well I consider the 3d program or the 2d program as tools, just like a brush or pallete knife, they are to be mastered for what they add to the creation process. Each artist controls the "technique" they use, if one uses a fine brush to paint to look like the larger wash type brushes then they have applied one tool differently from the way others apply the same tool...the end result well that is what you are creating after all...so if one is wanting to use only one brush or one color to create their work it is a style, a technique they employ not any better or worse than any other technique or style available...in other words if I can achieve the "impressionistic" style with brushes, and oil paints or the same with 2d or 3d computer art programs ...I am still intending to create in that style. I am not sure we are able to call 3d a "style" or 3d with or without post work a style or technique... rendering is itself a variable in many programs...Poser has a sketch render choice of output...does that make a poser render using the sketch output 2d or 3d?.... This argument seems to make a lot of assumptions about "programs in general", without defining or separating the ability to model, to pose, to render ... what 3d computer programs and 2d computer programs require in my view are a series of artistic results...modeling like sculpturing within the 3d environment...texturing is a new thingy within a 3d environment using 2d techniques and some intermediate programs...texturing is almost an artform in its own right...projecting images onto shapes...atmosphere...all of these things are thought out differently in 3d/2d environments... all of these "tools" expand our ability to create...if it is not the end result it is the exploration of the technique...the bottom line is it should be what each individual expresses that is the end result, the steps, the tools, the techniques well those are extensions of the creative process....DaVinci had the right idea...