In the same way, photography can not be credited to one individual, and art can not be owned; therefore, artistry, in my opinion, can not be measured by the defense of a definition. Elements of art create an emotion, narrates a story, and inspires their audience no matter the degree.  A photograph is the manipulation of light through a scientific and technical form. When an artist decides to create a body of work, their physical bodies work like machines, in a way, to represent whatever is intended. In my opinion, whether the artist decides to pick up a paintbrush or a camera, it does not and can not determine the validity of the work itself.  As we have studied in class, the three things that are required for photography are chemical processes that can reproduce the effects of light to a surface, the chemical process that can fix the image permanently, and an optical device that can control the light; a technical form that is also mirrored by our human eyes.  The artist's relationship with the work is dependent on what the artist wants, but ultimately, the work that's produced is the real star; the artist merely serves as a bridge. I believe photography has less monetary value than painting for the lack of authenticity that plagues the viewer unknowingly. For individuals that are isolated from the process of artistry and exist merely as a skeptic or critic, the idea of being able to, in a way, create that work themselves makes the product seem less desirable. 

To a viewer, they can argue, I can pick up a camera myself and capture that same image, but when compared to the process of painting, the profession can seem more specialized.  Painting requires continual manual labor and does not leave room for an impersonal relationship with the artist, as one can argue photography does. 

The image that piqued my interest is the photograph taken by E. Thiesson of a native woman in Sofala (Mozambique); the woman is identified as a 30-year-old with white hair [3]. The photograph was created through the use of a Daguerreotype. Daguerreotypes are made from polished silver, which gives rise to the high reflectivity and mirrors with the memory used to describe Daguerreotype photography. It is dependent on where you view the image, the product may be a typical positive image, but sometimes at some angles, you'll see a different layer to the picture. Within this specific image, there exists no color or "red leg," which I believe adds another level of authenticity. Around the women, lays substantial exposure bouncing back, allowing for a stronger contrast on the individual within the image. The image is clear and not soft. Within the image, the viewer is given the ability to differentiate the different layers. The white hair is clearly seen, contrasting to her darker skin. The side profile creates a narrative and draws an emotional response from me at first sight. 

A thousand questions come to mind, what was the relationship between Sofala (Mozambique) in the mid-1800's with the French? What was the conversation had before the Daguerreotype was taken? Was there a language barrier? What did the women think about, while posing in a profile as opposed to straight forward pose? These questions are answered in an array of manners within my thoughts as I look at the image. Most of my questions are unanswerable, with the lack of information surrounding our human development at that time, yet this photography lives as proof of this woman's existence. Photography became an idea of memory, an ability to remember those you wouldn't have been able to otherwise—the concepts of colonization ring loud within this image as well. 

The representation of a foreign individual is created by a photographer who is unfamiliar with the culture's customs. The idea of the male gaze and the lack of accessibility of representation for women by women stings loud. In "Tourist Photography and the Reverse Gaze," Alex Gillespie examines the effects of the expression of photography by individuals who are isolated from the subjects, culture, identity, and ideology.  E. Thiesson is a french native and photographer,  a tourist to the land of  Sofala (Mozambique), "in terms of the reverse gaze, the interesting outcome of this interaction was in the manifest embarrassment of the French tourist" [4]. The photographer when not in there own setting, becomes apart of the narration changing the story that was intended to be a capture,"the gaze of the other tourist combined with her mimicry to create a moment of confusion" [4] which ultimately, takes away the authenticity of the subjects within the image. That story then becomes celebrities and creates a sense of romanization that can cause negative consequences to the culture that's within the image.  

 Victorian views were critical to the idea of photography, not believing in the artistic capabilities that lined with taking a photograph. The impersonal nature of photography created a cynical approach to the medium from many, which ultimately diminished the photographic medium's importance. During the Victorian era, there was a large emphasis on romanticism and realism, which was executed by hyper-realistic paintings. The Victorian era focused on individuality through the characterization of a class-based society with the exploration of nature. Artists held great respect for capturing the world and its beauty through a process only they were familiar with. Photography, in a way, for many individuals, poisoned that elite world, welcoming anyone who had access to a Daguerreotype to become an artist. In "Ruskin and Photography," Michael Harvey examines John Ruskin's responses and ideas of photography during the Victorian era.  As critics grew in their disapproval, many were coming to understand the unique capabilities photography had that a painter could never capture, "Ruskin spoke at length, expressing his appreciation of the photographs. He believed that it was impossible to tell what a building was like from an artist's representation. He supposed that artists lost their heads, as others lost their hearts, for he had seen a great deal more illusory painting by his favorite" [5].  Photography was not given the applause it deserved because of the unfair standard of art. Art is not comparable, nor should it have to be. 

Consequently, in my opinion, art is not about the process in which it's done. Ultimately, the product determines the value of the artist. The technical process of photography intimidated many because the standards of painting always measured it. Painting is communicated through a bias inspired by the artist; meanwhile, photography captures what's there, as authentic as possible. Therefore, the validity of photography can almost be measured in a class higher than painting because realism is a continual aspect of photography.