Interesting Discussion.
I don't see it as one being better than the other ... I think they are both good.
I certainly could not paint this scene, if for no other reason than I am not patient enough to paint it. I imagine this artist took 40 hours or more to paint that picture.
I did take a picture from further back across the road (barely see it in the painting) that looks a lot like the painting but like Sat said, I was going for the dominant foreground object (barn) with the supporting angle of the mountain range and the roof line. I also took time to make sure the peak of the roof and the Grand Teton lined up and supported one another. As Sat said, I used these elements to create tension in the photo ... never heard of "physic tension" but I imagine the concept is the same.
Another concept that Sat touched on is the "path" in the photo which leads the viewers eye into the image and I made sure I left room on the left so the viewer's eye will continue on up to the mountains.
The painting does use classic composition techniques of "eye of the rectangle" (barn and tree on the right) , linear lines on the thirds and color balance (yellow on blue).
One note in regards to a painter versus a photographer analysis - the painter starts with a blank canvas and adds only those elements that supports the composition while the photographer has to analyze the scene , walk around, move up and down vertically and think about the elements and where they appear in the frame to try and get a good composition from what is in front of them.