And who are you to make such statement of my person? That is improper.
First off, I didn't make a statement, I asked a question. There is a BIG difference. And you, predictably, missed the point of it.
I provided the examples of Tom Till and Ian Plan, because they are two of the more well known working landscape photographers today. I know both have had articles published in Outdoor Photographer in the last year. The simple fact that you did not know who they were, was a red flag to me that you might not have a significant amount of exposure to other photographers out there right now. Personally, I think it's a fair assessment. What I was not doing, is making a comment on the quality of their work per se. See, style is style and technique is technique.
What I tried to do early on in this thread is put forth some examples of why I think Peter Lik isn't a "master photographer" from a TECHNICAL point of view. The photographs I highlighted both have some significant basic compositional and technical flaws, and to me this isn't indicative of a "master photographer". To me a "master photographer" wouldn't have allowed a print to be released with those flaws. You haven't refuted any of those flaws beyond saying "You have to break the rules". Well, if we are talking about the rule of 3rds, I might agree. For straight horizons on a landscape shot, you've got some work to do to convince me.
Now we can argue about technique, but style is something all it's own. As I said before, you like his style and I do not. That's ok. Taste in art is subjective, and there is no right and wrong there. It's like arguing who was the better painter Picasso or Di Vinci. I think I could make the argument that Di Vinci had superior technical skills, and Picasso had more style. But it doesn't matter. Just because a photograph is technically perfect, doesn't mean that it's appealing and vise versa. For me, the reason I don't like Lik's work because of it's technical imperfections. I think it's sloppy, and if you are going to charge (and I am going to pay) the sums that Peter Lik charges, you'd damn well better get it right. (You can't tell me that the coastal pallet photo would have been significantly changed by straighting the horizon and cropping out the foreground rocks). However, for you, they don't matter. Those technical flaws don't bother you. I get that. I just hope you see the point that I am trying to get to.
I'm not saying you shouldn't like Peter Lik. Quite the contrary. I'm just saying open your eyes to other peoples work. There is TON's of great photography out there, made by more than 1/2 a dozen photographers (or one individual beating the drum loudly). That's why I posted the list that I did. If you were to go through that list with an open mind, I'm sure you'd find the work of others that equals or surpasses Mr. Lik's (and you don't have to pay $5 for the "privilege" of looking at it on your iphone. (which also gets to my original point about marketing.)) These folks just aren't as well known (and that is my original point). Learn to look at their photographs, not just with admiration, but critically as well. You'll find that it opens your mind, gives you inspiration and you just might find a new favorite photographer...