Vain and manipulative defines a lot of art! One of my mentors talked a lot about eye movement and how important it is to composition and how a photo will read. So, I've often thought about and composed and post-processed with eye movement in mind. Nothing wrong with a photographer being a bit of a stage director. After all, when we decide on depth of focus we're determining eye movement to a certain extent. When we cut something off at the edge of the frame, we're "manipulating" eye movement. It's why, for me, using the term "still" to describe a photo is misleading. We talk about "stilling" a moment. But many good photos tell a story and the stilling of the moment is in support of the story being told. That story plays out in time, as the viewer is looking. The viewer looks here and there and around the photo. Pointing the viewer to do that in a certain way can be very integral to what the photographer is expressing. Warhol and Duchamp were about as manipulative as they come, and I doubt either would shy away from it. Impressionists? Incredible manipulators. The Pictorialists? Of course. Vain? Dali, anyone?