Interestingly, I feel the same way about many works on ArtStation [1]. The artists try to draw something "cool", like a fantasy creature, but end up with just a basic picture of a human with lots of greebles [2]. Lack of imagination is very obvious.
At the other end of the spectrum for me is something like Wayne Barlowe's "Wargate" [3], an image with a whole new visual language for what it's trying to say, or Paul Veer's pixel art for Nuclear Throne [4], with very simple technique but very imaginative character designs. Apologies if my taste is pedestrian :-)
[1] https://www.artstation.com/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeble
[3] https://simotron.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tumblr_mv4vmddu...
My criterion for whether something is art is whether it changes how I see the world. I guess something like Wayne Barlowe's "Wargate" (referenced in a sibling post) doesn't change how I see the world. It's too far removed from my life. But the light in Monet's winter day...
What do you classify as interesting?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/17227816585/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/18470207921/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/
Boring isn't it? (Interesting as history maybe?)
The "what is worth expressing" is where creativity happens. Technique makes you a competent hack. It's not enough for originality. So it's misleading to think it's all art. Technique and originality are different skills. The best artists have lots of both, but they're not related skills.
(Software has the same problem.)