At the time of the camera's invention most artists specialized in creating portraits as realistically as possible hence the creation of the argument that the camera killed art. As people began using cameras they quickly realised that having a portrait painted was not only more time consuming but it was also never going to be as detailed as a photo, as a result many artists have found themselves without a proper job as they were simply outcompeted by the camera therefore in some ways it is appropriate to agree that the camera did 'kill' the art style that was reigning supreme at the time however the creation of the camera has also spawned several new movements that would have not been even acknowledged if the art industry at the time was not in such a state. 

As mentioned before, with the invention of the camera many art movements were created to compete with photos on a different level than detail, one of these movements was J.W.Turner, he set out to capture the emotion given off by a setting rather than focusing on the detail. This was the first in the movement that would come to be known as "Impressionism". The movement aimed to capture the 'Impression' of a setting rather than the detail a camera could capture. This movement would not have been accepted if it wasn't for the invention of the camera. This is because at the time the definition of art was very limited to paintings trying to capture as much detail as possible. Following "Impressionism" more and more artists began to challenge what is considered 'art' and what is not. Much of art was now abstract and very different to what it used to be. 

One artist challenged the concept of detail by claiming that everything can be reduced to basic shapes such as the sphere, cone and cylinder. The artist in question is Paul Cezanne. His paintings are known to be very abstract and made up of various shapes that form the scene but do not give it much detail. This is where many people started doubting that these movements can even be called 'art'. Some did not agree to showing emotion in paintings and missed the days where painters would try to create the most detailed paintings possible. Due to this divide new movements were created, one of them being 'Photorealism''. This movement was created solely for the purpose of creating paintings that looked like photographs, therefore requiring an immense amount of detail put into them however in order to create the most realistic photo these artists must use a camera to capture the scene and then replicate all of the camera's 'flaws' such as blurring in order to create what we know as realistic photos/paintings. Such a movement would not be possible if it wasn't for the invention of the camera. 

In a sense it is plausible to say that instead of 'killing' art the camera re-invented it to create several different movements that bring variety, something that was not seen in the times when the camera was not yet invented however a divide still exists between the people who believe that all 'art' is art and people who do not wish to acknowledge abstract 'art' as they deem it too messy and sometimes don’t even see the scene the artist wanted to envision. Personally I agree that all 'art' takes skill to create however I do not see the reason for abstract art to be so widely loved as to me a lot of it looks unfinished or messy.