The problem around here is that everyone always wants to include in their definition of Photography the parts that they enjoy and may be good at, while excluding the parts that they find tedious or uninteresting.
If you can "see" but not effectively render, all you end up with is an imagined idea. If you can "render" but not effectively see, all you end up with is an inanimate object.
To effectively communicate your vision, you must be able to do both equally well.
I do agree that you also need the skills to render, but not perhaps to extent often discussed on APUG.