On the contrary, I have just proved that sharpness does to some degree affect the artistic merits of an image. Sharpness may enhance or detract from the artistic merits of a given image, and it is not the most significant factor involved, but in no case is it irrelevant. You have to have some sharpness to have a meaningful image, even one as blurred as my example. If there is no sharpness at all, the image can only be a single solid colored shape.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187335\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I've already mentioned, nobody has ever marketed a camera that takes photos as blurred as your example. At least not in my lifetime, and I doubt even in the 19th century when the technology was in its infancy. Even an impressionistic painter would produce a sharper image than that.
I don't generally find images that are totally blurred interesting, although blurring to indicate movement can be interesting and blurring of distracting elements in the composition is a good technique.
All cameras are capable of producing sufficient sharpness to create a meaningful image.
I've found the B&W negative of one of my first photographic attempts with my Brownie box camera taken around the age of 12-14. I'm away from my Nikon 8000ED MF scanner at the moment (the film is larger than 35mm) so I'm unable to scan it, but the flower looks quite sharp and the background is suitably out of focus.