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.