Interesting and contentious premise by the OP.
I am particularly drawn to the question of Robert Frank's antecedent photographic legacy (I assume that's what the OP is referring to) as I am currently reading my way through the expanded edition of "Looking In", which is a scholarly re-examination of the events surrounding and accompanying the making of his seminal work "The Americans".
Frank is certainly a rarely gifted photographer and assiduously prepared for the making of the photographs that were pared down to the ones that comprise the book. Certainly he had important friends in his corner (Steichen, Evans) but his being granted the two Guggenheim fellowships that he used to shoot the project was most certainly a result of his well-prepared and methodical approach rather than any nepotism. His ideas were, after all, sound and in the tenor of the times.
His was an exploration of America and his views changed as he progressed his journey - how could they not? As a highly intelligent artist he was witness to much that he found shameful about the way particular groups in society were treated by those who held power over them: among those were workers and African Americans. His choice would have been the same that any of us would be faced with were we to undertake such a project nowadays - do we ignore something that is patently wrong in society and gloss over it, or do we include mention of these things that diminish the nation. In many ways his was a rather polite response, especially given that he was, at times, treated rather shamefully himself on the basis that he was a foreigner whose children had foreign-sounding names and he spoke with "colored folk".
As a document of a time and place it is invaluable but as a piece of art, proffering an "outsider's" view of his adopted country, it is priceless.
If you think that Frank, Winogrand, Friedlander (and please don't even think of mentioning Arbus in this context) and their "ilk" (well, pretty small sample size, that) are talentless hacks or merchants of ugliness, I strongly suggest that you educate yourself as to the nature of their work and just why they are so highly regarded. Sure, you don't have to share the opinions of others, but your own research might give you new insights into the quality of their output.
At the end of the day, coming onto a forum comprised of people who are interested in photography - sometimes immensely so - and blathering on - without presenting one skerrick of evidence to support your assertions - about why people who are icons of photography are simply taking advantage of other people's stupidity is, at best, bad manners. At worst it is bigoted arrogance.
