Jean Epstein on Photogénie

In Jean Epstein's critical essay "On Certain Characteristics of Photogénie," he attempts to define photogénie and the use of it in cinema as art. At the time of writing, cinema was a "mere twenty-five years old . . . a new enigma." What exactly it would become was a complete unknown, but Epstein argues that true cinema, cinema that could be considered art, must be completely cinematic, which is where photogénie comes in. Loosely defined as anything whose moral compass being enhanced by filmic reproduction, photogénie, according to Esptein is the key to cinema being cinematic. He furthers his argument by exploring the mobility of certain objects as they relate to photogénie, most notably the camera itself. But does this mean that simply filming an object with a free-wheeling camera, for example a tracking shot or handi-cam, make that object photogénie? Or do the object and shot need to have some other significances outside of the camera movement? If this were to ring true, then wouldn't any film shot completely on the move be considered completely cinematic and thusly the highest form of art in the medium? Or does there need to be a purpose behind the movement? What about films that employ a mix of stationary and mobile shots? How much photogénie is really needed?