"there are more subtil levels than croping and contrasting or erasing a small foliage in art"
Very true, but first you need to strip away the extra stuff so any art can be seen. In painting, the artist has the ability to put only the elements intended in the image and to put them where he wants them. The camera is not so forgiving, so the artist must remove the elements he does not want. Otherwise, the image is likely to be merely a document of what the scene looked like when I was there.
When you post an image with weeds in the left foreground and low contrast clouds and poorly cropped, I think it safe to say that that is how you thought the image looked best or ought to look.
"why nearlly allways such a low level in giving opinion ?...
a bit more salad in that hamburger will not change mac donald philosophy ... deeper is the point"
I don't know what you are expecting. To me, the photo as presented was not technially well done (poor contrast, and the extra garbage in the foreground) and the composition was poor. The big black area smack in the middle with the bright left side and dark right side makes the composition look deformed. I fail to see anything artisitic there. It looks like another "I was there" snapshot.