I dunno if I'd agree with you that that's a bad photograph, if it is one. If one looks at the beautiful works of [Christopher Dydyk](http://www.dydyk.com/works.html), and other fine-art photographers, whose photographs are more like impressionist paintings than classical photography, one can see that the distortion of these boundaries is something that yields stylistically unconventional photographs which are conventionally aesthetically pleasing--or maybe that's just me.

Maybe in terms of good/bad you're talking about some skill level? Impressionist painting is a difficult skill and a photograph can be composed by one click, but that leaves the realm of aesthetics and approaches the topic from skill.

Or perhaps human value of the aesthetic is, in part, derived from skill; that is to say, perhaps due to supply/demand exchange value under the capitalist mode of production there is the construction of value such that perceived aesthetic value is correlated with price. Maybe this ties into the more postmodernist idea of sign value.

Just some thoughts.