What is the added value of a photo?

I wrote yesterday at Universal Rule:

I have taken over 3000 photos during this summer with my old digital camera - and a couple of dozen with the Nokia E90 phone. Have I learned something? Perhaps, at least that it takes a lot - really a lot - of practise to learn photography.

I think I'm a bit better than I was some months ago, but I make a lot of mistakes. In a way my photoblog at Light Scrape is a way of documenting those mistakes, and perhaps also the progress - if there is any.

I have also started to think about what things are worth photographing. I believe that basically everywhere is a possibility to take a good photo, if you have the eye and patience for it. Thus, why not here in Finland in the Helsinki region. And somehow I'm much attracted to the everyday things - there should be good shots there, if I only can start to see them.

Continuing this theme, I have been thinking what added value (or difference) a photograph produces, compared to e.g. architecture, floral arrangements, graffiti, advertisements, signs, art works etc. There are a lot of man-made things in cities which are interesting from a photographer's viewpoint, but how much (and how) does a photograph provide added value or insight? What is the additional contribution from the photographer?

I haven't thought about this much previously, because I have mainly taken landscape or nature photographs and family pictures, where this is not an issue. But when doing street or architectural photography there is the question what is the relation of a photo to the subject of the photo. In some cases also the appearance of a person on the street begs the question how much the outward appearance of a person is a work of art by itself - and the photographer just documents what is visible.

These are a beginner's questions, but at the moment quite important for me. There is some thinking to be done.