If photography was not an art...then one photo would be as good as the next. nsfw https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/423/
Can I split the difference and say yes and no? While there are examples of photography that could qualify as art, most photography does not. Most photography is a record of something, and not a deliberate creation. I specifically would exclude any photograph of something that is itself art (a photo of a design element of an art deco building, for example), a photograph of nature, animals, or scenery (the beauty is in the original, not in the photo), and any still taken from a movie (accidental catch, not deliberate creation). All of these can qualify as great photographs, but I wouldn't call them art.
Not all photography is art. A family photo taken by uncle Billy is not art. Knowing how to capture the light or the moment, or how to get just the right perspective, to make a photograph that stirs the soul, is art.
Your logical is flawed. If I said if vacuum cleaners were not art then one vacuum would be as good as the next, I am not sure anybody would take me seriously, yet that is your logic. Art is largely a visual expression, so anything visual could be art in the right context.