Sure it is. The artist is inspired, and channels his inspiration through his artwork.
Whats left after that, is the critics of his work, and whether they get close to the artist's vision or not.
Regardless, art is open to many interpretations, without one opinion being wrong and the other one being right necessarily.

My point is, that he should have named that piece, "The homosexual bull" or something. It's a fucking cow with a dick.
It does not inspire the viewer of what bulls should be all about. Period. That's why I'm having trouble with his "realism".
Other than that, sure, his art is "realistic" enough - if you boil it down to his technique and his real life surroundings.

Anyway. I'm no expert of course, just a bull with a stubborn opinion.

---

Thanks - again. I O U.