Fine art has always been created with a mix of two factors. Mechanical skill, and the heart and soul. Any art piece would be created by the mechanical expertise and proficiency of an artist, regardless of the medium or material, but the idea? The soul of the work? These would always come from an artist's inspiration and perception of the world about them.
This is why the art style of Photorealism is so debated. There is definitely mechanical skill. The finest crease in fabric, the slightest glare of sunlight. All of this is conveyed in painstaking detail in a photorealistic piece. But, as critics often cite, these pieces simply depict what is literally in a space. There is no artistic soul to the work, and regardless of the skill, some critics will not be impressed by it.
This movement begun in the 1960s, seemingly in response (or retaliation) to the pop-art movement. By recording even the slightest detail that a high-end camera could capture, photorealists were able to create striking images, even more vibrant than the photographs they were sourced from.
In my own opinion? Art depends entirely on the artist themselves. The photorealism movement shows off an incredible amount of skill. And that's all that is necessary for art to be enjoyed.