Well, the winning photo leaves me completely unmoved too. I don't even like it at all. It lacks everything that I find attractive in an image. I wouldn't hang it on my wall.

But it's still the best photograph of them all. At first it looks like an uninspired snapshot; but that is only very deceptive, because if you care to look twice, you can (could) see that it's perfectly composed, perfectly lit, perfectly balanced, perfectly conceived and perfectly orchestrated. These are objective qualities. I think if any of the other entries had the same qualities, they also could have won.

Social relevance, emotional interest, beauty or attractiveness (I like it / I love it) are subjective qualities; could be relevant in a popularity contest, or for humanitarian or for commercial purposes or what not, but I don't think that was the goal of this Photography Portrait Prize. They just had to choose the very best portrait, and so they did.

Is it that hard to say: "I don't like it, but it's really good"..?

The author of the winning image is the leading contemporary portrait photographer in Australia. The man knows what he's doing. Comments like I read in the linked article: "My seven year old son has taken better photographs" sound a bit ridiculous.

We do not see things as they are. ǝɹɐ ǝʍ sɐ sƃuıɥʇ ǝǝs ǝʍ