I like sharp. Sharpness, to me, defines technical skills... the right aperture, the right speed, the correct exposure within the restraints of the camera... Images that have a subject that is NOT sharp seem to me to be a distraction... You should marvel at the image, rather than be distracted by a part that isn't sharp... If I notice that an image isn't sharp, my mind wanders to what the photographer did wrong and that detracts from what I would want, so I perceive that as a failure.
Is there a place for unsharp images? Yes... but it should be obvious that the photographer is using mood to achieve an over-all effect... When done correctly, it is obvious. When done incorrectly, again, the viewer gets distracted and the image fails...
I shoot RAW, and as a consequence, in my workflow I always use "sharpening" to some degree because I want to control what is, or isn't sharp... You can't selectively do that unless the image is technically sharp to begin with... We need to learn to shoot technically correct images before we can apply artistic sharpening as a statement...
Over-sharp images are just as distracting as unsharp... I'm reminded of early HDR... Today we use degrees of HDR to add "impact"... I remember when HDR first became readily available in digital images... They were garish and over-done, just because... Now, no one seriously does those HDR images...
This discussion is also relative to digital images because using film, what we used to consider sharp, weren't even close to sharp... and the early photographers used the grain and bokeh as an artistic statement... and some still shoot film for those same reasons...
Of course, this is also relative to what the photographer is trying to achieve in his presentation... creating images for social media is totally different than creating images for printing and presenting in a quality setting... versus even creating images for a sales catalogue...
Photography allows proponents of all the different aspects of a sharp/unsharp image to co-exist...