This is not a counter point, you're agreeing with what the parent comment said. Choosing a subject doesn't mean only photographing "interesting" things.
I understood the parent comment like so: if your subject is not interesting, no amount of technical mumbo jumbo will make your photo truly great.
Whereas the counter point is: if you get the technical aspects right (especially composition and light), a simple piece of wrapper paper can become an interesting subject.
The counterpoint is quite moot, in my opinion.
The shot of a candy wrapper is interesting if it expands its meaning beyond just being a candy wrapper.
No amount of technical prowess would make it a picture. You need context, you need that object to be part of a larger story, or maybe be the story itself.
Where was it found? What might its presence in the place where it was pictured represent? And so on.
It has way more to do with semiotics, than with the technical nature of the image itself. Technique will never make a non-subject into a subject.
Strictly technical-minded people hate to hear this, because they want to think that becoming a good photographer means mastering the physical and measurable, wheres that just makes you someone who's good at shooting technically correct pictures, that's all.
By this measure, underexposed, blurry or grainy picture are never good photos. And yet, any great photographer understands perfectly that value of technical mistake as well.
When there is nothing that stands out, I usually resort to playing with the compensation dial (or you can do spot metering) to get some silhouettes and light-dark dynamics. Also look for reflections or different angles.
That's very neat, it's almost the opposite of the problem you usually have when photographing people, but it works really well to create a unique mood.
