OK, some Lomo/Holga is beautiful..but nothing that can't be created in "photoshop".
I'm not sure about this but my feeling is that it's "fake" to use software to apply a certain look or effect versus something that comes out of the camera as is.
Every image is "post-processed". Different Labs produce different prints from film. Different papers..etc. Always was, always will be. There's literally no such thing as "out of the camera as is" apart from the negative or RAW file, both of which are a starting point for how the image MAY possibly end up.
RAW files are naturally poor images, they need to be in order to capture as much information as possible. I'd say the same about film negatives. There's work to be done to extract the best from them.
Transparencies are the only true "Out of camera as is" but, unless you go to a slideshow..it's impossible to see the results. Printing from them means you lose the "as is".
JPGs are heavily processed, it's just that you have little artistic control over what that process is. Paper prints look how the LAB judge they should look,
I'd say that, once you have a nice composition, the art is actually in the post-processing.
No camera can ever hope to reproduce what the human eye (actually the human brain thought it..) saw. Post-processing allows you to create something that looks like how it felt at the time, and this may be far from "as is".
Black and White is perhaps the clearest example of an image not even remotely representing reality, and yet, when done correctly, it's high art, and seems to depict reality in a way that colour just distracts from.
Just opinions but "out of camera as is" is too simplistic a way to look at it.