When you listen to an acoustic guitar player you sometimes hear the sound of the fingers running across the strings which is, like the drips and blooms, just the nature of the beast. It may not be a part of the music as written but it is part of the ambiance created, it's still art.   Sometimes you may get a player with a cleaner sound and hear only the music rendered based on the musician's interpretation, enhanced or limited by their skill level. You have artistry either way. Some artists prefer more control others less. It's still art.

Technique and the concept or intention are integral to the work. If someone chooses to copy a photo (that they took) or a still life exactly, what is the intention of the artist? What are they expressing or saying to the audience? They may have shown mastery at understanding color, value, proportion, but where are the visible marks that reveal the artist? Where is the design? mood? or element that separates them from being a flesh and blood photocopier?

I used to do this; it was easier to create because I simply needed to draw or paint exactly what I saw. I didn't need to make any decision of what to leave out, what to exaggerate, which edge to lose or which to make hard. Photorealism is a technical pursuit in which design is not always needed.

There are photorealists with exceptional work. They have planned out and designed their composition, expressed a mood, and created a concept. (see Daniel Sprick) To those individuals, they have transcended their skill into an art.

With this being said what about the sloshy realist paintings that have poor value or overworked areas compensated by good use of color or interesting patterns. We just call them bad art or like them because of "the energy." Somehow form, proportion, and value has escaped these artists.  They are at the other end of the spectrum away from photorealists. Yet, photorealists get picked on. It's as if we know they have the skill, but question their aesthetic judgement and subject matter.