Ok... are we now back to discussing is photography art at all? Because in almost every photograph, "..everything there is delivered by.. " the subject in front of the camera. Or you are saying that only manipulated photographs could qualify as art? And does one need to manipulate the subject, or just the photograph of the subject, or both, to be considered artist?
I disagree with your statement that "in almost every photograph everything is delivered by the subject in front of the camera".
Photographers worth their salt are always dictating a point of view, getting you to understand their language through a combination of tools...Juxtaposition, light, point of view, manipulation, formal/informal treatment, moment, subject, exposure, presentation, framing/cropping, direction and, yes...well thought out titling of images in some cases...it goes on.
A simple and easy example..Ansel Adams. Did he rely on the subject to bring his message? not a chance, he controlled every image he made to the last extent.
Cartier-Bresson? He did the same thing in a different, but not so different, way.
I'm sorry, If you believe that everything is delivered by the subject then you are not understanding what goes into making great images. I'm not talking about trite, run of the mill images. I'm talking about successful images.
Of course, once in a while things happen and everything comes together by force of luck...but, to be able to keep doing it over and over again..you can't just depend on the subject alone to bring what is neccesary for a successful image.