That is disappointing. This means that the "vision of American life" is not in the artist's head per-se, but is just a photo. He's got talent like a talented photographer to see the scene, frame it, and photograph it, and talent in his hands to be a "human developing machine". These are impressive to be sure, but the spark that allows great artists to paint things the way they perceive them (or would like to) is missing in this technique.
I suspect that he does a lot of catchup bottles because he's "got that down" and its become easy for him.
It was some time after I became seriously interested in photography that I realized framing is a myth. Bad or amateur photographers look at a poorly framed result and regretfully discard it. Experienced ones cut triangles off the sides - or nowadays, straighten it up in Photoshop or Picasa. If you enjoy photography you might find it well worth revisiting your discard box.
The myth persists partly because in film and video, the frame is a much harder limit and requires a far greater commitment on the part of the person looking through the lens at the time the image is recorded...we do mess about with it in post-production, of course, but with far less freedom than a still photographer enjoys.
Don't be too harsh on the absence of the artistic 'spark'. Even magnificent artists like Durer employed grids to aid with proportion and perspective, and composed complex pictures by making numerous studies of posed models first. Much historical art would have been viewed as a matter of skill rather than talent by its creators, with the art stemming from the selective emphasis rather than a faithful rendering.
I agree with you about the ketchup bottles though. The body of work on display here seems singularly unadventurous in its choice of subject matter.
I suspect that he does a lot of catchup bottles because he's "got that down" and its become easy for him.