I do not value gravitas in art, and I’m unsure what sort of worth, exactly, you’re talking of here.
I do not believe that you, or anyone else, can post an image here that will convince anyone physical is the way to go.
I do, however, think that the tricount and texture resolution possible in the real world makes it absolutely impossible for digital to compete as far as static art goes. Well, digital art may be easier to get good at, giving it an early advantage, but a physical painting can, for example, have actual physical depth if created with many layers of paint, something that simply isn’t possible to give to something that will only ever be displayed as a pattern of lights in a flat surface.
Of course, if what you’re doing with your art is posting it on the internet, obviously the advantages of the physical world cease to apply and being able to render every leaf on a tree, calculating how it will shade and light the leaves and objects around it, before running it through anti-aliasing and whatnot suddenly gains the upper hand.