You may be placing too much emphasis on craftsmanship.
I had a friend in High School who was a guitar savant. He could duplicate, down to the smallest detail, the style of any guitarist performing at the time. It was amazing, and as you can imagine he was very highly regarded within the local music scene.
The problem was he had no style of his own and could only mimic the styles of other guitarists. He also never wrote any of his own music.
I don't know if anyone in the world was a better guitar technican, and I would have loved to have had his talent, but I never considered him an artist.
I don't know why it would be necessary to photoshop an image of a painting to make it look just like the painting, so I'm assuming that the "artist" you referenced made some changes to the original. (E.g. seamlessly replacing Mona Lisa's face with that of a gorilla's)
Of course the nature of the changes would determine the artistic quality of the image, but that quality need not be zero simply because the "artist" didn't spend as much time and skill on his version as did the original artist.
I can imagine that an altered image might actually be more artistic than an original, but I think that would be very rare and require the original to have little artistic value to begin with, so I suspect I would agree with you that the both works probably don't deserve the same "status as art."
The price charged for either piece represents their commercial, not artistic value.
As far as music goes, there probably is something to the notion that laboring to learn how to expertly play actual instruments may enhance one's artistic talent. In terms of the art of composing music, however, I don't think it is at all necessary, or ensures a piece of music with greater artistic value than one composed using a computer.
I think art is what you make and not how you make it.
There is every reason to value craftsmanship for its own sake and usually, at its highest levels it produces art, but as my HS friend showed, not necessarily.