I don’t really photograph to document memories, let alone intricate details of a particular subject matter. If I was photographing objects for insurance purposes or to sell something, then details and sharpness would be more important.
But I’ve seen great photos that were deliberately blurry, or perhaps not blurry, but (especially by POTN’s pathological preternatural expectations) soft. I’ve seen great photos that were sharp with lots of detail, bolstering the visual appeal of texture. What I’ve never done, however, is go, wow, that photo is great simply because it is so sharp or so blurry.
Of course, much of this collapses onto how one defines “details” or “sharpness” so I expect the conveyance of ideas is going to get muddled up a bit in misunderstandings and presumptions.
Still, I have in my mind some wonderful photos I saw of cranes in norther Japan. The cranes themselves were intentionally blurred while the also blurred effect of the snow and grey skies kept details to an absolute minimum. Simple yet recognizable shapes surrounded by shades of white and fluctuating grays. That’s one aspect of photography; not the only one by any means, far from it, but just as important as any other aspect of photography.
As for the honesty issue, well, the fact that most people might automatically assume a photo to be accurately representative at first glance only underscores the potentially deceptive traits, rather than honest ones, of photography.