Given our ability to tell exact time, and to locate objects in space, and our ability to collect, and collate very large amounts of data, yes, we could build a telescope, or actually an extremely wide spread array of telescopes, to image planets around fairly distant stars. (Well, fairly distant in non stellar terms, distant in astronomic ranges is another whole matter.)
However, how closely you want to look at things really cuts down on the number of things you get to look at. So, searching with less discriminating instruments would still be needed, so you have to set up an array of arrays, having the ability to survey regions of space for candidate targets for your very high resolution array.
And, you have to launch all this stuff into space, in stable, and large magnitude orbits, with very good electrical systems, and communication features. And, basically, it can only look at one thing at a time, so time on the instrument is going to be booked up into the next century soon after it is launched. And first you have to come up with the money to pay for all this, which is going to produce images far less interesting to most taxpayers than the stuff that comes from the Hubble or even the Keck instrument now.
Some really useful information such an instrument would give would be in data matrices that would give evidence about the general nature of non luminous material in the local galactic region that could provide a baseline for comparison to similar data for regions thought to be empty now. Sunday supplement photography is easier to produce without relying on plain old optical imaging.
But, I think we will eventually gain more from that sort of “space program” than sending another dozen or so folks on long trips in cocoons so we can say “another giant step for mankind” has been achieved. If Eugene Cernan remains the last man on the Moon for another century, there is still lots of knowledge to be gained from the study of the universe.
Tris