Quote - As has been pointed out elsewhere: there are some "artistic traditionalists" who deny that anything which is done on a computer can be properly called "art".

Some perhaps, but not all. Probably not even most, which raises an interesting question. “So what?”

Saying that is to miss the point.  And in an odd way: to get the point at the same time -- while probably still missing it, but stumbling over it in the dark. 

Quote - On the other hand, I'll agree with the "traditionalists" this far: sure, a high-end program user might possess more technical skill than an average Poser user -- but technical skill is what he's demonstrating. In the PC / CG / 3D world -- I think that many people tend to confuse technical skill with artistic talent.

A sculptor might be adept at modeling clay in real life, but if he takes up Zbrush and produces similar results in a computer program he ceases to demonstrate his artistic talent? An artist paints pictures with oil on canvas but if he paints in Painter X it is a mere technical skill devoid of talent? Why, I wonder? What is it about computer art that saps the talent away and leaves a raw, technical husk? I'm being facetious, of course. The proof is in the pudding and denial is just a river in Egypt. (For further details, check the Zbrush gallery at Pixologic.)

It's a good thing that no one stated nor argued that all high-end 3D'ers are mere technicians without artistic talent.  But many of them are.........which was the point.  Yet their "tools of the trade" don't get slammed for that reason.

Something To Do At 3:00AM