Some of the views expressed in this discussion makes me curious:
You guys that hate shaky camera no matter how, why and by whom it's used, do you also discuss paintings and sculptures and novels and music and stageplays and dance like this?
I ask, because you seem to judge cinema like traditionalists judged impressionist, expressionist, abstract art and other modernist developments of painting like, some 100 years back? The sentiments back then were also like "It doesn't represent the motive like I'm used to see it, it doesn't look like anything I know, it's not pleasant to look at (and I've paid so it must please me), I don't understand what it means, it doesn't make its means of aesthetic production invisible to make me stay in the illusion etc. THUS: it is bad art. Or degenerate art. Or not art at all.
Such views on painting still exist, mind you. People will get a photo of their pets or their children enlarged, idyllised with some brushed edges and red cheeks and printed onto a canvas to simulate the texture of a real oil painting. And then they'll be proud to show their good taste by hanging it above the couch in the living room. Preferably in a fake golden frame.
Do you do this as well concerning your taste of artworks in general or is it only when relating to cinematography that a certain - eh... simplism - becomes tempting in justifying a taste for recognizable, conventional storytelling reproducing trivial representations of 'things' and 'actions' and 'bodies' as we know them?
How about cinema as artistic expression and invention of relations between image, movement and time?
I guess my curiosity is this: Does your no-matter-what-when-who-why hate of non-representational elements in movies express a general anti-modernism of yours or, if not, for what reasons would you restrict this aesthetic rationale to cinematic art only?