Scruton

If Roger isn't dealing with real photography how can he begin to represent it? I just dont understand how he can label photography casual because of the point to point relationship between the photograph and the subject and not be able to see that art can be looked at the same. Granted a photograph maybe an exact copy of something but would the subject that was captured be worth observing if the photograph had not been taken? I feel like Scruton should have broadened his claims a bit more because something is missing from how he defines photography.

A little help please

On friday I wasn't able to stay in class and be apart of the discussion but I would really like to clear a few things up. If Scruton believes that photography cannot be representational why doesn't he address the fact that some works of art done by painters can also be described the same? How can a photograph not be appreciated aesthetically? It is understandable that photos are simpler in composition than a painting but I believe that some photographs have greater value than paintings at times.