>>717292026 (OP)
An interpretation of something will say more about the artist than a replica of the same thing. The 2nd part of the argument gets a bit lousy dues to its age, but the first part is just plain art history.
Human beings are very good at filling up gaps in logic and aesthetic, so when they're confronted with a piece of media that is decidedly simple, they can fill in with what's "real". With the watcher occupied with that aspect, the creator can fill in with the artistic intent of the piece, which is where they'll deal with the limitations and its purpose. Saying that perfect realism is decadent is essentially saying that whatever you're getting is bare and lacks the artistic intent that a piece with more "gaps" can produce.