No offense, but to me that makes no sense whatsoever.
I paint and I photograph. If I pick up my brush, dip it in paint and swipe it across a canvas, I have created a painting. I and my fellow painters would call the canvas a painting. If I pick up my camera, point it at a wall and trip the shutter, the file or film in the camera is a "photograph," and would be called so.
Quite true! Whether or not the painting or the photograph of the wall is interesting or meaningful is always a matter of opinion. Someone who views the print of the brick wall might be obsessed with bricks and their different styles and textures and might think, 'Wow! I've never seen that type of brick before. Look at the texture and the subtle coloring and shading. That's the most beautiful brick-work I've ever seen!'
On the other hand, someone who's into abstract painting and who thinks Jackson Pollack is the greatest, might view that swipe across the canvas as very meaningful in a personal way.
If we step back from the emotional and personal appeal that a painting or photograph may have, we should be able to see clearly that the camera is the master when it comes to accurate portrayal of what the eye sees. However interesting or uninteresting the casual shot of the wall may be, it would take a whole school of Chinese painters with magnifying glasses and fine-haired brushes to even emulate the grain and fine texture of the brick wall.
That the camera is supreme in its ability to capture and represent reality is so obvious, I can't understand why we are having this discussion.
Okay! On second thoughts, I can. Because it has always been possible to maipulate photographic images (even in the wet darkroom) to suit an artistic taste, then we can use the false logic that the photograph does not represent reality. This is merely a tautology. If I alter the reality of a photograph, then the photograph shows an altered reality. That's pretty obvious, isn't it? .