I was recently at a symposium that included, among other things, a talk by a university archivist who specialized in photographs.

One of the challenges she had to deal with regularly was that the extensive collection that she worked with had been catalogued in various ways over the years.

As an example, rather than organizing the information according to the name of the photographer, it was often organized by subject matter instead, and as it was mostly not computerized, there often wasn't a reliable cross reference either.

As a slightly flippant example, if you wanted to find work by Ansel Adams, you wouldn't search under his name, but rather under "Mountains" or "Graveyards". Similar to what cliveh mentions above.

So if you start arguing about how to label certain types of photography, you need to keep in mind that the ways photographs have been labelled in the past have changed a lot.

And a definition of Art that says Craft doesn't matter at all if the image is strong seems to under-value the fact that artwork is both a depiction and a "thing" with characteristics of its own.

Otherwise there would be no difference between a photograph on display and a photograph depicted on a computer screen.