Nonsense! Who possesses a crystal ball in order to know if and when a particular photograph becomes valuable. If history is any guide those things which obtain instant popularity seldon are labeled great by future generations.
Ars gratia artis.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
A photograph can have high value long before it is sold...or even printed...or even shown to anyone.
That's a good idea. One of Kant's critiques "demonstrates" that beauty (here, value) lies in the viewer and not in the object viewed. I could never agree with that because it is so anthropocentric. More of that 'tree falling in the woods' BS. All artists must deal with the problem of the narrowness of their (true) personal vision against the (possible) desire for that vision to be public enough that people will want to look at it, perhaps identify with it or even pay for it. To make art that people happen to buy is a different and higher aspiration than making art for people to buy. I think the greater fraud is to be found not between the art and its price but between the art and the artist. Of course it helps when the buyers can easily be herded; Leo Castelli knew this.
Many years ago I attended a lecture by a photographer who claimed that a photograph could only be rated as a good photograph by how much people were prepared to pay for it. I could not understand that viewpoint, any thoughts?
It's nonsense. The word 'only' is the problem.
There are two conditions in his statement: the "rated goodness" and the monetary value. He says they're linked, always. The two traits are linked quite often, and better photographs do tend to sell for more money than lesser ones. But to insist that all photographs must have this link to be considered "good" is ludicrous.