I stopped reading around page five, pardon if my view duplicates any previous.
As a new photographer, (and a life-long creative person) I find that a list of cliches is only imperative for those are seeking to attempt to define themselves with something new, potentially even for the sake of something new. Sure, you can bang your head and heart on the subject all day, but in the end: What are you conveying with this "new" thing?
It's my firm belief, that if there was a definition for art, it may possibly be:
"The conveyance of emotion through a medium which in itself, conveys no emotion, artificially created for such purpose."
Hey, someone may have come up with that before, and on different grounds it may be proven correct or incorrect: but that's not the point. That's my belief, and I don't have to study other people's previous (re: historical) thoughts to come to it.
Cliche's: To whom?
Sunsets, skylines, black and white nudes.... That HAS been done, I don't disagree. But my sunset may be something new to me. At that moment the shot was taken, there was a beautiful picture that I was a part of creating: and someone else may agree. It may be new to them too! The arts are and always will be subjective. What is an an eyesore to one person, is fine art to another. What is cliche to one, is a beautiful rendition of their own inner thoughts to another.
The mentioned sunset could have been my first sunset picture ever, and potentially my last, but lumping a print of it into the cliche bin for the sake of the fact it's not "new" "avante garde" "contemporary" or even novel smacks of the kind of mindset that you're exactly trying to avoid.
Let me illustrate that point with a simple logic statement:
It is believed that good art breaks the rules of art. It is also believed that images that are cliche are not art.
In the sense of what is, and is not: I refuse to cave into idea that "this shouldn't be done", especially on the grounds that it has been done before. How shall one grow as a photographer, or artist in general, if they can not find out for themselves the path? People in this thread talk about wanting to find new and next best thing, but that's a near impossible task if what is considered a cliche can't be explored.
You may see cliche junk, and dump it in the rubbish bin. But I say every image, is and will always be, a paving stone on the way.
I understand that in the fine art world, there are topics and areas of importance because there is money on the line. But, you have to consider this: Since your judgement is subjective, and you believe that an image you see is cliche because in the early 70's it was overdone in the fine art scenes and thus disregard it, does that mean that someone who has not studied the arts as much as you will actually have a better understanding of the image? That they can step into an image as it truely is, gain the (un)intended emotional response, without the pomp and weight of the inner circles of fine art? To experience an image as it really is, and not just what it isn't? But I digress, that's another topic for another day...
To circle back to my original statement, that the creation of something new, for newness sake is not art. That's marketing. Art could potentially be conveyed, through this new thing, but in itself the "new" should not be the focus; instead of what's conveyed. Attempting to define cliches is counterproductive, because in eventuality this "rule" will be circled back upon and broken, thus creating "fine" art. That is a trend, and trends are not artistic, it's marketing.