maybe we should worry more about "charm" than other aspects such as rez and mp......

This is obviously wrong. Do you think Van Gogh could paint his sunflowers in watercolours? Do you think what can be defined by some as 'charm' can be replicated by skill alone? Sorry I can't agree.

No, if you shoot with a plastic lens on a 110 and your intent is to make grainless 20x16's do you think any amount of artistic skill can help?

Then you need some experience of 35mm. The smaller the format the more 'quirky' in my opinion.

No way could 35mm be considered sterile and perfect compared to MF–because that's what the OP is talking about, imperfections and limitations giving artwork a 'signature' rather like miniature format photographers pumping up contrast and grain as was the fashion in the 1970's.

Well Lomo seem to be making a small fortune from imperfection, apps exist to give you soulless images interest by faking light leaks and poor ageing characteristics–you may think it's a stretch when the whole raison d'etre for those apps is to add character to otherwise bland snaps.

The medium can be part of the creative process, the person shaping it is important sure. But having tools you can use to get you vision into reality is also key.

Just try to shoot sports with an 8x10 Gandlophi and 12ISO film, or a talented doctor to perform heart surgery with a bread knife–tools are important, the medium is important.

I think it's a platitude to say the skill of the individual is critical, when it is just a part of the creative process.