The daguerreotype

I found Batchen's discussion of the daguerreotype particularly interesting. Often we look at early or proto-photography and assume that the photographer's intentions were purely positivistic, led by the desire to capture detail perfectly and objectively; photographs were more quickly considered a tool for science than an object of art, than the product of the romantic's desire to portray nature. I find it especially interesting that this discussion was on the daguerreotype because it is one of the early types of photographs that, although very capable of portraying detail and "reality", were also just beautiful objects. The daguerreotype in my opinion is comparable to the beauty of the painting; although it does not imitate it, it has it's own physical attributes that make them beautiful objects that cannot be reduced to their positivistic attributes. Were early photographs not easily considered art because they erased motion? Would modern blurry or soft focused photographs that are supposed to display motion have been considered art in the early period of photography? Bringing in Ritcher's paintings to this discussion might be interesting because the reverse is happening. He tries to emulate photographs through painting. How does this change this discussion?