This is a continuation, in a sense, of my previous blog post. The question might seem ridiculous, or perhaps even a no-brainer. What's better: The place/thing, or the photograph of it?
Most people, I think, would say the actual thing. The real place, the real object, and/or the experience, will always trump a mere photographic representation of it. Of course, visiting a beautiful park, or going to a nice restaurant, or going to a movie theater with friends, is always better than a photograph of it.
I think most people would say a good photograph to document the event is nice, but the experience itself was more important.
And yet, what about in 10 years, when that park looks totally different? What about in 20 years, when that restaurant is no longer there? Or in 50 years, when that movie theater is long gone?
Perhaps it is a ridiculous question. Both might be equally important in their own ways, and the answer really does depend on the passage of time, and your own perspective.
But maybe, just maybe, for the common everyday places and things -- if there is such a thing -- in time, the photograph becomes ... "better."
I'm not really sure. But it's a good question to ponder.