Having viewed the images in this thread..especially the last few, I can see that "HDR" photography is about as interesting/relevant to photography as "fantastic art" is to painting/art (think Roger Dean,Boris Vallejo et. al).
That is to say..it is gimmicky, stylistic, empty in content and doesn't really hold up to much repeat viewing. Eye candy.
I love the "scientific" pitch put forth to all this HDR photography...how it is a more advanced approximation of how the human eye sees...What a load of bull. Anyone that can SEE can see that this is so clearly not the case. The human eye DOES see a greater dynamic range in shadow and highlight areas, but sadly...it does not 'scan' them all at once like in an HDR photo. The traditional photograph, with it's..ahem..more limited dynamic range, leads the eye of the viewer to create a visual experience that is enhanced by the composition of light. HDR does not enhance this...it actually flattens it. Thus, the compositions looks flat and the eye doesn't move...it only gets dazzled at the outset.
Though I love red wine, I am not an authority. I imagine a good wine can only be discerned by an informed pallette...not just on it's initial impression but by it's other subleties. Aftertaste, i'm sure, being an important one. HDR photos leave a rather unpleasant one...rubbish, really.