In fact, the article sets up a false comparison. Where are the impressionists? Where the expressionists? Why reduce art history to a conflict between empty academicism and wild primitivism? It distorts our view to reduce a continuum to two opposed extremes.
I suppose most modern art is "bosh." But that's also true of most academic art. It would be a good idea to revive the tradition of representational art that strives for accuracy. There is something primitive about 20th century art. But I'm not sure what's gained by forcing art into narrow rules. Anyway, here is someone who'd agree with you.
I agree with you that photorealistic painting is hardly the only worthwhile art form. Indeed, since few painters can produce work even equal to a cheap camera, I think it's appropriate to look in new directions.
I think it's crucial, however, to distinguish between experimental works and art works. That is not to imply that experimental works cannot be artistic, nor vice versa, but there is a big difference between producing a quick work to see whether a new technique has artistic potential versus working to develop and expand upon the new technique.
As a simple illustration, while I don't know the history behind Escher's paintings, it's not hard to imagine him getting the idea for a painting with people walking on both sides of a staircase, taking a pencil, and drawing a quick stick-figure drawing of the necessary perspective. I would not regard that [hypothetical] drawing as being a major work of art, even though it formed the proof of concept for one of Escher's famous engravings. What is important is not the concept (whose potential was discovered in the pencil sketch), but rather its development.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. Ideas which can be shown to have potential are worth slightly more. It is only after ideas have been developed that they really take on value.