Harsh lighting shows all the blemishes. This is a bad thing for art that is photographed or scanned. High-resolution kills the soft retinal distortions of the human eye.
Photographed art, even with the best cameras and lighting, highlights things you wouldn't see standing next to a painting in a meticulously-lighted gallery space.
The best lighting is diffuse natural light with a lower light temperature, and preferably not back-lit, which is a completely different experience of images that have texture.
With photographed artworks you need a form of "age reduction" which takes the natural "bump map" aspects out of a digital image. We see the same texture with our eyes but it looks like normal texture, as opposed to the high-contrast pixelated shadow that can appear in a digital photo.
Screen images naturally look more craggy and have to be smoothed in some way. Nixon was a victim of this in the 1960 debate with Kennedy. Kennedy had the advantage of being younger and less prone to the "bump map" effect, i.e. the flaws in unnatural light to make blemishes more visible. If there were no screens in 1960, perhaps the outcome would have been different simply because of the softness of natural vision. Perhaps there would have been no Watergate--who knows.
Photographs of banal subjects are interesting because they exist in the gap between pictoriality and nothingness.
Making a piece of art "work" is something that comes easily to some artists, but less so for others.
In photography there are images that have junk or other banalities in them, such as garbage cans, light poles, people in odd poses/tableaux and so on. Some work and some don't for mysterious reasons.
Here's one by William Eggleston, a prime example of an artist that can beautify the ordinary.
They look easy, but they aren't. It takes work to make it work, usually on the part of the viewer: "I don't see anything there that's worth taking a picture of". But the photographer did, and if you try you can too. These kinds of snapshots are recording memories as well, as all images do, even if they aren't the typical "photo memory" photo. With metadata, "date taken" is enough to encode the memory. The image could just be white or black, and it works as a background for what only you remember at that moment, and it "works".
Here's one by me: