It’s a bit hard to interpret your writing, but I think the mistake in interpreting my article is in your grouping of ART with beauty. Those are separate concepts. I’m unsure how much you understand photography, but in this world there’s a tendency of photographers to simply “take pretty pictures.” This is the category of image that I’m referring to. Once upon a time that kind of shooting — point, frame well, get the right settings — had value. Enter stock photography and the equating of a good camera to being a good photographer. The article points out the idea that those days are over, or at least numbered.
I’m unclear as to why you bring art up here. Art is not necessarily beautiful and beauty is not necessarily art. So it’s not a factor in the discussion.