I find several aspects of this matter irritating.......
Without getting into the 'what is art' argument, it IS undeniably true that photography is usually a craft with numerous difficulties and problems that must be solved by a 'craftsperson' who hopefully graduates over time and experience into being a 'craftsman'. There is much to do for a person to reach the status of a craftsman.
As we know, a craftsman who struggles and persevers over a long(ish) period can, with some intelligence and natural ability, produce work which becomes 'art'.....ie., the work holds content and facility that adds up to something more than the 'mere' craftsmanship used to make that work.......
History is full of such craftsmen......to name but three; the English car model maker Gerald Wingrove,...the French Napoleonic prisoners of war who used meat bones to make artifacts for sale,....and the late Englishman George Daniels, arguably the greatest living horologist who only made 37 watches in his life which now fetch multi million dollar prices. These, and some other craftsmen, developed their own techniques and struggled for many years until they unwittingly became 'artists'. They did NOT see themselves as artists and never used or claimed such a title.....George Daniels for example did not use the word 'artist' five time in three paragraphs of his website.......
The title 'artist' is not granted to many craftsmen and has to be earned by public attention and comment, as distinct from workers in the 'arts' proper. You can call yourself whatever you like but if you are faking it the public will simply ridicule your 'art' and any pretentiouness will seal your fate. To state that "...I can make Capture One, Lightroom and Photoshop do amazing things. I am an accomplished photographer...." is to set yourself up as a target for ridicule, especially if you obviously set out to annoy people with crude use of these priceless skills!
