Photography: Art or technology?

ever since the camera was invented its been one big argument about it! what do u think?

Pushing the button is technology and anyone can do that. Taking a photograph is an art. You have to learn composition and all kinds of other rules, then ignore the rules when they conflict with your creative goals. So the part with light flowing through lenses and landing on photo-sensitive material is technology (which many photographers have little to do with except learning how to use it for their vision) and the part where the photographer is creative and has ideas and thoughts to pass on is art. Paint brushes and pencils were also cutting edge technology at one point.

I have seen some very beautiful photographs that I would consider artwork.

I think it really depends on the artistic eye of the person behind the camera. An artist is an artist no matter what media they use and you can tell it when you look at their work.

Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.

What some people consider art others consider garbage. Art is subjective in any media. You can find it in photography, painting, sculpture, and many other forms.

I say Art.

If there was no camera (technology) i would still draw pictures (not that i am the best). I am sure artists would start to make more money.

But if there was no image (art) what can a camera capture?

so i think that backs up my point for saying Art. What do you think?

certainly photography would not be possible without technology. However, just because photography is intimately tied to a technology does not mean it is tethered to being a science. Movies and television are intimately tied to technology, yet when you are watching American Idol you don't question whether the program you are watching is entertainment or technology.
To restate your question, the argument over whether photography is an art or science really hasn't been so much the debate so much as to whether photography can be included as an art. At least in the United States this argument was laid to rest at the dawn of the 20th century thanks in part to the efforts of Alfred Stieglitz whose various efforts in the field of photography raised photography to the level of a true art.
As to whether or not the public buys into the concept of photography as an art just consider that one of the most popular shows ever held at the New York Museum of Modern art was "The Family of Man ", which was a photo exhibit.
Photography is not just a technology, a tool used to record the world as we see it, because lets face it how a camera sees the world and how we see the world are two different things though superficially similar. Anyhow, photography can be an art if what is being practiced is an act of creativity. However make a note that just because photography can be an art, not all photographs as art.

i think it's ultimately art, but the technology is the tool to deliver and capture the art.

It's art and photography IMO was never more popular. The word digital got introduced no everyone and there grandmother has to have a camera. I am myself find that old school cameras with less technology are more to my liking.Thus I am having trouble looking for a digital camera to purchase. For now I am shooting primarily with a great N90s . Not sure what I am going to buy for myself when it comes to a dslr's though. I am not a pro and don't need a million features I take my time and make artistic photos that are an extension of the things I love.