... In no way shape or form does the digital realm approach physical art.
And there, my friend, you are wrong.
The computer is a tool, an amanuensis, transcribing the artist's or author's thoughts and commands. Are novels no longer valid because an author uses a word processor instead of a typewriter, or a quill pen and ink? The didital realm is merely another technique, another medium. How many people did not accept Impressionism or Modern Art when they first appeared?
Back in the early 70s I saw a Mona Lisa drawn by computer, done by a mainframe on a plotter. No, it was not the same as as the original; it was a line drawing done in red ink, but not bad, considering the state of the art of computer art back then. Although computers are putting a lot of inkers out of work in the animation field, the animators themselves have a new tool, a new medium, with which to express their art.
Is art only that which is drawn by the Rennaisance Masters?
Norman Rockwell was looked down upon by some because he was an illustrator, not an "artist." Yet, if you've ever been camping on a moonlit night, you know that his painting
The Scoutmaster on the cover of the Boy Scouts' old
Scoutmaster's Handbook was almost a photographic copy of a night campfire scene, complete with the pale wash of moonlight on the figures. Was that art or merely illustration?
Now, I don't understand Jackson Pollock's works, and I don't know which end is up on any of his later paintings, but I don't deride it as not being art. Decorative art, perhaps, as far as I'm concerned, but art just the same.
Just as Beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder, Art is in the eye of the beholder.