Clarification:

If a piece of art "looks like a photograph," that's because it was copied from a photograph.

Since when did imitating the depth of field or washout/darkening effects created by a camera become more real than making those choices manually? And I'm not so old fashioned that I think this can only happen from life, I've seen a lot of complex awesome paintings made more real through inventive photoshop manipulations. Its just that to make this work you have to keep very clear the difference between the eye, computer code, and a lens.
This is why a bit of me dies when I hear that reaction, "wow... it looks like a photograph," like its a triumph of technique. It's a triumph of accuracy and patience maybe, but lacking in the innovative and creative stuff that creates truly impressive technique.