This is a tough nut to crack. I'm sure everyone had to be trained to regard digitally produced fine art as inferior, just as we have to be trained that digital photography is inferior to what? glass plates and silver solutions? Apparently, it falls under the realm of 'if it is available to the masses, it can't have much value'. I too, used to sneer at digital artwork as well, as a 'cheat', which I'm sure is the initial reaction of most of the 'just looking' public and other 'real' artists. Of course it's acceptable and expected in movies and entertainment as CGI, but NOT for something to be hung in one's home and especially not for a museum. So my solution to that is to create my artwork in ArtRage and then employ some Chinese knock-off sweatshop to recreate it in oils upon request, but to fully disclose the process to the buyer in the purchase order. That way, the art patron is then participating in the process. As far as other 'true' artists go, have them check themselves against the artists at Cennini Forums and see if they really measure up. They may be shocked at what constitutes 'professional artist' from 'real artist'. I know I did. And have them view the video of David Kassan painting on his ipad. It all takes time to accept the new, but there is no way any 'real' painter is going to revert to grinding their own pigments or raise and butcher rabbits for rabbit skin glue and other 'real' materials. (Does ranting count as performance art?) Just smile and thank them for their opinion and say at least you never worry about having to dispose toxic materials from your studio.