What an odd response. First, art has most certainly not “always been a collaboration between nature and the artist,” that’s a gross understatement of the meaning and practice of art through the ages. You’ve quickly disregarded important movements that have entailed relationships between artist and person, artist and culture, artist and thought, artist and art itself, artist and the absurd and on and on. An artist may have a relationship with whoever and whatever he/she wants — such is the luxury of being an artist. A practice I have both a degree in and decades of work doing.
But more importantly, you’ll need some concrete examples of the article’s attempt to “rationalize” anything, but in particular art and beauty. That’s almost a near-opposite analysis of the writing here which is not even trying to tackle the subject you’re commenting on, but rather the value of a beautiful photograph. It seems you’ve jumped to some conclusions of your own that aren’t the conclusion of the article, which in fact makes a case for beauty being an invaluable creation, so intrinsic to us as people that to put monetary value on it actually demeans it.
I suggest truly digesting an article before you throw such uninformed negativity on it.