GIMP is meets a lot of people's needs though (though we can always do that better). I'm in the process of transcribing interviews by GIMP's maintainer from professional artists who use GIMP and other free/libre software in their workflows, and it's really interesting to see what they're able to do.
This feels like it would behoove the project to pick a lane and tell the users which one of these it is supposed to be. You have a worse experience for all by trying to keep both camps happy, and also ceding one of these verticals would open up mindshare for another open-source project to step in and cover that instead
The "more like MS Paint" group tends to be longtime users who often prefer the destructive editing approach of GIMP 2. We try to respect people who currently use the software, while also trying to implement new features as intended on the roadmap.
Given the number of great open source art programs today, I don't think we're keeping anyone from doing anything. :)
Respectfully, I just re-read the gimp.org homepage, about page, and FAQ. The only relevant passage I found is the FAQ where it states that GIMP is not trying to be a photoshop replacement (but that people regularly misinterpret it as such).
That seems clear enough to me about our focus, though one thing I've learned since I've started contributing is that whatever you think is clear enough, probably isn't! (Hopefully that doesn't come across as sarcastic - I mean it sincerely. I've helped out with writing news posts and been amazed at seeing how people interpret sections I thought were perfectly clear. It's been a learning experience!)