I've been asked many times which I prefer between art and photography.
I have to say that in my opinion, that's a trick question. i feel as though each is a different creature entirely.
Having essentially no training in either of these fields, I'm merely giving an opinion from my extremely limited experience . . . but this is what the difference is to me.
photography consists of narrowing down what already exists in any given setting. that narrowing down can be of space (for example, zooming in to take a macro shot, or focusing on a specific plane) or (necessarily) of time... for example, catching an instant that was part of a trajectory... like the picture below.
It consists of narrowing the field of vision... which is probably more technically classified as framing.
an infinite number of completely different photographs are possible in any single field of vision. this is amazing to me, and i get excited just typing about it.
photography is limited to expressing things that physically exist. this is not necessarily a negative aspect. this point can also be argued, particularly by those who process film or edit digitally.
After having reached this point, i realize that it is overambitious of me to attempt to define the aspects of visual arts excluding photography... especially the abstract.
i have to learn more first. or at the very least, get better at thinking in words.