skill acquired by experience, study, or observation; a branch of learning:; one of the humanities… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
"the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects "
Key words, "creative" and "imagination". Also note the "and".
So the actual problem is not your definition of art, but your definition of "creative" in terms of art. Ok.
Creative, same dictionary:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creative
"marked by the ability or power to create
: given to creating"
Well ok, that's not helpful yet. But it links to the definition for "create":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/create
"1. to bring into existence"
Photographers do that! The scene may or may not be created, but the photograph is! Regardless if it's just a file, or a print, or metallic, or whatever. The photograph, like a painting or sculpture, is "brought into existence". This is irrelevant to the scene being represented, which was the condition you stipulated earlier. Or in short, it's like grammatical sentence structure - art is the "object", the medium upon which the subject is represented. Either can be anything, because it is defined by the artist and their audience.
2 and 3 are not relevant.
"4a to produce through imaginative skill"
Imaginative skill - that's artistic photography!
If I do nothing but open the box, charge the battery, attach the lens, turn it on, point indiscriminately, and press the button, that is probably not an artistic statement. Even photojournalism is purposeful, and at times results in artistic results. Art can be accidental (in other words, something creatively accomplished which lacks a skill component - more on this in a second). However, I will ignore that for the sake of this discussion.
But artistic photography DOES involve "imaginative skill". In the case of a landscape, a photographic artist must have a mind's eye view of the end result they want to produce, which may or may not be targeting an exact reproduction - that's the IMAGINATION - and then they must have the SKILL to set the camera appropriately, and treat the resulting file (or film) accordingly to achieve that imagined result. You have been suggesting photography is not "art" because it's a "skill" when your own definition of "art" includes "skill" right in it! There is certainly photography which is definitively not art; for example test charts for the purpose of measurement, or photographing scientific specimens for the purpose of education. But there is also photography done for the purpose of artistic expression, and I'm sorry you've yet to witness any in your time because it can be truly breathtaking; as much as any painting or sculpture you've ever seen.