I feel that an earlier point bears repeating here: many "traditional media" artists consider anything which is created on a computer to be non-Art.  Artificial; fake.  No matter which high-priced 3D software package was used to produce it, or how "realistic" the final results appear to be.

BTW - since when is realism the end-all and the be-all of art, anyway?  Realism might be the holy grail of 3D (to some of us), but it isn't the holy grail of art in general.  Besides which: Mental Roy's (mental roy's?) 3D art in that example gallery doesn't look so realistic to me..........

And there's also another point that's been mentioned in these types of threads before, because it's pertinent: give the software / hardware developers a few more years to work on the problem, and pushbutton "Make Art" 3D realism will be commonplace: within fairly easy reach of any 10-year-old with a computer and some basic software.  Given that, the question will then become "who is the real 3D artist?"  The software end-user who makes images on his computer, or the programmer who wrote the software which made those images possible?  Not to mention the hardware developers who produced the high-powered machines needed to drive such software...........tsk tsk tsk -- "art" which drops out of sophisticated PC magic.  The best users of such software being little different from the 17-year-old who's mastered the latest version of Half-Life, and who can use the software to out-shoot anyone else in the game.  Which is an accomplishment of sorts -- but it's not as if he could have achieved it without the use of somebody else's "pre-made content" which made his accomplishment possible in the first place.

I'm sure that he'll brag about what he's done, anyway.......and he'll sound as if he did it all by himself.

Something To Do At 3:00AM