"It is vain to do with more what can be done with less." -William of Occam (1300-1350)
It is curious that novice artists commonly hold photorealism as a sign of great skill while more experienced artists rightly see it as otherwise. Why? As your artistic skill increases you begin to understand how difficult it can be to render complex subjects so when you see someone who can do it with few lines it is very impressive. Think of figure skating, the world-class skaters make it look simple and effortless, as if anyone could strap on some skates and dance across the ice. Yet, we know that even the simplest move they preform takes great skill. Likewise with art.
Say I painted a flower and it took me a hundred strokes to do it. Then someone else does the same flower with the same vibrancy and life with ten strokes. He would have demonstrated superior skill as every stroke of his had to do what ten of mine accomplished. He who does the same with less must exercise more planning, purpose and accuracy with every stroke. Perfection is neared not when nothing else can be said but when nothing else can be taken away without losing the essence.
So, when someone puts crazy detail into an image and thinks it makes them something I think of the song, "That don't impress me much."
Let's be clear though, I have nothing against details and use them regularly but I don't fool myself by thinking it makes me a good artist and know that they are no coverup for core flaws in the piece. I'd even go so far as suggest students do a couple of photorealistic pieces from reference, not because you'll produce great art but it will be an excellent lesson in observation. When you have to obverse and render every nuance of a subject it can be very beneficial. Details have their place and whenever they cease to support the subject and become the subject then they've lost that place.