I don't mind arty shots personally. But taking note that this is a database collection of aviation shots (more or less, keeping images for the future), we try to keep this in mind when screening.
Rare shots will always get treated with a higher priority. The aircraft that crashed 10 years ago, will never be shots again, so we take what we can get.
The aircraft that we see everyday can be shot again, and again, and again. That does lead many to try more artistic shots...
But it's hard to know where to draw the line.
When it's a clear shot of plane with a bit of art, it might be accepted. But to drive the point, I would assume that at the other end of the spectrum is a non-aviation person, who loves arty shots and includes a bit of plane.
This shot is certainly more towards the aviation spectrum.... but to make the line clear, we tend to make it a little easier to know what we want for the database. Generally the aircraft should be clearly visible.
I was browsing through some aviation books last night. After laughing at artist impressions of what we know now as the F/A-22, and spy photos of the SU
-27, I realised that the majority of shots were capturing history. A B-52 that was obviously in service back when the book was printed, we know is now sitting in a desert...
The reason I know that was because it wasn't an arty shot of a B-52, but simply in flight and I could easily read the reg. Likewise, I have seen shots of the same B-52 sadly sitting in the desert.
20 years from now, I want to see a great shot of a 737. I'm not necessarily looking for an arty shot.
By all of the above though, I'm not saying that art is not the way to go. My personal opinion is that you can certainly capture an aircraft in an artistic way. And if you hit the nail on the head, we certainly won't be rejecting your shot.
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...