Ok, I think that we have established that an extreme point of view exists, that many "don't get" (I'll not be down on my knees anytime soon)
So let us get back on track, for those of us not hung up on the edition thing...
One thing that comes in to play here is language, and the desire to categorize things by label. I have always felt that labels reveal more about the individual giving the label, than the person being labeled, so if I call a particular photograph or anything else "art" that reveals more about me, than the work.
Same for the "art establishment" and the same for the general public. Our perception of something can only be colored by another's label, if we let it be so. Same for our self perception. When we succumb to our desire to believe we are who we think other people think we are, we are always off track. That's why "I'm an artist, and you're not" and "That's art, and that is not" doesn't work. It's just self absorbed cranial rectosis, that we are all guilty of to greater or lesser degree, in order to get by, and communicate.
Labels label only the labeler.
So, in order to define "photographic art" you must first define "art". It can't be done, except on a personal level. Thoughts?