Film photography doesn't hone any more "artistic value" than digital, it's personal preference.
Digital has pretty much caught up to 35mm as far as image quality, and in some areas passed it.
Some would argue medium format digital has also caught up or passed medium format film in image quality.
That comment is similar to the way artists dismissed photographers in the early days saying a photo doesn't have any artistic value.
Film or digital, you're completely relying on technology and you're environment to create the image you're capturing.
If you want to wave your cock around like you're better than everyone else try hand grinding your pigments,
stretching a canvas that you wove yourself, on a loom you hand built, over wood from a tree you ripped down bare handed,
then paint something on the canvas with brushes you made yourself without even looking at the subject.
Or you could just work on creating better images no matter the medium and put your tiny cock away.
Film is used as a turd polish just like HDR and over saturation/editing.
I can't stand "expired film" shots that are mad boring to begin with but use the expired film effect to hipster spice it up.
It's no worse than making an HDR of a boring ass shot, both are turd polish or crutches at least 80% of the time I see them.