Some comments about the article, and about the other comments.
1. Alain wasn't trying to be inspirational with the photos -- they were examples. Trying to find the best possible examples of a certain effect is different than presenting your best portfolio photos.
2. Alain's biggest error (IMHO, or perhaps just IMO, not being all that humble, when you get right down to it) was in trying to present an exceedingly subtle subject in a couple of hundred words and a few illustrations, and also in presenting too much material. He would have been better off, IMO, in just presenting cool and warm harmonies, with some good examples of good complementary contrasts, and let it go at that. Once you start getting into tetradic and squares it's easy just to say, "Screw it - everything's a harmony."
3. I understand Alain trained as a painter, and this subject, I think, is much more important to painters than to photographers because subject matter is more important to photographers than to painters. Photographers are somewhat forced to work with what they find, and while it's good to understand the concepts of color harmonies, unless you are deep into Photoshop, you are usually forced to go with what might be called "natural harmonies" rather than formal color harmonies. You can shoot almost any landscape in natural color and it will be harmonious to your eye, because that's the way your brain works. If you try to forced a formal color harmony on it by tinting the photo blue, for example, it usually doesn't work: it looks un-landscape-like...tricky in the bad sense. Still, it's not a bad idea to be able to see formal harmonies where they exist (orange cliffs and blue skies, etc.) because sometimes you can take advantage of that. Digging back in my memory, it seems to me that Michael may have taken an excellent example of a complicated color harmony in a shot he did of an Icelandic structure of some kind (A church? I'm not sure.) Painters need to understand this all very clearly, in the most sophisticated ways, because painters are usually selling paint effects, rather than subject matter. If you find somebody who tries as hard as they can to paint realistic paintings, of actual scenes, you'll often find those paintings boring because they minimize the very tools that painters can make the most of: color harmonies, painting effects, abstractions, fictional creation, and so on. Most extremely realistic paintings would be better done as photos; and serious paintings really can't be done as photos. IMO.