I wonder if painters used the same sort of argument when photography was first invented. Where it took weeks or months to create a single image before, it could now be done in a matter of hours. Albeit, just like in photography, not all painters were artists either. Or could live from it while pretending to be.
There's purists for everything. Like programmers who religiously detest using if-then-else loops, even if it could double the work effort for pretty much the same result. And if one wants to approach photography in such a fashion there's nothing wrong with that. But it's simply not the only way to do photography "right" and I find it rather snobbish, when purists look down on others because of such a silly idea.
For me photography is just one way of creating visuals, one tool. And, like any other tool, a good 99.9% of the time it is used to
not produce art.
I like it how family pics and traveling snapshots look better because of my DSLR. Without too much thought about artistry. Work related I mostly use photos as foundation for a completely different picture. Take the sky from this shot, that piece of rock here, oh, and I need this mountain range in the background. Paint in some grass, remove them telephone poles and done is my set extension. It's just one way to do my job. Others paint everything by hand or create all of it on the computer. Well, as long as the result works who's to judge?
None of it is art, but I'm not planning to sell any of my pieces for a million dollars... although that
would be nice.