interesting subject
Hi,
As a working artist using photography as a medium, I guess I have a lot of thoughts about this too.
Certainly much of what I see in the way of photo exhibits in museums and galleries around the world I would not consider art, but instead view it as documentary. There are a few photographers that crossed the line from documentary photography to art - Lange and Salgado to name a few, but they didn't do it for every image. Most don't for even a few, but mistakenly call it art.
In fact most of what I see out there makes me angry. You can't just snap a few pictures of a subject or place and call it art. There has to be more to it than that. All the classical ingredients to any work of art - body of the emotion/statement/message/idea plus good use of composition and other techniques, ie the craft component.
A lot of good photography that I would not consider art falls into the range of what I would classify as nature photography. If I see one more picture of a duck that is labeled as 'fine art' I will throw up. Come on people, it might be nice, it might be finely crafted but a photo of a duck in a pond is only a photo of a duck in a pond.
There are quite a few wonderful artists working with photography and I think it should be easy for you to establish that photography is considered an art form along with painting etc.
Eric