I state facts and I defy you, with respect, to demonstrate otherwise. A quick read Ruskin or Robinson's precis of same will pull aside the blinds and show you a ton of structure in the paintings, much of which is either lacking or exists only weakly in the photos. These guys had a very distinctive play book. It was a pretty good one, although it's very dated by now.
It is not my job, nor is it anyone's, to silently accept failings and lacunae. Indeed, my remarks ought to serve as an invitation to the author of the piece to expand on his, to explain why he feels it wise to borrow one lesson and decline another.
There may well be excellent reasons for dispensing with antiquated ideas of composition and I, for one, would like to hear them.