Because to use that style of photography in this instance would just result in a complete load of confusing b****x that meant nothing, that's why. If you read what I said.. it was "How else should have shot it? Slow shutter, 10 stop grad, light painted HDR wire wool spinning b****x? We were talking about Martin Parr and how he should have shot his work.
You use what's appropriate. If what you want is to create a highly charged atmosphere in an old abandoned building, then HDR may well result in exactly what you need. If you want to create an image that's full of dynamics, colour and excitement, then having sparks flying everywhere may be exactly what you need too. Whatever style of imagery you want to create though, the important thing is to have a reason behind your images or it amounts to nothing, and unfortunately, a lot of wire wool images have no reason beyond the wire wool itself.
There's no point in taking a photograph if it conveys no message or meaning. Surely everyone must agree with that?
If there's no idea, and no planning, and you're using a technique for absolutely no reason other than the sake of it, then it's probably a pretty poor image. There's always a reason for doing things.. or rather, there SHOULD always be a reason for doing things.
If the image is just someone standing there spinning some wire wool, and that's all it is... then yeah.. that would be a pretty poor image. It would be poor because take the wire wool away, and you've nothing left. It's technique alone. Great for practice, but little else.
On the other hand, I saw in here recently an amazing image that used wire wool. Can't remember who took it now, but it was a bulldozer in a building site, and the wire wool work was done in such a way that it made the machine look like it was alive, and spiting fire.. it was amazing.
Besides... having said all that, I've never said you should never call an image crap.. I just maintain that not liking an image is not in itself a reason for calling it crap. If you think an image is crap, you need to be able to say WHY it's crap. If you can't say WHY it's crap, then you're not qualified to be calling it crap. Calling an image crap because it uses a snapshot style when it was purposely shot in a snapshot style is a little silly IMO. If Parr intended to create a beautifully lit, mechanically composed set of portraits, and THEN produced what he produced.. THEN it would be crap, yes.
It's not what you do, it's why, and how you do it that matters.
The way Parr takes his images is absolutely right for what he's trying to achieve. It's a decision he's made, and it makes sense. Like it or not.. it's not crap because there's a definite reason for his choice of style. He's not playing with a technique for the sake of it... he's not seen something on Flickr and though "I'll have a go at that technique".
The truly great images that stand the test of time always have something more than just "wow" factor. It's hard to define that easily though, as some landscape shots don't have "meaning".. sure. I'll give you that, but they must have something of interest for the viewer.. something to make you keep coming back to it.
Dod said nothing about only wanting to take aesthetically pleasing images 
