There seems to be a lot of discussion about what is 'art' and what is 'technique' I thought I'd throw in my two cents or pixels. Certainly any thing today can be reproduced with enough money and time using a computer. Even hand painted oils. The 3d tools available today like Bryce, Vue and a lot of others, facilitate the creation of scenes. Scenes in themselves are not particularly interesting. Ask any photographer. A scene needs to have some element(s) that cause the observer to look and view. An interest point, or gimmick (as in many movies). For me art is "Something that moves the observer in some tangible way" So whether it is Vue or pencil or stories or music, art is art.

Technique is what I think of as a style/gimmick used to 'sell' art. In music this is the 'hook' in the song, or the musicians long tongue (Kiss). It doesn't mean that they couldn't produce/create/perform their art but perhaps their art is more about technique than originality. When I began doing art on the computer back in the late 80s and early 90s, it wasn't much fun back then. I used Painter Version 1 then 2, Photoshop version 3 and then 4. For 3d I used TrueSpace and Extreme 3d. Then one day Bryce 1.0 for the PC came out. I had spent 20+ years painting and using the early software on a PC was not at all like painting. By 2000 the computers and software had reached a level of maturity and accessibility that 'computer art' was/is everywhere. In the late 80s and early 90s, all the fractals and 'generated' computer images that began to fill screens and some galleries were correctly seen as 'technique' not art.

I believe that tools whether they are brushes, cameras, or computers can be used to create meaningful expressions that move an observer in some real and tangible way. Art is about communication not the tools, not the medium, not even the artists. It is the translation of thought into a form that we can perceive, that is art.