Does Bourbaki's (and Grothendieck's) approach to mathematics survive today? I am curious if the "Bourbaki's approach" to mathematics is still a viable point of view in modern mathematics, despite the fact that Bourbaki is vilified by many.
Even more specifically, does anyone actively approach mathematics from the more "yielding" point of view famously practiced by Grothendieck? Which, or what type of, research areas are welcoming to (or practicing) Grothendieck's approach to mathematics?
Motivation:
To me, there is a deep question regarding motivation of mathematicians over time which is addressed by this viewpoint. An emphasis on resolving hard technical problems is quite depressing, generally, whereas the idea of finding a general framework which presents a natural and explanatory solution through the development of a vast theory seems very motivating. In such a view, the open problem only serves to motivate a better development of the general theory surrounding the core difficulty, bringing into focus a clearer picture of the essential issue at hand.
It seems to me that carefully developing a general (sometimes axiomatic) theory is analogous to performing scientific experiment. One is not looking to be clever, but instead is filling in data which may, when examined later, reveal clear and natural answers to mathematical questions. Obviously such an approach can be exhausting, in that one must spend much more time to fill in an entire picture than to, at some point, jump to a resolution of a particular question. On the other hand, It may be possible to persevere longer at such a task, as one is not so sensitive to one's loss of quickness or cleverness and can simply engage the task at hand.
Is this viewpoint valid?

[Edited (Dec. 17, 2012) by A. Caicedo, following suggestions here. Question originally asked by user
curious1.]
 A: Jacob Lurie seems the most obvious answer.  His publication history (deep books published in his own time rather than a bunch of small articles) is indeed of the sort that you allude to at the end, but fortunately he had no trouble being offered a suitable position (while still quite young).
A: The following appears in "Reminiscences of Grothendieck and his school", published in Notices of the AMS:

Bloch: I wonder whether today such a style of mathematics could exist.
Illusie: Voevodsky’s work is fairly general. Several people tried to imitate Grothendieck, but I’m afraid that what they did never reached that “oily” character dear to Grothendieck.

I am not completely sure what Illusie meant by "oily", but this seems to be a hint:

Illusie: To him no statement was ever the best one. He could always find something better, more general or more flexible. Working on a problem, he said he had to sleep with it for some time. He liked mechanisms that had oil in them. For this you had to do scales, exercises (like a pianist), consider special cases, functoriality. At the end you obtained a formalism amenable to dévissage.

