I'm also a pretty poor and un-artistic photographer most of the time, and plenty of people would find fault with the image quality of most of what I do with my long-obsolete, noisy, DX camera, but I must take issue with a couple of things.
If what you're doing is taking documentary snapshots of your environment, and they look all right to you, then yes, no point in seeking more. It kind of depends on what you want out of a photograph. If the image quality you have is enough, it's enough. But it's not absent. When you choose a focal length and perhaps an aperture for depth of field or a shutter speed to stop motion, you are relying on image quality whether or not you think of it as such.
When you translate what you see into an image in two dimensions, you are already transforming what you see. You are recording what, in the environment, you want to be seen, and choosing how it will be seen. You have certain freedoms, and certain constraints. How much art you put into this can vary.
No photograph duplicates what you see. We see in three dimensions (or at least most of us do when our eyes are working right). Our visual field is wide, our ability to mentally zoom in considerable, our dynamic range far beyond what most cameras render, and our depth of field huge. A still image is never the same as the video we see. A photograph must select its subject, its position and its time. I've had children who took photographs, often with some competence, but who were unpleasantly surprised when the subject they considered the point had no prominence. A photograph cannot duplicate the way we see things.
And, of course, there are plenty of instances where what you want to do is to create a photographic image, in which the literal content of the scene is not the point anyway. Some of us like abstraction in some degree from absolute non-subjectivity to a visual enhancement of what's there.
And as for image quality, while it's true that often enough, the thing you're showing is far more important than the exact coloration, or the sharpness of the pixels, and so forth, it's also true that there are times when it's just as important. If you're cruising down the Amazon and you see a sloth in a distant tree, which you know you will need to crop like crazy, you had better have good image quality or just skip the shot and get out the binoculars. Sometimes it does not matter if the pixels are scrambled at the margins you can't see, or the image is blurry at the edges, or the straight lines have curves. Sometimes it certainly does.
