This is another photography discussion. There’s been a major push in photography since the rather quick rise of digital that photography shouldn’t lie: it shouldn’t create scenarios and the ultimate goal of photography is to record what is seen (I’ve heard this argument tailored down as evidence why we need noiseless ISO 3200 and up on cameras or they aren’t worth buying. Afterall, the world as we see it doesn’t have noise.)
I don’t buy it. If, in fact, all we’re reducing photography to is the technical ability to record a scene as it was objectively, there’s no art to the thing. Not even if the scene recorded is horrendously important for documentation or journalism. Documentation and journalism are valiant goals, but not necessarily art.
Art is the act of rendering a world, not of recording it. An artist weighs the world and then uses the elements of design and composition to present it back in a way that accomplishes a goal. But, the important distinction here is that they selectively record the world. A simple matter of framing can change the entirety of how a scene feels, and the right composition can create stories that weren’t even there.