I'm gonna go ahead and drop some GCA heresy: conditioning is FAR more important than shaping.
Shaping affects the visual experience of a course, and that's nice. I enjoy the look of a "naturalistic" course. I also enjoy the look of a "Raynoresque" course. There are a lot of shaping styles that I like, and they all certainly add something to the course.
But even a course with shaping I'm not particularly fond of can still be a really enjoyable round if the course still has sound strategies at work, provides a comprehensive test of my game, and is in the right condition to bring its playing characteristics to the forefront. I recently played a prototypical "modern" course with squiggly shaping and amoeba bunkers. Truthfully, it's not my favorite look. But none of that mattered, because the hazards were well placed to challenge shots I hit. The conditions were firm and fast and forced me to control my shots or pay the price. The course was a joy to play despite not being especially sexy in photos. The primary thing it had going for it? Conditions that matched the design. The elusive "maintenance meld."
Prioritizing shaping over conditioning is like prioritizing a woman's looks over her personality. Beautiful is great, and there's obviously a point where things become so ugly that it's not worth it. But man, if the personality isn't there, it has a much bigger effect on the relationship's long term interest. Playing a course with conditions that don't reflect its design principles is just a total drag, sort of like dating a wet blanket.