In my understanding, the philosophy underlying Aurélien’s article (and shared by other artists, see below) is as follows:
Photography as an art form is about displaying images using a limited output medium (both in terms of dynamic range and color gamut). The limitations are most severe when images are printed, but even screens have limitations.
However, this is not a problem: for centuries painters were able to convey their vision of scenes through the even more limited medium of oil paintings. The fact that even an oil painting can convey such a “realistic” impression of someone’s (e.g. Rembrandt’s) vision is surprising. It’s possible because the images we see are actually created in our brains.
In fact, even if we had the greatest full-gamut HDR monitors that could exactly recreate the sensory experience of watching a given scene, this would not convey the vision of someone else. This would not be art, only reproduction of the physical reality. See, for example, the video linked in this post: Processing RAWs for HDR displays in Darktable - #98 by EspE1.
When we watch a painting or a printed photograph hanging on a white wall, our eyes are adapted to the white of the wall, and that white is the brightest color that the painting/print can display. Therefore it is natural to display the brightest elements of the scene using this white.
But then, Rembrandt’s painting I linked above contains no white!
Thanks! It was a nice adventure. As you can imagine, the descent was long and dark…