That book is an attempt to romanticize the medium. Painting is not alchemy, unlike the opening paragraph states, and painting was perfected only because it was profitable a couple centuries ago either for a church or the monarchy.
Olfactory stimulants have little to do with it - that is the experience of the artist and artist only. It has no effect on the viewer.
If experience of the artist at the time of creation had an effect on the viewer, the greatest artist would emerge who'd sandpaint with cocaine powder and the viewers would be ecstatic because the artist pushed off in the process. It doesn't work like that, unfortunately.
Dali's choice of medium is not his accomplishment. It is the message and the influence on the viewer that counts. Deliver the message, conceal the artist?
If Dali had chosen to paint watercolor, he'd have less texture... the pictures would still convey the message.
While there is a point here, we're back to the old content illusion. The choice of medium isn't the accomplishment, I agree, but neither is it irrelevant. The choice of medium contributes directly to the perception of the work. Artists are free to choose their mediums, and the tools within them. The continued attempts to homogenize medium and methods as immaterial to the artifact to validate certain workflows simply points up the immaturity of certain mediums.