The whole question makes no sense, what people call "graphics" is usually a merger of technological prowess and percieved beauty (this is what it used to be anyway).
Now technology will always give the artists more freedom, they can always simulate the old limited stuff if they feel like it (hence all the low resolution/reduced colors game we see)... You can make a PS4 port of any PS1 game you want, make it look exactly like or better than the original if you want, but you can never release Bloobborne AS IS on a PS1.
I would go as far as saying that if the latest Mario Kart games were released on the PS4 or PC you could have the game run at a better resolution, maybe throw in some AA and 60fps split screen! with the same "Art Style".
On the other hand if you took Infamous:SS and tried to build an xbox 360 version, well you would end up with something barely recognisable (maybe just as fun, but compromised too).
So in essence, both are not comparable, at best the art style is built around the limitations of the intended hardware and it makes it shine (like many Wii U games by example) .. the artists have to do with the hardware they work with. if can be in video games, painting, photography, cinema.
I just though of something, this is the same as asking if a movie's cast sexyness was as important as the quality of the acting they make.... ggreat actors are great, they may or may not be sexy, one does not change the other... but for a lot of people, if they have to sit in a theater for two hours staring at people, they prefer to look at the sexy ones...
