What its worth?

What makes a photo valuable? Why do people choose to pay millions for an artwork when they can actually have it for cheaper but just getting a replica? Well the reason I have heard multiple times is that originality is what makes it valuable. The fact that artist created that piece not the replicas is what brings worth to that particular piece. It is that he or she touched it. It’s the fact, that others were just photocopies of the original piece. This all brings my attention to Berger’s piece on “Ways of Seeing”, where he talks about the value of an original photography.

Regarding painting it is more reasonable for why collectors pay large sum of money for the original painting, but for a photo it seems reason able to have a copy. Berger explains that the reasons for why collectors choose to pay money for the vintage are because the original has the photographer’s vision. Berger’s states, “This higher price is justified by claiming that the vintage print will better reflect the photographer’s original vision.” Till this day I question, is it really justifiable? Does the vision change cause it’s not original. I believe it doesn’t change, its just more valuable and preferable to have the real ordeal then a copy.

Along with abstract art, many complain and criticize that since abstract art are such broad and unexplainable anyone can create it and call it a masterpiece. Many feel they can put together a piece in five minutes and give it an unrecognizable meaning to that piece and it would be abstract art. Then the question of why the abstract artworks are famous, I still partially believe it’s due to the artist. After an artist has had made a name in the world, their work is more valuable then others. So an artist’s abstract art of red dot would be called just a red dot, if anyone were to create it, but it was a famous painter then its called ABSTRACT ART.