Although this is supported, this isn’t the overall point. The overall point concerns how the amateurish features of Cameron’s pictures, combined with their artistry, make the pictures interesting. The fact that pictures are comical is part of the amateurish nature of the works.

This is the closest match to the idea that the combination of amateurism and artistry in Cameron’s pictures gives those pictures their peculiar aesthetic quality. Even if you don’t think (B) is a perfect fit, there’s no other answer that tries to capture this point.

This is too critical of Cameron’s work. The overall point isn’t that Cameron’s work isn’t comparable to the masterpieces of Western painting. The point is that there are certain features in Cameron’s work that make them interesting.

The author never identifies the “most successful” pictures as those in which a viewer is “completely unaware” of the sitters’ role-playing.

The author never singles out the sitters as the only interesting aspect of Cameron’s pictures.