Quote -  sigh  I don't think HeWhoWatches was saying that photorealism isn't art.  Just that technical skill isn't always everything you need to make art.

That's exactly what I meant when I said that "photorealism isn't (necessarily) art."  Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly.  There's a difference between technical skill with something and the creation of artwork.  A stonemason CAN make art, but generally doesn't.  She or he doesn't have to do so.  A good, solid, functional, aesthetically-appealing wall is a fine goal without having to be art.  The render I saw of Obama's face clearly took a lot of skill and talent.  The goal of the piece was clearly to create a photorealistic render of Obama's face, not to make a statement or engage the emotions of the viewer.  This is just fine, and there's nothing wrong with it.  As several people here have pointed out, creating photorealism can be just as challenging as assembling oddly-shaped stones into a sturdy wall.  My argument -- my opinion if you will -- is that a great many people here seem to have made photorealism their goal instead of the creation of art.

Photorealism can be art, just as arrangements of stones can be art.  But when the goal itself is technical and not artistic, then it is axiomatically not art.