The current sensors are not holding me back from anything I want to produce... To a certain extent photography as an art form is defined by its limitations.
Clearly you don't get it. A camera is nothing more than a mechanical box. It will always be limited. To be a photographer is to understand those limitations, which can never be separated from the medium. And, to use those limitations to produce works of distinct, personal vision.
In its highest form, those images will speak to people and convey a message than transcends the image itself.
Sure, technology marches on and it's nice to be able to take advantage of those advancements to make images that are technically improved. But, never equate technical perfection with quality.
Time marches on, but Robert Frank's grainy, unsharp, less than perfect images don't prevent him from remaining the most influential photographer of the second half of the 20th century. A photographer who accomplishment remains unmatched today.
Any photographer who can't produce a great image because of the limitations of his or her equipment was never much of a photographer in the first place.
I broadly agree with your comments. However, on the last sentence I think you need to be careful as it does depend on the subject. The tech, say AF, allows you to perhaps get more keepers than you might have done with less capable tech. A picture shot 50 years ago may be fantastic, but to many people if it had been shot with modern equipment it would be better for it.
LuLa did an editorial on the same subject a while back,and I believe the conclusion was, better tech makes things better, but is not a substitute. A camera may indeed allow a novice to take a technically better picture than otherwise. But it would indeed be the novice that might take a great picture - I think it will be a while before we have cameras telling us where, when and how to stand, what lens, aperture etc. This is what makes a great photograph, the photographer's vision.....