Art doesn’t HAS to change, art and technology defines the culture, and culture feedbacks the new art acceptances and how technology develops, like a cycle. Now we are "walking" to something new, as we are becoming part of a new massive global culture, that brings the question ¿who is in charge of deciding what is good and bad, and will it be fair? or ¿should we keep making art from our roots that will divide and define us (in that case i see a hard time for the US) and who will be our audience? But that may be too philosophical and subjective.
About the representative art, later i got to the same thought when considered “David” sculpture from Miguel Angel, as the pose is very strong, and i couldn’t see that coming from a creative accident, it was clearly a decision made inside the imagination. Maybe the issue is that the word art isn’t as big as most of the people expect, art is that little or big plus that the creator puts on the piece to overcome reality, for example in a photography the composition is a decision made by the author, and it could make the subject seem more/less important from what it really was at the moment in the reality, or emphasise the feelings that is trying to transmit.
Finally, you shouldn’t say “The art is all about Photoshop” you aren’t even considering all the visual arts, all the painting nor even all the digital illustration possibilities. Most important you are thinking of art just about the visuals forgetting of the other forms of art, such as music, theatre, literature, dance, gastronomy, etc. Actually now video games are considered a new art form
I hope i cleared how i see it, and didn't confused anybody.