How many people do you know who have lithographs, or simple posters or reproductions or "art" hanging on their walls? Is a reproduction of "art" still "Art" if that is the case than the medium is irrelevant relative to the determination of art or not. It does however affect the "value" of said art. and that is where this discussion ultimately will end up. one mans trash is another mans treasure. So in determining the "art's" value many factors will go int that. Is it an original work of art. It's possible to create signed limited editions or even only one "print" from a digital file. IE if the artist would choose to only print one copy say on archival quality canvas using the most advanced pigment dye prints etc. etc. and then hand sign that print it would then become an "original" copy. that would contribute to increasing the monetary value of the artwork.
I agree that working with a digital medium there is the perception that the art produced has no value because one can simply hit the print button and make another one. That is a flawed perception though since for all intents and purposes we could also apply that same logic to paintings and I'm sure there are numerous occurrences of reputable museums who thought they had a Monet, only to subsequently find out that it was a reproduction.
