I think the article misses out on a crucial point regarding the history of Art, in favor of promoting the standard modernist ideas of progress in Art. The idea that Perspective was some sort of Breakthrough that allowed Art to Suddenly Start Becoming Good is baked into that story, and is quite wrong.
Much of (most? virtually all?) early painting didn't care about perspective, because it was not relevant to what they were about. These people were painting stories, not realistic depictions of single scenes seen from a single point of view. The idea that you ought to represent the scene literally would have baffled these people "why on earth would I not show the thing that's behind the other thing? It's an important thing!"
The modern perspective drawing, as well as the photograph, privileges a very specific way of seeing (pace John Berger, from whom I learned most of this stuff), which is fairly far removed from how we actually see, except in the most technical and trivial ways.
When we're in the world, we're moving, we're turning out head, many of the objects we're looking at are moving. Our eyes are terrible instruments anyways, most of what we "see" is a construct of our brain, building a sort of 3D model of the world, editing as necessary, and presenting it to out higher functions as a sort of a movie. The camera "sees" in a completely different way. A stereogram is only slightly less "flat" than a normal photograph. We cannot exactly walk around the corner of the building in a stereogram, turning our head does quite the wrong thing, and so on.
Paintings made before the Camera Obscura, and after about 1900, often depict the world in a way that more closely resembles the way we actually see. Cubism is as much about revealing the backside of objects as it is about anything else.
Note that all this makes photographs rather more interesting, not less. Because they do not in fact really capture the way we actually relate to the visual world, the raise interesting questions about what exactly the do capture, how they capture it, and what we can do with that. It's a lot more than "well, it's 2D innit?"