I've been to a couple of major workshops, and the work produced was not high art -- because that's not what people go to workshops for. They go there to learn about cameras and techniques and to trade ideas, which actually detracts from the possibility of making really good photos. It's what comes after the workshop that counts. The workshops I attended (at Santa Fe) produced some profound changes in my work, but the little box of slides I bought home were generally junk -- I didn't know what I was doing and the pictures show it. If I *had* known what I was doing, I wouldn't have taken the workshop. Why would I? But my experience radically changed the way that I looked at light, and the manipulation of light; once through that barrier, it was up to me, at home, to do the real work.
In the case of this workshop, for example, I would have had no idea what to do with the models. I have no interest in models, or in fashion, and not much in landscape, but I do have a pretty sharp interest in what these cameras can do, and how they handle, and models and landscapes would give you a fairly thorough demonstration of that. The pictures would have sucked, because I would haven't been as interested in the pictures as in the possibilities, and I would have been as interested in others peoples' results as in my own.
As for Rockwell, I think one of the reasons that he is generally disdained on the more serious forums is that he pitches his view to beginning photographers, and quite a few of his ideas are simply wrong. I'm not talking about opinions or aesthetics, but photographic "mechanics," like his jpg vs. RAW views, which are silly. I've seen some of his camera "reviews" which have also had some major problems (like, mistakes.) There are other well-regarded photographers who like the way that their cameras render jpgs, or who like odd or unusual cameras, and pronounce themselves satisfied with their results, which is fine; but that's different than pitching bad information to beginners.
JC