Why not lithotypes or tapetypes?

A recent defense of photo-based taxonomy uses a “type” concept where “the type specimen is merely a nomenclatural entity to link a name with a species”. However, types are instead the ultimate argument. Although a relic of a platonic worldview, in the context of a modern perspective types can be understood as factual. Therefore, if no significant difference is found between the type and the subsequent material, H0 of equality cannot be rejected and specimens must be considered conspecific. Attacks on specimen-based types have many fronts. One is that poor specimens may hold less information than a good photograph. However, photos are by definition the equivalent of a painting using light as brush and ink and many species were described making reference solely to drawings. This was the best evidence available at the time—why not keep using it? Additionally, what if in those drawings we find a species that became extinct before the popularization of photography? Physically, photos (or any drawing) can be the reproduction of a given moment of light. Sculptures and tapestries can hold the same propriety. Thus, could Michelangelo’s “David” be Homo sapiens holotype? It has a larger head and hands than a 'normal' human being. Could it represent an unknown human species? The main problem with any kind of indirect observation of a fact is that we add another layer of suppositions and possible artifacts to it. How can we be sure that the photo (or sculpture, or tapestry) faithfully reproduces the original subject? Michelangelo’s David does not represent an actual human; it represents an ideal of one human (if David was indeed real). Poor type specimens can cause problems but those are not the same problems as those caused by photos because photos are not the facts; they are representations of the facts.