I'm sorry, but the original claim dismissed an entire field of art by claiming that it boiled down to amount of wealth. I thought of writing something longer – perhaps an elegiac about the typical disparagement of what one does not understand, or a list of parallel examples that would show the stupidity of the argument (“computer programming was mostly a factor of how much CPU one could afford.”), but then I decided that it was so self-evidently absurd that it would be a waste of breath to do more than simply point it out as bullshit.
the original claim dismissed an entire field of art by claiming that it boiled down to amount of wealth
I can imagine that, say in the seventies, both camera's and film were a lot more expensive than nowadays(relatively). As practice makes perfect, really getting into photography, wouldn't be an option for all people then, because it would be too expensive a hobby.
It may have been a pretty weird blanket statement, but there may also have been a hidden context that makes it a reasonable statement.