I'd like to ask what folk here consider to be 'photo-real'?
This might seem an obvious question but there are examples of quite well known works of art widely accepted as falling into this category (paintings by Chuck Close and Gerhard Richter for example) that I suspect wouldn't be accepted as such by some here. The paintings of these two artists are rarely totally indestinguishable from photos, and yet are obviously referenced from them. Both artists have made insightful works both about and from the use of photographs, but there are certainly examples of which, when seen in isolation from their wider bodies of work, might appear to many as having little meaning beyond being a painting of a photo. I would suggest looking at greater depth (especially at Richter, who I personally consider to be one of the modern masters).

I'm not sure it's always so obvious from any given piece to assert that the goal of the creator wasn't to make a statement or evoke an emotion, or to create a dialogue. There are times when artists just fail to pull off their intended messages, as there are also times when the viewer just fails to get it.

While I understand the concerns the original poster  from a certain perspective, I also think it's wise not to assume too readily what peoples goals and motivations are based on one or two examples of work. I do accept that there may be many artists working in CG and traditional media who get caught up in the persuit of realism (momentarily) as an ends in itself, something I personally feel is lacking in vision, but this isn't always the case. There's a lot that can be learned from the study of realism.

I'm not really sure I see that much of a trend toward photo-realism in the galleries here anyway - a relatively small percentage of the overall postings.

 

PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.

                                      www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com