This is not a scientific approach, so it does not prove to be a universal value that all humans can understand.
This "Zero-horizon formula" proposes a new concept of how to treat "photography" as art, which has become such a "lame duck" because it is not conceptual in the context of contemporary art.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the theory of marginal art, which can be said to be the mother of this theory, was defined by a Japanese philosopher after the war, and has elements that make it suitable for loud appeal as a concept unique to and originating from Japan.
The fact that the Western art system is the mainstream is self-evident and unquestionable.
In treating art as a commodity, there is no way that anything that does not fit into that context will be honored for evaluation and handling.
However, it is also true that there are not only the artists who define Art or fine-art as a commodity, and that many of them have the desire to advocate "beauty.
To do so, and to advocate the idea that "art is to create beauty" is to be called "pale-immature" by the art world, which is a popular society.
You're a pale, so you must be an artist, right?
It's a “zero-horizon” marginal art, but there is something called "photographic art" here.
How about Japan, where photography can be called "beautiful"?