I completely get your point about technology, I have seen a lot of similar images that have been made digitally to emulate traditional fine art. I work in graphic design and the software I use every day has lots of tools for replicating realistic brush strokes, as well as textures to overlay onto the document as a whole. That being said, I think there are a huge number of objects and products that people continue to make by hand despite the fact that there are processes and machine that COULD also produce them. Certain markets continue to pay a lot more for clothes that have been sewn or knit by hand, pottery that has been hand sculpted, furniture that has been hand carved. I think the same applies to realist art, while many people will be happy with something digital or a photo, the market will still be there for a painting. In terms of the artists personal impression, I try to communicate things through composition, and I think you can say quite a lot whilst still conforming to the realist style. I think it’s also important to consider is the way the art is being received, it just doesn’t translate onto a screen, and while we can admire a painting for looking like a photo, for me I’ll always been amazed standing in front of a piece of realist art, seeing the tiny details but also the texture and depth that comes with brush strokes. That being said, I’m probably biased because this is the type of art I personally love most!