Always puzzle me to hear people list photography (in the context of it being art) and something different than art. Is there a reason for this historically?
Not all photography is art, not because of some failure, but because it never meant to be that. Some documentary photography may be art, but most isn't. Some of it is just recording a moment. Most photography is decoration, or otherwise functional, not meant to be art, let alone upper-case-a Ahhrt, or Fine Art.
"What is art?" is a constant question — in fact, it's a question with no fixed answer, but a continuing conversation. See some of this in the context of photography at What makes "fine art" fine art? In fact, a useful definition may be that art is any work which participates in that conversation — it's the dialog itself which makes something art rather than any intrinsic feature of the work. Clearly, that's beside the point of much photography, which simply isn't interested in that.
But you don't have to even be concerned with this question to appreciate the craft of photography, as many people do. Art is important, but the label — or its lack — isn't necessarily a value judgment.
And of course, there's no question that there's plenty of art that isn't photography:
I probably should have made the photography circle much smaller next to all of art, but hey, this is a photography site after all. :)