It's really no different with CG, the tools may have changed but the techniques haven't. I worked with a bunch of kids (relatively speaking) who had graduated from one of those technical schools where they teach you 3 modelling and animation and hearing them talk their course work involved a lot of studying traditional art practices like drawing, painting, and art history, so it's not like these people know nothing about art. Having dabbled in 3D some, I can say first hand that it requires an artistic eye to be good 3D modeler and/or animator and most, if not all, of these FX studios would actually hire someone who is an amazing artist in traditional mediums and train them how to use the computer rather than someone who is a whiz on the computer but has trouble drawing a stick figure.
In regards to farming out the effects work, it's no different now than it was back in the days of miniatures and models. Ever since they stopped filming models against a miniature set hanging from wires on the ceiling the effects work has been handled by a dedicated effects shop who have little creative connection to the remainder of the production. Post production now is no different than post production of decades ago except for the amount and tools used and, ultimately, it's up to the director and to oversee the post work and sign off on it. Don't blame the tools, blame the one utilizing them, it's not bad CG, it's the director either not using it correctly or trying to demand too much of the effects crew. Now a days, the tool set has only gotten deeper with the advent of metadata in digital media the ties between production and post production have gotten close as the post people can get camera date now such as lens type, focal length, f-stop, shutter speed, etc. and enter it into the computer and duplicate it exactly.
If it seems like a CG effect looks like it was done with a lack of effort by someone who doesn't care, it almost certainly is not the fault of the effects house that did it, I'd blame the director and/or FX supervisor. The director is the one who determines what shots would use CG and the FX supervisor is the one who oversees the work and delivers shots for the director to say yay or nay. A lot of times it's a matter of trying to do too much in too little time or for too little money and the results are apparent, but it would be the same if it was done practically, quality requires time and time means money.
Despite the way it might have seemed I wasn't trying to make the case that good CG didn't require any degree of artistry. I was responding to a question of why practical effects might seem to get a disproportionate amount of affection in this forum.
When I wrote that, " innovative CG is really about improved processing power, new apps and software tools" I was explaining that the
evolution of CG is rooted in the technology. But, as you say, it still begins with visual design which is fundamental to all effects - whether it's rendered on matte or on a tablet.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying one is necessarily "better" than the other. That would be pointless because we live in a world where both exist.
I should add that I can also understand some of the basic hostility toward CG if it means that most new talent might not have as much interest in rolling up their sleeves for practical effects nowadays and, as a result, many skills and methods may eventually fade or even die out and certainly some equipment and tools may become harder to find.
Practical effects draws upon a wider pool of dissimilar disciplines than does CG. I'm not saying this makes it "better," but this is simply true.
Practical effects leave a much richer trail of tangible props than CG. This is also true. I think this is one thing that makes practical effects objectively better. Give me that at least.
There's a longer history of practical effects than with CG. This is also true.
There are also more amazing stories behind some legendary effects films. You can't debate this one.
With the fading of interest in practical effects it's easy to lament the past and feel at least a little hostility towards CG. That being said, a lot of the hate that might get hurled at CG has to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. It's certainly the way I meant it. I don't hear anyone arguing that CG should be replaced by practical effects. What I do hear is that folks rejoice when a production does take the extra effort to apply practical effects. Don't you think it would have been much easier if Villeneuve simply used only CG for Blade Runner 2049? It says something special when that much money, resources and time is spent for practical effects, no?
Is it any crime to be sad about the passing of 70 mm Panavision and the waning of film altogether with the advance of digital? Is it so hard to understand why mechanical wristwatches remain incredibly fascinating in an era where any $5 quartz watch will do just as well, if not better? They used to design automobiles from sculpting clay when today it's almost always done on CAD. I think classic cars are more beautiful.
Still, I'd rather have a world with CG than without. Similarly I drive a modern car as it's safer and more practical than a classic. And, yeah, generally things do look better with CG - especially nowadays. But I was only trying my best, as someone outside of the industry, to answer the question why CG seems to be the "whipping boy."
But I hear CG also causes cancer.