It's probably safe to say that the cream tends to float to the top, and if you consider what represents 'the cream' you see everything from wild and crazy exposures by famous documentary and street photographers, happily existing alongside meticulous artists and printers who pay a lot of attention to the technical quality from beginning to end. Different priorities.
I find it interesting to note that printers like Sid Kaplan, Gene Nocon, Pablo Inirio, and other printers like them, did everything they could to print every negative that passed through their darkroom on commission to print with the very best of their ability, whether it is a meticulously exposed and processed negative, or quickly exposed, grainy, and push processed 35mm neg. Why is that? Because they are all good photographs, in one way or another (or several), and they demand respect and attention.
Look at this masterpiece of James Dean, by Dennis Stock: Link
Now consider how Pablo Inirio had to fight the negative in order to get what he thought would be enough visual impact to impress: Link
Why would such attention be paid to a grainy photograph where not much is in focus?
I guess I feel that the grain can add to an image as much as someone else might think it subtracts, but in the end it just IS, and we live with it. We all have different opinions of what we like and dislike.