If I can see in a print that the craft is lacking then it's lacking and it materially detracts from my enjoyment of the image. If the artist's craft is good enough that the viewer doesn't spot obvious flaws, then it's probably not holding them back (unless there is some other image they're trying to realise and haven't managed to yet) and IMHO that's all that matters.
What do you think of the 'craft' in Harry Callahan's contact prints? It's a very loaded word in photography, which in cases like Callahan, can only be understood as 'properly exposed and developed to completion'.
His 'craft', I'd argue, was in his seeing, not his printing. So it can be an ambiguous word too.