Pardon me for jumping in on this a week late, but of course 'photography' is not art. Photography is a set of techniques that can be used to create art (among other uses.)
If one means "Are photographs art?", then one should judge them on a case by case basis. That's what Sean O'Hagan did.
It then follows, that neither painting, sculpture nor music are art. Only sets of techniques that can be used to create art. And paintings, sculptures and songs can only be judged on a case by case basis.
I can see the point, but I lived under the impression that the arts were measured according to the best that they produce. That music is an art, even though most of it is advertising jingles. That painting is an art, even though most of it is soulless kitsch. That these 'sets of techniques' are arts because they can be, that the fact that most of what these techniques produce isn't art, doesn't really matter.
In that sense, I believe photography to be an art, because some of it is really good.
I misspent quite a bit of my youth learning to draw and paint, before learning to use cameras. Drawing and painting were taught as the high road to becoming an artist. It is true that most of us ended up in advertising agencies, but we learned the techniques to become artists, not commercial illustrators. We felt betrayed, when we found out we would have to be commercial artists, that the figure of the wild-haired, piercing eyed and furrow-browed Artist was an impossible utopia.
Yes, most photography isn't art, but my photography should be. I aspire to create at least a few photos that can unreservedly deserve to be labelled 'Art'. So for me, it is self-evident that photography is art. Because some photographers are artists. Because thousands of photographers try to make art, including me. And the millions of photographers who don't make art don't really matter, just as the rude scrawlings on toilet walls don't devalue drawing.
cheers