My thoughts on the Vidio clip see above.
We start off by taking a picture for whatever reason, we could like the look of a billboard that is weathering so much that its original appearance has changed. We take a picture we now have a record of that billboard we like it so much that we print and frame it, but first, we change the colours in PS and make it our own.
Is this a document of the original billboard, no it’s not it is now art the representation of the original document has been lost? If we keep an original copy, then this is a record documenting the starting point of the finished product. That’s not to say the original image was not art in its own right.
You have only to look at the old Marlborough billboards to realise that It is the art that is used to attract the attention of the public, but it is the context that the art is used that changes it meaning. A branch is a branch until you hit someone over the head now the branch is also a weapon it has become something else, it’s the same with an image it is the context that it is used in at the time that determines what it is.
I have come back to this exercise to reflect on what I have written, and on reflection, I think I have taken the original statement out of context a little and read into the statement. What I now think is that a picture is a picture to one person and at the same time can be a document to another. That is to say, a picture of a long lost relative is a prized possession to someone not related to the image it is now a document and could become a historical document, as in the case of an old picture recently found of Jessy James that sold for millions of Dollars.