To be fair, a lot of folks who dislike modern CGI dislike it because it's often used poorly and hamhandedly. Would it maybe look better if they did it practically? Possibly, but a lot of the revulsion to it is based on seeing real movies that looked really bad because they did CGI as a shortcut around shooting a movie in the city they say it's set in, or clearly working around having an actor just shoot in an empty room and add other characters in later with no real interaction between them.
If you do something poorly, it reflects poorly on the results. If it becomes endemic to do something cheaply and poorly, people will think that method is indicative of cheapness and laziness. It doesn't negate that it may be possible to do it well, but you can't just chide everyone for seeing the trend and reacting to it.
It seems we're approaching this from different angles. My concern is that the general public often doesn't realize how impressive CGI can be when done well. This lack of awareness fuels a negative attitude, allowing studios to underpay VFX artists and enabling the Oscars to consistently disrespect the entire VFX industry. A prime example of this disrespect was when they interrupted VFX artists' acceptance speeches with a cocaine joke, instead of letting them thank their families.
If you do something poorly, it reflects poorly on the results. If it becomes endemic to do something cheaply and poorly, people will think that method is indicative of cheapness and laziness. It doesn't negate that it may be possible to do it well, but you can't just chide everyone for seeing the trend and reacting to it.