Ahh I love this kinda threads. Recently read a lot of posts where CSers talk about this and feel like chipping in my 2c worth.
IMO, there are two ways of seeing photography and cameras - as a realist tool for representing truth, and an expressionist tool for artistic expression. To different people, cameras take up different roles and have varied purposes. To the photojournalistic people, the camera serves as a way to depict an event and the tool is valued for it's accurate representation of a real life event. So to these people, editing should be kept to a minimum and the photo should be as similar to what the eye sees as possible.
I belong to the latter, and hold an expressionist orientation in my approach to photography. Photography, although not very much acknowledged by painters etc, is to me a form of art. The camera is like a paintbrush just that it records light and doesnt smear colour onto a canvas. The light gathering from the sensor or film is only the first step of creating an image. This is followed up by editing, printing, or digitally presenting the image. The entire process should lead to the display of the image as an art piece for appreciation or enjoyment just as a painting would be to viewers.
Although everyone have their thoughts on what photography is, it is important to not dismiss another person's opinion on what photography is to them. Serial photo editors should not look at unedited photojournalistic work as unrefined, but rather a different school of thought in how one approaches photography.
On TS's question on whether lomography is considered photography, my answer is a definite yes because photography essentially is the recording of light on a medium regardless of how distorted the presentation of the image is. However, it is safer to view lomography as a form of expressionist type of photography where the purpose of the medium is for artistic expression.
