Are Photographs Indestructible?

I recently went to see the film “Suffragette”. The Suffragettes used direct action in order to press their claims for suffrage and were not above creating wanton destruction. During their campaign one lady, Mary Richardson, slashed a famous painting by Velasquez, “The Rokeby Venus”, with an axe. Thankfully the painting could be restored and it can still be seen at the National Gallery. However, many other paintings have been lost, stolen or damaged beyond repair by fire or wartime bombing. Each painting is unique and can never be replaced. Paintings may take days, weeks or months to produce but can be destroyed in seconds.

In contrast, photographic prints can be replaced provided the negative, slide or, in more recent times, the image is still available. It is true that a print produced, say, in the 1850s will be of far greater value than any reproduction but it can, nevertheless, be replaced provided the negative has been preserved in a good state. Today, provided the photographer does not accidentally or deliberately delete their original image, it can be cloned many times, backed up or altered whilst retaining the original, unaltered image. Most photographs are produced in a split second. They can be accidentally or deliberately destroyed even more quickly by pressing a button, but once downloaded they can be distributed to literally millions of people via the internet. In this case the “genie has been let out of the bottle” and it will be impossible to ever remove all the clones of the image from existence.

Paintings, too, can be reproduced in a two dimensional form by photographing them. Indeed, one of the earliest professional uses of the camera was to photograph collections of art in museums and galleries, so that a faithful record of the painting’s appearance could be made. If the painting was subsequently lost or destroyed we would at least have a faithful reproduction (in black and white until the middle of the last century) of its subject matter, preserved for posterity.

The photograph is now ever-present. We use our mobile phones and I-pads to produce and instantly distribute our photographs. However, because they are ubiquitous they have no monetary value. Only a tiny handful of photographs have value. These are either works produced by well-known art photographers such as Gursky, as well as acknowledged experts in their particular genres, or images of important events captured at the “decisive moment” by photojournalists. On the other hand paintings and other works of art that have been collected by museums and galleries invariably have value. Not only are they unique and not reproducible but they have a texture, a history and an allure that is beyond the reach of the photograph.

Once they have been copied and circulated digital images (today’s photographs) can become indestructible. However, their value, if any, is purely emotional. As in any other field of art only a tiny number of photographs will become acknowledged as masterpieces – the rest will just continually expand to fill all available digital space.