I think your question is asking,
Why can't I be a craftsman (for example), and make great stuff? Useful, helpful stuff? What's wrong with that? And what's wrong with wanting to become a craftsman?
I guess there are several answers.
One is maybe that you can and should do exactly that: i.e. that this is what a typical layman does, to make a living and to benefit others. There are (the Buddha defined the rules such that there would be) two "societies" in Buddhism: i.e. lay society. and the society of monks and nuns ("the sangha"), and the two societies more-or-less depend on each other for different things ... and they each have a different definition of what "right livelihood" is.
"Right livelihood" for a layperson might well involve making useful things, or farming, or etc.
Some cultures even get into "Zen and the Art of ..." (that may be a bit unusual, i.e. Japan is at the far edge of the continent and an island, but I don't doubt lay and artistic endeavours are affected/inspired in other Buddhist countries too).
So I think about your question, "Let's say I want to become a potter and make nice dinner plates that will benefit people, what's wrong with that? The Four Noble Truths say that what's "wrong" is craving and attachment. So how about doing that without attachment, is it OK then?"
And I re-read Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'?
So I think that part of the answer to the question is that it is possible to be an artist, a musician, and craftsman, but without being a happy one.
And producing something, a new plate, even if that's enjoyable, does the enjoyment last? Look at all that's been produced by humanity to date, does that make people happy? Well "yes and no".
What happens when you're forced to retire, to cease activity -- infirmity, lack of customers -- how will you cope with that? Have you been training yourself to cope with that?
And if I imagine being an unhappy craftsman, that might be for the very reasons quoted ...
Cravings arise for sense experiences, for “being” or “becoming” (e.g. rich, famous, loved, respected, immortal), and to avoid the unpleasant
... i.e. I don't think that what you quoted is wrong.
It's also maybe inherently a source of dissatisfaction: if I wanted (i.e. craved) to be what I'm not, e.g. a potter, a sailor, a house-builder -- if I had that "craving to-become" then I might be unhappy. But if, I don't know, if that were a wholesome desire rather than an unwholesome craving, if I did what was appropriate to achieve it, if I were satisfied with that effort, then maybe it's alright.
Also there's a time or a sense in which ambition is appropriate.
I think the Pali distinguishes between unwholesome and unsatisfiable "craving", versus a "wholesome desire".
For example there's this sutta which says it's OK to have a (wholesome) desire for nibanna, and that's not even a contradiction because once you arrive there then that desire is allayed.
Similarly I suppose that wanting what's attainable and beneficial via lay activity isn't necessarily wrong, it might be normal and sensible.
Perhaps "wanting to become something" shouldn't be an end in itself, though, because even if it's achievable it can't be permanent. You might want to become a doctor, but even if you succeed you couldn't remain so forever. You might want to become-a-doctor-in-order-to-help-people though -- I think there's a sense in which, if you do help someone, than having-helped-someone will remain a fact more-or-less forever, so that might be some satisfaction if you are ever retrospective (which maybe people are even if only when they're dying).
I kind of like this sutta, The rewards of virtue. Some people say that you need to get your "virtue" (ethical behaviour) in order before you can meditate successfully, others say that meditation begins to be successful when you experience joy when doing so. The intermediate stage there, between them, appears to "freedom from remorse". Maybe that's a guide: aim to do what you don't regret, and to not regret what you do.