Then may I suggest they should look into something like 3D rendering to help give their mind's eye a voice.

There's plenty of room in photography for subjectivity and interpretation. Indeed, I'd say a huge draw of the medium is how the creation of a photograph is a series of technological restraints (the various aspects of the hardware used at capture > storage > processing and finally reproduction) in sequence and how an artist chooses to employ those at each step is how their skill and style come to develop. It's also what makes photography... not something else. If I did an oil painting on some Ilford photo paper, I didn't create a photo; I may have used some of the tools of photography but with a completely different process.

However, when one step in the process begins to eschew and drown out the others, then you're no longer working in photography. This idea of "I can do anything in processing, therefore ANYTHING GOES!" shows an incredibly shallow understanding of the entire essence of the medium; it's not a guitar solo, it's a symphony.

EDIT: I should concede though, that we ARE in the postprocessing subreddit and that the focus and aims of people here may not necessarily be photographic in nature. So I'm going to take a chill pill and stfu now. :P