The Notion of Uniqueness, Value and Meaning in Photography.

1.

To consider the switching of these roles, placing value of photographic work over art, there are factors to consider. In earlier days of photographic practice not everyone had access to equipment. Compared to modern times where access to cameras is widespread, however, the top range of cameras and equipment comes at a costly expense. Perhaps the lack of accessibility to great tools aid photography in its journey to becoming valued. It was equally sparse to hone photography as a career in its developmental stages, this would explain the lack of photographers actively photographing Lincoln. Returning to the discussion of Brady's photo of the past president, raises the query, if there were less photographers, could Brady's work be considered as more unique, as few people were able to photograph him.

Perhaps uniqueness – and therefore value – doesn't come from its availability to buy, as Berger insisted, but to create. Bowser's portrait of Lincoln is unique as it was created and showcased before he died – all the other artists did not complete their pieces within the time frame. Bowser created his piece at the present moment – using access to the most present time. George Story, who painted his portrait as a memorial for Lincoln did not have access to Lincoln him, not fully grasping what the man was like to encompass him within a snapshot of time. A hypothesis about a potential 'creation window' may be necessary to decipher uniqueness and thus commercialised value of what art will be.

One thing photography conquers over painting is 'momento'. For Brady to have photographed Lincoln, it's known that Lincoln was in his presence – in Washington D.C. As for painters – who never painted live models, does their art risk lack of uniqueness as anyone who saw what Lincoln looked like could recreate it in a creative way. Knowing that Lincoln was there lends the photograph to greater value than the paintings from which were templated. Photographies ability to lock time in suspension allows it contextual and visual meanings to increase their value. But also, its commercial value. Only in Brady's photograph is the president sat and posed that way. Although identically represented in following paintings, Lincoln had moved on. He was likely setting laws, eating dinner, briefing his council, or lying dead in a burial ground.

"People will pay for art on boundaries of 'uniqueness'. People will pay for photographs for knowing the subject was truly there."

Photographs are accessible. Every smart phone is fitted with at least one camera. This makes the act of photo taking banal – but not in a negative way. It makes it easier to create multiple copies for commercial use. The use of photography over conventional art in publicity should be a relief to Berger's concern about the corruption of a piece's meaning. An average of 12 photos are taken per person, per day across the world (Brogie, Repsly.com) some for advertisement use, some for memorial use and others for the sake of taking a photograph.

The earlier statement made that photography is but a tool to publicity is not wholly false. Unless extensively thought about – a photograph can contain little intentional meaning. The work glamourised in galleries and museums is at the level of art which was produced during the Renaissance. It has gone from a stencil to touch ups to the final piece. These pieces are valued in the contexts of monetary and uniqueness. They're unique to the institution but that does not demise their meaning. If not – the opposite.

Art, and photography included, have an extension of the initial value increased based on contextual, cultural and social surroundings. The photograph on a mothers' fridge does not hold less meaning than the vintage copy in a museum. Especially is the mother has never seen the original. The child of that mother, doesn't resent the meaning of the same image just because they pass by it on a poster or newspaper on their way home from school. But the contexts where the piece is seen will affect its value. The print in the museum is worth more in the contexts of monetary value with the copy on the fridge being considerably lower. The arts constructed meaning does not change.

Fig, 4. Da Vinci, Leonardo, 1503. The Mona Lisa.

The value of a painting due to its uniqueness may be a secondary consequence of photography – but photography is largely responsible to the accessibility of 'unique' art, such as the Mona Lisa by Da Vinci. Digital reproductions come at near to zero cost and equally don't corrupt the meaning of the piece. A googled image result of the Mona Lisa will not make it be worth more, as its online value isn't based on its rarity. Viewing the same piece online or in person will alter the value but not its meaning. The same interpretations can be derived from a reproduction just as well as the original piece.

Institutions like the Louvre heighten the commercial value of art by adding a price to view the pieces. Is this way of commercialising art better than what Berger discusses, as it is indirect to the art itself? When individuals travel to Paris and visit the Louvre, they are not paying for the art, or to decipher its deepest meanings and formations of brush strokes. They are paying to take a picture. A singular image which acts a evidence to their prescense. This image, also, another reproduction of the Mona Lisa.

Fig,5. Vanity Fair, 2018.

Berger's theory that commercialisation of paintings because of their uniqueness corrupts their meanings, is true to an extent. This isn't always extendable to photography shown through the evidence of the Lincoln portraits. Furthermore, the monetary value doesn't corrupt an pieces meaning if it's the meaning the buyer is paying for. Berger's opinion over corruption is meaning reflects that glamour lifestyles where the wealthy buy art because it will later go up in value. It is unknown if photographs, even reproductions, are to be brought solely for their investment prospects.