Id love to see a good painter recreate his work using good painting techniques. As an outsider to art, I have no intuition as to why his technique is bad because to me, it looks exquisite!
Google arts and culture images give some idea as to the differences I am talking about. Below are two links, one to a Rubens painting one to Hoppers. Use the zoom function to show their incredible detail. A godsend for teaching.
Rubens was perhaps the most skilled painter to have ever lived, but has frequently been critiqued for his lack of content.
Hopper treated colors ‘locally’. This means that a red thing would be painted with red paint, and a blue thing with blue paint. Like a child with a coloring book. I show students how to moderate hue, saturation, lightness amusing a range of pigments.
If you have time, check out the difference between the two.
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-wrath-of-achille...
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/nighthawks-edward-ho...
I see what you are saying about the merit of distillation. However, Of Rubens, I would say that he has an increadable economy to his brushwork. He suggests with a few marks, what other painters would painfully describe in longhand.
where I actually went (I think this is it). It's small enough to see in a couple of hours.
There are artists who don't even know what's good technique or what's bad; they just create. I'm not saying this is better or worse, but it's always interesting.