In a way, this seems like the old "I had to walk 10 miles through the snow to get to school," cliche. Technology makes things "easier" and some will always see this as a reason to devalue the end result. By this logic, a novel created on a word processor can never be as good as one written with a quill pen. It must be deeply rooted in the Puritan work ethic, this idea that if you didn't study for years, live in a freezing garret and eat gruel, you can't possibly produce anything of artistic value. Somehow, you haven't suffered enough I suppose. This kind of elitism flourishes in a realm like art, where so much is subjective. Any true artist who is passionate about their work should not be moved by such criticism. The audience, except for those who let critics make up their minds for them, could not care less how a work was produced or what tools were used. In the future, Poser may well incorporate far more sophisticated faetures which will make things like lighting and posing incredibly easy and make postwork to fix flaws unnecessary. When that happens, will those who now use those tasks to define "artistry" change their views? If the computer can cycle through thousands of poses, light setups and special effects, allowing you to pick your favorite will it be art and if so, who will the artist be, you or the computer? More importantly, if the resulting image touches you, moves you, makes you laugh or cry, does it matter? Art, even commercial art, has no value except to the extent that it produces some emotional response in the viewer and/or the person who created it. Until someone creates a cybernetic soul, there are no digital or analogue emotions. Quibbling over how the work that produced those emotions was created is a strange exercise indeed.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken