The below Szarkoswki quote (I think it was from the introduction in William Eggleston's Guide) makes a relevant distinction between getting pleasure from what is being pointed at and getting pleasure from how the photographer has pointed to it. "One might compare the art of photography to the act of pointing. It must be true that some of us point to more interesting facts, events, circumstances, and configurations than others. The talented practitioner of the new discipline would perform with a special grace, sense of timing, narrative sweep, and wit, thus endowing the act not merely with intelligence, but with that quality of formal rigor that identifies a work of art, so that we would be uncertain, when remembering the adventure of the tour, how much our pleasure and sense of enlargement had come from the things pointed to and how much from a pattern created by the pointer." - John Szarkowski I think in general the non-fellow photographers that Julie mentions or the people who aren't actively looking for and aren't interested in art and in photography done as art mainly get their pleasure from what is being pointed to (a basket of kittens vs a basket of snakes). The photographer has to lure the viewer in but has to do it in an almost invisible way (part of my negative response to Mann's What Remains pictures is that as a creator myself I can hear all the gears she has employed grinding away behind the curtain) so that the viewer doesn't know why exactly they're getting an aesthetic pleasure from that picture of a basket of snakes when compared to a mediocre picture of a basket of kittens (which is pleasurable to look at nevertheless, who doesn't like kittens....).