I'm coming in late to a discussion that seems to be over. That happens when you don't do internet for several days at a time. But I'll toss out a few observations anyway.
The premise of the article seems sound but the writer over-thought his subject. There really are too many images assaulting us from every direction these days. The proliferation of so many photographs is made possible largely by the technology--whether the image is made in traditional means or not, the ability to display, publish and sell photographs has been improved by the internet and digitalization of the image. We are saturated with visual information and this saturation has tended to lessen the value of all visual information.
Per the article: "The medium's special aptitudes...no longer seem quite so special. Instead, photography has become ubiquitous, frictionless and trivial."
And: "What is art, after all, but a dream of significance, of some things mattering more than others, a concentration and distillation of the great, formless everything that surrounds us into something more meaningful?"
A little too wordy and clumsy, perhaps, but also correct. We're bombarded with mediocre images to the point that our special art of photography is becoming insignificant. We can deny it if we wish. I don't think we traditional photographers should worry so much about the discontinuance of film, chemicals, photographic paper and film cameras. What we do could simply become considered irrelevant.