I could write pages about this but the kernel of my quasi disagreement resides in the statement “Photography is art.” No. Photography can be art, but not everyone uses it for that purpose. “Yay!” acceptable photography is easier for everyone, “Boo!” that there is more chaff to separate the wheat from.
To dig into this a little more, the digital photography revolution has enabled photographers to learn more faster by essential charging for all the images up front. See film cameras were relatively inexpensive. Maybe a couple hundred for a pro-sumer model. With film every frame costs money, up front with the cost of the film, and after shooting with the cost of processing and printing. Comparable digital cameras cost approximately ten times as much, they have a lifespan of around 50,000 images or 4 years which ever comes first. Essentially photographers went from being cautious to being extremely explorative. This paradigm shift has exploded the creativity of image making into dimensions that were nonsensical with film. Conversely there are elements of creative film photography that are lost in the digital realm. Very much has been gained, but it’s not without a cost. If you still create, learn, and explore with film as well as digital you can really enjoy the best that both worlds have to offer.