Michel Hardy-Valle, you say it so well and my experience seems to parallel yours.
The art-academics and the professional curators and critics I know are, to a man or woman, largely incapable of engaging with a photograph in terms of its formal qualities: what it looks like. That's not because these people are ignorant or unintelligent but because their training is otherwise. To graduate to an academic position, to draw salary, keep job security (even tenure), and hope for promotion it is necessary to write and expound at length about photographs. And the writing and exposition needs to take a coherent form that other academics can recognise and approve. Such dissertations reflect:
The craving of novelty and its (mis?)identification with quality and progress.
The historic placement of a photograph.
The social context surrounding the photograph with an emphasis on post-modern thought modes.
The political implications of a photograph, again post-modern or, failing that, Marxist.
The aesthetic milieu of a photograph: who influenced who?
The technical qualities of a photograph, what medium, how big, etc, so archivists will know what to do with it.
The position of a photograph in the art market, a popularity contest rather than a quality contest, run by high-rollers, chancers, and state institutions.
None of the above is of the slightest use as mental support for a creative photographer in the moment of standing behind a camera and in the presence of evocative subject matter. How will the best qualities of the subject be realised, what subtleties of composition, what lighting, what focus will make the photograph so beautiful that it commands to be looked at? Those are necessary starting thoughts and the academic world has little to teach here.
An amusing analogy told to me, by an academic no less, equated making photographs to the Native American experience of buffalo hunting. There is excitement, danger, thrills aplenty, great rewards and the potential for disaster. The academics come by after the herd has passed and read the dung: there were so many animals, they went this way, many calves, few bulls, etc, etc; a much safer career.