Good points. Perhaps the discussion here is influenced too much by the choice of realistic visual art as an example. I've talked about the psychological function of art more generally elsewhere (first two links below). I've also talked about art's relation to my cosmicist view of monstrous nature (bottom three links, among numerous others).
I'm still thinking through the ideal balances between art and science, and between us and the nonhuman world. The general idea is to treat nature pantheistically, so we'd have the art of nature's self-development, and then we'd have the intelligently designed response of our art/civilization to nature. Both would be creative processes, subject mainly to aesthetic evaluation. The meaning of nature's art is quite alien to our Luciferian or Faustian agenda.
And I'm ambivalent about that agenda. Elsewhere, I talk about how our objectifications and civilizations might be self-destructive and thus foolhardy. But I also see the existential impetus--namely, horror--behind this urge to progress with our contrivances, to replace the wild with the artificial. Again, I'm still working it through in my writings. I don't claim to have all the answers already.
______
