Realistic and super realistic painting

I have always admired classical painting. The ability to paint/draw realistically is and always has been amazing and intriguing. But as I have grown older I tend to appreciate picture making as a whole much more than technical ability. Composition and design, themes of color, harmony in shapes and spatial relationships are as important as technical ability. The problem I keep having with purely academic painters is that depending on where they studied, they all paint identically. Its hard to differentiate between individual artists that learned from the same atelier, school or artist. I understand that they are teaching a way to paint but a lot of their students believe they have learned the "correct" way to paint. I know quite a few artists that are snobby about painting process. Technique cannot make a boring composition interesting.
At the same time I have seen beautiful paintings that have a disproportionate figure or drawing issues that nag at my eyes. I think most viewers wouldn't have issue with this but it can take away from a painting and I think makes the difference between a good and a great piece of art.
So now that I am thinking about this it makes me think of the "restored" painting that was in the news recently. I will find a pic to include but it's become a meme unto itself. The people who are trying to keep the amateur restoration have gone too far. This was an amateur attempt and execution and technique did not match the intent. It wasn't this artist interpreting their own idea of the painting, they obviously couldn't recreate what needed to be done. So it should be scrubbed and professionally restored. Let this artist create their own work. Its taking the idea of individual art and trying to put it where it doesn't fit. Does this make sense. If you have a strong argument in favor of letting the painting stand let hear it.