I know what you meant by staged, but no one had mentioned that.
You seem to believe art is entirely subjective as an excuse for lousy composition for limited aesthetic appeal. The reality is art is largely objective, but with different subjective experiences.
You can't pawn off bad technique as art. For example what if someone never learned to properly use autofocus (or manually focus) and msot of their photos were out of focus, but they simply told people its art. that doesn't hold. An artist may well purposely photograph something out of focus, but that is done with intention to elicit the sublime. Some viewers might find those photos do stir thought and emotions, and to them the photos are a work of art, to other there is no attachment. However, for someone who is too lazy to focus their camera and is just making technical errors there is no artistic evocation.
To a large degree, what makes a photograph good to most viewers can be described entirely mathematically. The most subjective aspect will be the subject, and more subtly, who the subject is presented within the objective metrics of the photo such as composition, lighting, color.
grounding this in your photo with the slanting building. Did you intentionally tilt the camera and have the building slanting to evoke some specific emotions or crate a special compositional effect, or was the camera simply not horizontal when you clicked the shutter? You are only cheating yourself if you pass of bad technique as art.
Of course, the most important thing is you enjoyed taking the photos and you like the results. Photography is incredibly hard. It has nothing to do with buying a camera and pointing it at something. It takes many years, or even decades to master. Composition within photography is built upon thousands of years of experimentation of artists with paint.
