No the computer does it all… 
which makes it less real because…? This is kind of a medieval line of thought if you think about it. Does something have to be tangible to be real? Is Van Gogh’s Starry Night less real because it’s not a painting of a real place? Is it the paint on the canvas that makes it real, or the idea inside his head (which- ironically enough is intangible). I can imagine painters at the turn of the 20th century chastizing the use of pre-made oil paints rather than mixing pigment and oil manually, because it wasn’t true to the artform. Honestly, it’s the idea that comes out of your head that is art. The human imagination and perception is art, not the paper it’s printed on, the type of canvas you use, or the monitor it’s displayed on.
I know man, I love the new keyboards with the “make art” button. What a time saver. Who needs talent these days? I have ALL of my Wacom express keys buttons programmed to it. One touch strip is set between the “realism” and “abstract” buttons, and the other between the “contemporary” and “modern” buttons. It’s awesome. 
By real I did not mean true, valuable, important or anything like that. By real I meant part of the real, physical world. It is a fact that if something is inside the computer (whether entirely computer generated, somewhat computer assisted in rendering, or completely from scratch) it’s not part of the real world, to touch, smell, etc etc.
Computers do enable artists to produce work at a faster rate and as such most commercial studios use them for production art. In production, specifically with digital technology, you can (and are encouraged to) ‘cheat’ and cut corners wherever possible to save time/money. Whether that’s with masking tricks, projection master, or cutting and pasting photos. In this sense there is a huge difference between natural media and digital media.
If you’re producing art digitally for yourself (and enjoyment of your patrons) you can choose to work slower if you wish, and do everything from scratch. In this case the process wouldn’t be as different between natural media and digital media.
We have to remember that digital paint software, digital sculpting software and so forth was pioneered by industry pros who did things the old school way and found that computers could speed up production and literally do some of the work for us. Digital software is an emulation of natural media and the real, physical world that we interact in everyday.
I believe only the artist him/herself determines if their work is art or not.
Take care
I completely agree,and I don’t think there is anythyng wrong in saying this.
Illustration work(2d classic works made with oils,aerography,and so on for cover books)is another field where you have/want to go fast,time is money.
I remember that I read more than ten years ago how Boris Vallejo(excellent illustration painter) did his commercial works,doing photographs,scaling these photos bigger with a machine(camera lucida)and using the tracing paper to transfer this drawing on the board(to be honest also the renaissance artists used some techniques to transfer the draws).
He is skilled and can work without these helps,but time is money.
I think in 3d is the same,if you do something for yourself how many time you put in it isn’t important and the work is more genuine(MHO).
Bye
Ask your friend to try using Z-Brush, he might re-think his comments. It takes just as much skills to create, sculpt and paint as it does to be a tattoo artist. Let him watch you use Z-Brush, he might switch careers…
I use erasers, including an electric one for detailing, to basically “undo” things in a controlled manner. I use stencils, french curves, painter’s tape, and frisket to “mask” things. I’ve used projectors and grids at times. Some use tracing and transfer paper. Back in the airbrush days, I even used to create stipple effects by deflecting or ramping the spray off of a playing card! It was great for dirt or pavement! This list could go on for pages, but it’s like saying someone is cheating by drawing a straight line with a ruler. Most digital tools are just another form of a “real” tool.
All artists would be cheaters if that’s how we define what is authentic or not.
I do see where some digital output seems more gimmicky. However, that doesn’t make all of the great digital art out there less authentic. The amount of thought that goes into a piece definitely matters, and shows.
“We have to remember that digital paint software, digital sculpting software and so forth was pioneered by industry pros who did things the old school way”
Which brings up an interesting thought. What art forms are there which have arisen primarily from the digital world?
Video games come to mind. Their production involves creation of art in traditional styles (painting, sculpting), but then those assets are combined into something entirely different. They are complex digital works designed to offer an experience to an audience. Many may not feel very ‘artistic’, but others do.
Or maybe web design? There are plenty of experimental and/or hobbyist websites out there which function as art pieces more than anything else.
“Ask your friend to try using Z-Brush, he might re-think his comments. It takes just as much skills to create, sculpt and paint as it does to be a tattoo artist. Let him watch you use Z-Brush, he might switch careers…”
Thats funny, I was a tattoo artist for about 5 years (all personal clients and custom jobs). I also freelanced as a traditional commercial sculptor until a friend showed me zbrush…its been all digital ever since…not to mention theres more work in digital medium.
It is the combination of so many disciplines which I found appealing about 3D.
btw nothing does quite replace that feeling of hot flesh and blood as you illustrate on skin…always gave me adreline 
I don’t think it wise to claim an authenticity in art…if we did then there would be nothing to improve on.