this is the funniest theory i heard

there are two parts of photography, the technical part and the artistic part.  the technical part involves just the use of the camera as an instrument.  but the artisitc part involves with many same elements used in other forms of art, such as light, color, balance, line, form, pattern...  you claim that photography is not art, then list which famous or normal artists who claim that photography is not part of art, or is it just your own opinion? 

the way that you try to confuse snap shots from true photography is the same as trying to confuse graffitti to abstract art/painting/drawing.  according to your logic, i can say this to you, that painting/drawing is not art, why?  look at Picasso's painting, looking at those so called "abstract painting", look at the simple stroke/lines, colors used in paintings of 齐白石，八大山人，or 唐伯虎， that is not art!  not only i can draw more lines, use more colors than they do with a pencil, brush, or whatever, my camera can do a much better job than they do!  look, the images from my camera give more colors, more objects, and they are more realistic!   obviously, my theory here is total BS, just like yours!  because i am not looking at the artistic side of paintings and drawings, just like the fact that you are not looking at the artistic side of photography! 

yes, photography equipment is getting cheaper, but that is not the standard to say that photographic art is cheaper too.  you want to get cheap?  what is cheaper than a pen, pencile, brush, and paper? what is cheaper than simple paints?  no matter how cheap a camera is, it is still astronomically more expensive than a brush, pencil or paper you use to make a painting, drawing that you so highly regarded as "true art".  so if being cheaper is your standard, you just defeated your own opinion because paintings and drawing will be much cheaper than a photograph, according to your logic!

i guess you are really backward on how much photography art is worth from a true artist these days.  recently, someone claimed to find the negatives from ansel adam's lost films that worth $200 million.  remember, that is only the negative, not the real prints developed, which should value more because the print express the true intent of the artist more than the negatives.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2010/07/27/128805438/adams

you can find photographs hanging every where in museums all over the world.  so tell me, why are they hanging them in the museum?  for decroration purpose?  come on, use your brain, dude!