real or counterfeit (e.g. for a painting by a big name), has it been "repaired?" Would it be considered artistically interesting by art scholars? Is it likely to hold value? etc. From what little I've read about his work, the answers to important questions would come back resoundingly negative. A sane rich person is not going to drop $6million on a pretty, wall-sized postcard. I want to be clear: if I'd done some of these photos I'd be rather pleased with myself, but I've seen as good or better done by many other photographers. It's not bad stuff (depending on the individual piece and your tastes) but it's VASTLY overpriced compared to what's out there. All considered, 6mil is far outside the realm of believable for a legitimate sale: the burden of proof should be on PL to substantiate the claim. Not that I really care, but my assumption is that he sold it to himself, possibly using shell companies, for the publicity.
Take this for what it's worth, it's just my opinion mixed with hearsay.