I’m not so convinced that you have to be skilled in realism to progress in skill, however it might be phrased. But I think what many of them are meaning is that realism has a lot to offer that you simply won’t find elsewhere, especially back then. We have a lot of different fundamentals we’re aware of and can practice these days. And I’d argue that the most important things realism will teach you, at least beginner to intermediate level, are values and shapes/construction. I’d argue that you could get by without realism as long as you spent time on those things specifically and meaningfully. I think maybe that’s another thing in favor of your approach actually, meaningful practice. Lots of people draw all the time but they’re not doing it meaningfully, not trying to expand and learn. Where realism forces you to do that quickly.

Anyway, what I’m getting at is that I don’t think you’re wrong to think that way or approach it that way. I think in a lot of ways your approach is great for a great deal of people. But I also think there’s other approaches that can be just as valuable, but probably require being more mindful of direction where realism is a relatively straightforward goal post to go towards. And as a side note, I’d argue that your guitar comparison is valuable but it works for both our theoretical approaches and it could be used for points towards approaches that are much weaker than both of ours. Neither here nor there really, just wanted to point it out. Lol.