Well to further my point just a bit, take the Ono and Lennon photo shot by Leibovitz,http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Annie_Leibovitz_Lennon_Ono_December_1980.jpg
The photo really sucks arse, and would be worth NOTHING if it were not for the subjets themselves. It would just be another photo found on flickr. . . . the image is all about the person, and says absolutely nothing about the photographer (it was Lennno that suggested the photo), except that she had enough inclination to shoot from that perspective. This is ONE major example of WHY a photographer can never be paid millions of $ for a photo, as an "artist," and which is why I mentioned the fact that historical significance should play the major role when dealing with photography and such a high price range. . . . . there would be no art or interest gathered from such an image otherwise. So, that a photographer/curator/etc can take 4.3 million for a doctored photo cut from negatives of the same scene with a straight face in an appeal to art should be beyond anyone's understanding on such grounds.
Really ponder about this^ little example for a moment on a greater scale, and see where the falacy lies in the photographic art scene. . . . Photography in the example of Ono/Lennon speaks to us of things we already know and derive great interest from. . . . and when it tries to speak to us on pretentious terms about some life meaning that we all have a shot at guessing, then it all gets lost. Meaningful Photography can be seen in such images as the Leibovitz example because it was shot the same day Lennon was killed, and he was nude . . almost cleansed, you could say, on his way out as he came in to the world. . .
THAT scene is the luck and chance and historical significance of true photography . . . not million $ 'art' but something that is unpretentious about what it is telling us, that we can plainly see universally. . . the power of photography.