I don't believe classical style visual art is overrated. My local art gallery, the AGO, had a large exhibition on Caravaggio a few years ago and I remember seeing the shocked expressions on the majority of the visitors.
What is interesting and telling is that they showed a 'name' like Caravaggio, and not any of the countless contemporary painters who are every bit is technically skilled as Caravaggio was, and perfectly capable of emulating his style. If the classical visual style was still relevant in itself, every art gallery would be showing off those contemporary artists.
The fact that you can't really think of any artists or ever see their work out in the world kind of proves my points.
However, I've not got a horse in this "classical is overrated" race.
The first to do something are remembered, those who come after must be significantly better or different to be recognized. If someone wants to see Caravaggio's style, they are likely to simply see Caravaggio - it's just name recognition, nothing to do with the "relevancy" of the style itself, whatever that means (Popularity? Or a self-fulfilling justification for whatever style the art world elite is pushing?)
And there are in fact newer artists with name recognition that painted in a representational style (but not the exact same style), e.g. Dali, Frazetta, Giger, Beksiński.
Not knocking the skill involved, being a high fidelity human rendering engine takes a lifetime of dedication as well as a base level of natural talent which very few possess.
Maybe I am exaggerating my perceptiveness, but being shocked by Caravaggio paintings is not at all uncommon.
The machine may threaten to usurp the mass market but the few, skilled organics will always, hopefully, have artisanal works to sell.