Dalethorn's views represent everything that's wrong with this cynical new world of photography and the overindulgent hype for the latest gadget, the most megapixels, and the biggest sensors. Everything has become a commodity in these peoples' minds, including now, apparently, the photographer. My goodness. Pretty soon they'll be saying things like "a thousand megapixels aren't enough."
With all due respect to Dalethorn, his views represent a very distorted (and thankfully radical minority) view of photography. I don't know if he's just trying to be provocative, but if we were to follow his logic to its natural conclusion, it means that photography is not an art form (since the photographer is "recording, not creating") and that, therefore, photographs have no place in museums. Is he actually serious?
Dalethorn compares photographers to audio recording engineers who simply "record" something and don't create it. Not only does this betray an ignorance with the music industry (ask any music artist if the producer/sound engineer is simply a glorified recorder and he will laugh in your face), but it also makes a false comparison: the photographer with the audio engineer. I'd be curious to know who, in Dalethorn's mind, represents the musician when it comes to photography? God? The architect who made the building? The parents who "created" the model?
I guess it's time to hang it up, ladies and gents, since your decisions about lighting, framing, subject matter, angle of the shot, perspective, etc. are all reducible to mere technical specs and megapixel count. And while we're at it, we'd better get on the horn to all the art schools around the world to inform them that their photography departments are wasting their time. Talk about a reductionist view of the photography, not to mention of the world. No thanks.