Like any other technique, HDR has to be used appropriately and well. You can't make a poorly composed image good by shooting and processing it as an HDR.

I very much enjoy HDR both for its artistic potential and also to allow natural looking results in difficult lighting situations but there really are a whole lot of horrible examples out there.

Mis-use of HDR is like over-seasoned food - it is arresting but ultimately it ruins your palate.

90% of what is done with HDR is just plain horrible. The rest is absolutely stunning and beautiful. I don't do it myself, as I come from the time of film and I enjoy spending more time shooting than postprocessing, but I truly enjoy the results when it's well done.
I think the learning curve is tough, and intermediate results shouldn't be shown, but people normally don't have a good criteria to tell crap from beautiful, and they just publish everything.
I have hope in HDR, meaning that probably camera producers are probably researching ways to increase the dynamic range directly in camera, so I am willing to see the day when results will come in form of new in-camera techniques.

The extent of HDR processing seems to be entirely a matter of taste, rather than artistic or photographic rules.
Personally, I find heavily HDR'd photos to take on an almost sinister appearance, like a still from a Tim Burton movie. But, depending on the photo, it can work well as a creative effect.
I like HDR when it serves to impart the drama of a scene as the eye sees it. It can work miracles to transform a photo by restoring blown highlights and pulling out detail in shadows.
I immediately dislike any photo that has HDR halos. Always seems like an amature playing with a new toy to try and con people that their poor or mediocre shots are cool.
Blech!

looks great,too bad it becomes a "fashionable" style and everyone starts using it.

I love HDR when you're going for something surreal. It's more expressionistic. But I wouldn't use it for just any photo, just like I don't keep a polarizing filter on all the time, or a cross-screen, or leave it in B&W mode.

Use it like a tool, and know when to use the right tool.

In a sense, it is an effect that dramatizes an otherwise less dynamic image. Given this, its more of a playground for amateur photographers than a widely used tool for professionals. I think keeping this in mind will let people survey what's out there appropriately.

Even some of the top pro photographers in the world used HDR and overlay them over their photos.

HDR is another tool in the artist pallet.

Image if you will, that you are and Eagle what you see is not what you and I would recognize as a perception of normal. Now substitute the word Eagle for animal of your choice or even alien. Perception of what you are seeing is again changed. HDR is no more that a change of the possibilities that is any artists entitlement to explore.

Paul Brace
http:///www.image-in-usa.com

i like it when its subtle, alot of times people get carried away with the sliders when tweaking a photograph and turn it into a monster haha

I like it when it's like the photo above: an enhancement to the picture, not overdone. Most of the HDR that I see is way overdone, too saturated. It should make you say "wow," not "whoa!"

HDR Photography was a great style in its infancy, however today now that it is a common trend, its over-used and can become boring and ugly unless done and used correctly, for example Dave Hill's photos.
However, I cannot deny the HDR's technique to bring out more detail in a photo. Works effectively when overlaying an HDR at 50% over the original photo, to produce great contrast between the highlights and shadows.

You don't feel that Dave Hill is overphotoshopped?

I feel like he is less a photographer and more a graphic artist that uses photography as a base.

Where would you draw the line between photography and graphic art? At what point does it become "too much"?

It doesn't have to be real. In certain respects, it's closer to the way we see.