Ahhh that explains my confusion. Liberation (liberty)=Equality.
Confucious would dispute that. How can one thing be truly equal to another? Even two dimes and a nickel aren't equal to one quarter in the number of coins they are (3 to 1), only in what they represent (25 cents)
No more than a tuba is equal to a flute or a percheron is to a thorobred, which isn't to say one is superior or better than the other, only that within a given context one is preferrable to the other and in the scheme of things both are harmonious when they work together without one trying to overpower the other.
Or at least thats the way I think Confucious would put it.
In terms of art, I think this holds true as well. A really great photo of the Matterhorn to you might be "only" a great photo of a mountain, while to me it may represent where my bride and I went for our honeymoon(Zermatt) A katchina doll might be a very, very interesting doll to a collector of dolls, but it may well be a religious object to a Zuni.
What I'm getting at (or what I think I'm getting at) is that equality dosen't always elevate something to the status quo, but nearly always diminishes something down to a rather pedestrian level, like expecting a flute to take the place of a tuba or vice-versa and proclaiming the concert to be of some great benefit to the music world.
Art in itself (and I don't claim to be an artist so take this for what you're paying for it) has IMHO two distinct functions that lend legitimacy to it's value. The first being the piece's 'statement' or what its value is in regards to how it is interpreted or enjoyed by the viewer or artist and the second being what happened for it to become a piece of art in the first place. A plaster copy of a statue can be satisfying, even inspirational---more so for the beholder on whose mantel it sits than the original statue which is in a museum on another continent that the beholder has never been to. The original in the museum however, carved out of a rare marble by expert hands and the proportions determined by a pair of artistic eyes several hundred years ago, would be/should be priceless in monetary terms.
Applying this to photography, consider a moving image like Adams' El Capitan shrouded in clouds (I know there are Anti-Adams-istas out there, so remember I'm only using this as an example!) What this photo says, it says quite well in the original print, but it also says it as a calender image, a poster image, as a so called 'reproduction print' ...etc. The question is, is a calender that was printed last month in Thailand on a high speed press worth the same as a print burned and dodged and souped by a master of photography, by hand, in 1957? Or as a really really good digital reproduction blown up to whatever size you wish so it will "fit" in with your design scheme? In what sense are any of these images truly "equal?" They aren't, even though they may appear identical to the eye and the mind. If "libertation"="equality" then the point of the NY Times article eludes me----it strikes me as more of a blunt weapon of oppression than a pointed one of liberty. Or nonsense;-)