I guess what the modern artists probably argue is that in the era of photography, what's the point of a painting that is nearly indistinguishable from a photograph.
Faneuse is very lovely, wonder how she kept her skin so fair working outside?
Honestly, fine "realistic" or representational art is far different from photography. As Jacques Barzun mentions in his book "From Dawn to Decadence, Five Hundred Years of Western Culture," how can we define realism in art when the Old Masters all produced art that was "reasistic," but that was all so different from the art of the others?
Fine draftsmanship in itself does not produce great art, there has to be expressed some other quality seen or felt by the artist.
I might add that the same goes for photography, every photo, no matter who shoots it, produces accurate shapes to a degree, but only some photographers are great photographers.