My thought process was...

HD picture of a sunflower > mediocre painting of wilting sunflowers using ugly colors.

Here are some sunflowers I'd vote for... by Leonid Afremov

There is something wrong with the van Gogh image. It's missing 'for Amy'. This is the real one:

http://hotcutegirlygeek.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sunflowers.jpg

I shall respectfully refuse to participate in this NSA servey

I like the photo. Sorry, Van Gogh. I like the colourfulness.

Exactly and I would also vote for the one you posted. 

Should have gone for a photo of a night sky and put up Starry Night shouldn't I?

Probably, yeah :p As someone with little knowledge of art (something i expect most the people here can relate to), my opinion of a piece of art is limited to its visual appeal. In that regard, the VVG's sunflower painting looks pretty damn ugly. Starry Night at least has a degree of charm to it (even if, again from the perspective of a laymen, it looks like something a GCSE art student could do).

On a side note, while i applaud the subtlety of this thread, it's a somewhat flawed argument (though i don't think you made it to be taken literally). Comparing realistic and stylistic graphics isn't simply a matter of immediate visual appeal, since technical accomplishment comes into play. People tend to be most impressed by things they know are difficult, and when it comes to graphics nothing is more difficult than mimicking the real world.

Personally, i think games look best when they find a balance between. I think the 2 best looking 2015 games (of what we've seen) are The Witcher 3 and The Order: 1886, since not only do they achieve an incredibly high degree of realism, but they aren't afraid to take artistic liberties in their presentation of the word (TW3 in particular). That's just my opinion though o/

Liking a piece of art just because its from a "famous artist" is exactly why i have 0 interest in art.

Well there's 2 arguments in this thread as I see it:

Firstly, it's not much use comparing apples and oranges, or a photo versus a painting, or a photorealistic game with a stylised game. All you end up with is one side screaming about high polycounts, texture resolutions and number of NPCs on screen, whilst the other side is screaming about how none of that matters because when everything is brown and grey it makes them FEEL all, like, sad and lethargic, man.

The second argument is that by dismissing off hand something for not being realistic you can stand to lose a lot. Dali, Van Gogh, Picasso, would all be lost if art was just an ongoing quest for producing a realistic image. And gaming would be nowhere near as interesting as it is if it was just a race for more power and better graphics.

There's be no Wind Waker, Mario Kart, Minecraft, Little Big Planet etc. and gaming would be far the worse for it.

Beauty is more than the number of pixels on screen or how many NPCs you can stand in a row doing nothing, but conversely there's nothing wrong with striving for photorealism. A sunflower is beautiful whether it's a photo or a famous painting.

Ultimately I guess I'm saying, just like what you like, man. There's no right or wrong answer, dude, just, like, whoa, look at my hands type....

Are you implying that Van Gogh isn't a famous artist?

And wow, I'm sad for you if you have zero interest in art. Must be a sad life.