Before I read AAs books I read Andreas Feinigers books. Two quotes of him which guid me trough my photographic career are:
"A technically perfect photograph can be the world’s most boring picture."
in "Total Photography"
"The fact that a (in the traditional sense) technically deficient photograph can have greater emotional impact than a technically flawness picture probably comes as a shock to those who are naive enough to believe that technical exellence alone is a measure of a value of a photograph."
in "The Color Photobook"
This is one of those adages under the guise of wisdom which is really total twaddle.
First, every photograph that has ever been taken is boring at least to someone, no matter how great the photo is considered by others to be. Interests vary enrmously amongst any population. What one person considers sublime, another may consider total crap.
Secondly, if it were possible to determine what could be the world's most boring photo, through a world-wide competition perhaps, technical perfection would definitely exclude any photo from winning the prize, because so far, technical perfection does not exist.
If someone were to produce a technically perfect photograph, its perfection would be a wonder to behold no matter how boring the subject may be in the eyes of some. The perfection itself would become the focus of interest. How is it possible, for example, to achieve such 3-dimensional realism, perfectly accurate colors and such sharply defined detail which simply increases in quantity the closer one gets to the photo?
The prize for the world's most boring photo would have to be awarded to a boring subject in conjunction with totally lousy technical quality.
Of course, I'm making certain assumptions about human rationality here. I'm assuming, for example, that whenever a person takes a photograph, it is of something that at least interested the photographer at the time, that motivated him to raise the camera and take the shot. When such shots, after processing, sometimes fail to satisfy, it must be due to technical limitations of some sort. Perhaps the dark ominous clouds are no longer ominous because the sky was blown due to incorrect exposure. The brilliant green bush in the foreground, drenched in the light of the setting sun, has lost its impact due to misfocussing and other factors such as inappropriate choice of F stop, or the color sensitivity and dynamic range of the camera was too limited, or the color gamut of the printer was not wide enough, and/or the Photoshop skills of the operator were not up to the job, etc. etc.
However, don't think that I've missed the underlying point. It's pretty obvious that an interesting composition that is technically inadequate may be more valuable than an uninteresting subject which is nevertheless technically impressive. Look at any family photo album for such examples. They are usually full of technically inadequate shots which are of immense value to the family members.