A lot of published work doesn't employ anything other than a basic understanding of composition. That's accessible. If the masses don't achieve that, it's because they don't practise enough or they're apathetic. Perhaps the missing ingredient is sometimes perception. Previsualisation. Genius, though, is a very strong word. When photography becomes less 'doable' is often when someone puts a personal quality into their work - something which might be completely peripheral to photography. That could certainly be applied to war, famine, or portrait photography (although it's difficult to recognise in the Scweppes images). Looking at published pictures (especially those in photographic magazines) is how I personally dragged my photography up. To be published you have to accept failure until you can compete with some of your peers. Where and how a picture is published is often key to how good it is, and a lot of published images really aren't all that admirable. They're the bread and butter of a profession. None of that ever really affects my enjoyment of a good picture. Whether I believe I could have taken it or not, if it connects and shares something new I enjoy it.