We as photographers are limited(for good or bad) by the mediun we work with. The mind seems to want to "make" a photograph sharp in the focus of our mind. When it is not, or the pixels blur , we have a problem accepting this as a purpose of the artist.
These are just my observations, not a comment on any POV or posts. Thanks Wyndham
To enlarge a bit on what you said (which I mostly agree with):
Photography and painting are different arts. In painting, everything is constructed, even the most "realistic" painting; even the most realistic painting is adjusted for impact, color, form, size, and sometimes, because of what the competition is doing. If you look at Renoir's Luncheon of the Boating Party, you can be quite sure that that precise image never existed. If you'd been there with a camera, you could never have taken that image. It was created from a wide variety of pieces, and put together in Renoir's head -- and he and Monet were probably two of the greatest on-scene artists who ever lived.
With photography, as Roland Barthes says, "the referent adheres." You can't get rid of the original, machine-taken image. If you get rid of it entirely, then what was the point of taking the photograph in the first place? You can manipulate it, cut it up, re-color it, adjust it, and the referent adheres. Ultimately, at the most basic level of a photograph, there is a machine/chemical event which can't be eliminated.
There's nothing wrong with that; it's simply a different art form, and perhaps the most powerful art form that's ever been invented, because it claims to have something about it that is "true."
Paintings are usually objects of their own: they are looked at, rather than through. Photographs always have a window quality about them; they are not only looked at, they are always looked through, to some extent, to the original image beyond.