>>3010704"too great" is a little simple for what I think you mean, that a composition is very focused or clean. great composition doesn't need to be focused or excessively pattern-oriented or super-contrasty. but it needs to work. there's a difference between, say, Kandinsky and a mess. or, say, the steerage and a mess. that difference is good composition.
hell, let's take the first eggleston photo you posted. What's more important visually about that photo than its composition? light? texture? color? detail? depth of field? the biggest reason that it's a good photo is because of its geometric scheme, i.e. composition. the people are objects on a canvas, abstracted, another pair of trees. a huge part of the semantic content of the photo stems from eggleston's use of composition!
again, you've constructed a bit of a strawman. When I say composition is king, I'm not saying Peter Lik is the king of photography. Any more than someone who says structure defines good musical composition is promoting three-chord rock.
