Thank you for all the responses!
It's an interesting question. Some cinematographers, such as Roger Deakins, disguise their work so well that it's extremely difficult to tell what is natural and what is artificial. I am member of Mr. Deakins website (as is jeclark2006; that's right, I see you man!) and I can't tell you how many times their have been questions how he lit something and his response is that he didn't. The same is true vice versa.
On the other hand, someone like Robert Richardson is overtly stylish and his sources are rarely motivated. I love his work though and many of the films he's worked on are classics. Given, many of his films are overtly stylish in nature, but there are a number of scenes that the motivation is questionable and yet it doesn't seem to matter.
I am proud of my work and see growth with every venture, I was just curious to see how you all felt. The DP of LOTR, Andrew Lesnie, was once questioned on a light's motivation and is quoted as saying, "the lighting comes from the same place as the music". That's pretty hilarious. If people aren't distracted by the music, then why should they be by light motivation? haha