Heh! Another "Interesting POTN Discussion"!
I agree that the OP doesn't need to waste energy on an individual who calls him/herself an "artist", and then to waste our energy by ranting about it!
That being said, we've had some very interesting discussions here with some pretty accomplished and insightul photogs about what consitutes a photograph as "art", what criteria?
One or two people will actually go as far to say that most photography is not art. It may be documenting an interesting scene, event, people, but it's more about the craft and vision of that documentation process, but falls short of what at least these folks consider "art".
For my "work", I dunno. I've spent a lot of time shooting what gets called "fine art" photography, although for me it first requires that NATURE be the "artist" for much of my shooting, whether it be a cool landscape scene, a beautiful flower, a macro of a very cool bug...or, maybe I'm looking to catch "scenes" and "character" in my street photography or event photography, waiting for something that meets my criteria as "interesting" or whatever...
It should be said that we've seen some serious disagreements in these discussions, so you might consider them "futile", but I have had my thought processes stirred up numerous times.
I do not at this point consider myself an "artist", maybe never will, but I do seek to open myself up to "creative vision" and I do look for good "subject matter"!