Can technique be so good that it becomes a distraction and blocks content?  Yes, and it happens all the time, we just don't realize it. There are many ways to block content by technique, and most are the enemy of Real Art and Real Communication.  One way to block content is to water it down, as mentioned in SeoBook:

"…The biggest thing that is killing off traditional publishing is the lack of personality, lack of passion, and a lack of bias (or watered down pro corporate bias) which is contained in nearly every piece of content they create."

In Cinema, you can have a film that is well done but might be lifeless, like Gangster No. 1 (I never saw it, I admit.. not my kind of film, to be honest - but the IMDb user comments and review suggest the film is lifeless): 

"…Excellent performances, innovative direction, and clever writing did not, for me, overcome the general loathsomeness of the content."

Well, maybe it's OK emphasize technique when your content really sucks…. so that's a case when it would be OK (except I would not want to see the movie, anyway, no matter how well it was filmed).

My post is more about a post in FutureLab titled: "When Presentation Eclipses Story" by David Armano:

"..Is it possible for design to be too good?  At last weeks Design Research conference, Tania Aldous of Whirlpool gave a stunning presentation called " Winning the Hearts and Minds of Consumers".  I cannot overstate how visually magnificent her presentation was."

".. The display of information was tasteful and well executed.  I'm not exaggerating—it was that good.

Only one problem.  I can't remember what the heck her presentation was about."

Why is technique, the handservent of Art and Communication, also it's main detractor? 

Technique, any technique, is only valuable in so far as it illuminates an idea; if your technique becomes more important than what your saying …. then your saying gibberish - even if your stunning people with your gibberish.

That's what I think David Armano is saying - but not in the same words.   I'll take his post and twist it to make my own point.  Over-attention to technique, any technique, actually interferes with the communication, which is where the Art is.

Here's an example of what I mean in Van Gogh letters to Émile Bernard at the Morgan Library & Museum, which I wrote about in ArtNewYorkCity.com earlier today:

"… the relationship of the artist is with the viewer, across time and space ..and that is the covenant one wants to keep - not other people’s opinions, even if, they, in themselves, are great artists.

The validity of work… is the work itself outside the reality of it was created in."

If you need to read, or see work, in the context of where and how it was created - I believe, in this case, technique and method is overshadowing the true creative content; this is the weakness of contemporary art, but it was also the weakness of 19th Century literary art, and it created a rebellion against Literary Art, by artists that wanted to make works  valid for what they had on them, not for what they were of or for what they were about.

Yet, even there, it's hard to agree when technique trumps content - yet when I look at the exquisite Van Gogh drawing that was sent to Émile Bernard   I am reminded that content in Art, and in communications of any kind, is best seen outside the context it was created in.

Van Gogh's self portrait is pure content, and was rejected by almost all his contemporaries, including other Great Artists, most whom he knew….yet today, there is no doubt of Van Gogh's greatness as a Artist.

Would you say that Van Gogh's technique is what you feel here ….. or is it the message that hits your soul as you look into his eyes?

At the end of the day, the fundamental basis of Art is the Artist's feelings merged with an Idea and that is what should be communicated, not the technique.  But while Feelings and Ideas are more important than technique - technique must still function well enough to communicate the idea and that's how Van Gogh's technique works for me. 

You would not call Van Gogh's technique, above, in any way, acceptable in the context of the time he lived, except to a small number of progressive thinkers and art admirers … and yet, I can't think of anyone that I have met who has a problem with Vincent Van Gogh's technique today.   In that sense, to truly appreciate Van Gogh's greatness, it's much easier to be in a different reality than the one he lived in when he created his works. 

It also supports my idea that if you need to go to Africa to appreciate African Sculpture, or go to Egypt to truly appreciate and Egyptian Ancient Art, or know Chinese and visit Far East to appreciate a Chinese Wall Scroll fully, or working at Whirlpool  to understand Winning the Hearts and Minds of Consumers Presentation - then maybe the presentation itself, was too slick.

Then again, I didn't hear the presentation so I don't know I would have agreed with David Armano or not about the presentation.