Instagram is debasing 'real' photography

I have recently read this article from the guardian discussing how phone apps such as Instagram and Hipstamatic are lowering the bar of photography.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jul/19/instagram-debasing-real-photography

I have to disagree, actually, as I believe that instagram is introducing the idea of photography to many people it would not normally reach, and is allowing it to be a fun way of expressing something without the pressure of taking an amazing shot.

 "Slapping a filter on makes images look the same, gets in the way and spoils the picture."

Once again I have to disagree with the writer, sometimes using a filter can enhance the feel and texture of the subject within the image - the same way an ISO can add grain. But the same with the idea of grain, some photographers cannot bear the thought of it whereas others completely disagree and love to include it within their photographs. We are living in a digital ages however we all seem to love to cling on to that sense of nostalgia and have an obsession with the past. Using the filters within the programs can give this feel to people and perhaps add another dimension to the modern looking image we wouldn't otherwise have. As for the images all looking the same - there are various different pieces of software all with a near endless supply of filters and effects, leaving it hard for images to look the same - especially when each photo is taken in a slightly different light, or of a difference subject, or in a different setting. Overall it allows people to be creative, especially when composing images, and the feature of adding different filters and effects just allows people to explore the actual editing process of an image other photographers are familiar with.

"You can create extraordinary images using software, and I adore the possibilities that software brings to images."

Here the writer actually admits that she loves the possibility that software can bring to the images, so is she just being 'snobbish' about the possibilities that mobile editing software can bring to photography? I myself have an instagram account, and I just use it to post everyday events that my mobile phone captures if I don't have my Nikon to hand (it's a rather large camera - its not something I can carry around as easily as my phone). However, even though I have a smartphone the camera on it often blurs and is very grainy and unclear, and has a very slow shutter speed. Adding filters I think can sometimes - heavy emphasis on the sometimes - when used in a subtle way can improve the overall look of a camera phone image - again heavy emphasis on the camera phone - taking away from the imperfections such as motion blur and graininess. I also think some filters can add to the sentimentality of the images, rather than suck the life out of them, or add fake sense of history. Over time the image will gather history and love behind it, so the following statement I think is invalid.

"Also, by adding a faux-aged look to them, we in effect add a history, a longevity to the image that it intrinsically doesn't have"

Overall I believe the writer is in denial about photography of the 'WEB 2.0' age, and is taking a sort of pretentious attitude over towards who photography should be available to. Although photography can be a high art form, it can also be fun as well.