As far as the "yes" is concerned, fine, no problem. I think anybody who would firmly answer "no" is either deluding themselves or basically has no understanding of photography.
But there's one area in this essay that I feel unhappy about, and within which I feel a certain amount of contradicton. Alain's insistence on seeing the world as a beautiful place is commendable, but I assume from his writings and his photography that he actually cares about this world, and not just of beautiful imagery he can derive from it.
Modifying a photograph to remove a house, say, which "defaces" (this is always going to be subjective) a landscape can be counter productive. If the photographr wants to restore a pristine state to a landscape, presumably he or she cares about that landsacape, and is upset by the damage done. However, concealing that damage, both from the audience and from one's self, is potentially going to lead to complacency.
I'm not particularly convinced by Alain's insistence that he can, as an artist decision, totally divorce himself from reality, or at least a relatively generally accepted reality. In my opinion, art without engagement is not very fulfilling or indeed convincing to either the artist or the audience. It may be much easier to sell - but then where do we draw the line between the sort of production line stuff that turns up in IKEA posters ? Perhaps the message in Alain's art is "this is how I want the world to be" - but therein lies the danger of the audience interpreting it is "this is how the world is", and there really is no need to worry about those sweet polar bears....