Reverting for a sec to the OP: was any question actually asked, or is it just an assumption here that there was, and if so, that it was: what's photographic art?
If so, we do seem to have drifted into the Sargasso Sea instead.
It has been mooted by Jeanloup Sieff, amongst others, that there is no art, there are just artists.
And even within the definition (?) of what that might mean, some things that artists produce are art and some not, so one can't define art as strictly the product of artists, either.
Perhaps as close as we can get is to believe that folks who are good at drawing, painting, making photographs, playing musical instruments, singing and so forth are artists. The stress is on the two words, good at. Because one does any of those things badly would, I suggest, preclude that person from being considered an artist in that specific medium. I struggle to accept the concept of a bad artist. I would judge the bad artist a wannabe artist. If, indeed, he had such pretensions at all.
Galleries also exhibit stuff that I could never accpet as art. Now, was that infamous urinal actually meant to be 'art' or was it simply, as some suggest, a joke and a dig at the established order of things? You can never tell: people do all manner of stuff in promoting thenselves. Many show their naked curves, and so perhaps the Duchamp urinal was his attempt to show something else, and he never quite got round to doing that? Where the artists hang out, then. Would Duchamp's member have been a work of art? Who knows, who remembers? How temporary the full flush of manhood.
This is the second most shocking post anyone has read on LuLa. Absolutely not a nice place to be.