I'll throw in another link to an article that I think goes to Jim's point.
How much to get the picture?
Jeff Wall takes massively staged photographs. Are the images any less real because he staged them? Are they of less value? The National Gallery of Victoria (Aus) sure doesn't think so (they recently paid $1 million for the artists proof of one of his prints). I'll put forward the idea that as long as it's not trying to pass for actual news (which I realize seemed to be the point of the first post), then it's no less real than a painting is. Perhaps off the topic, but it fits in nicely somehow with Jim's comment above
