I'm still a bit confused. Is it uninspired when people master anime stylings? Or classical cartooning? Or is it simply uninspired in that it's western and adopting anime style markers?
I look at and critique a lot of art, so when I see something that looks like it's a copy of a copy of a copy, but not bringing anything new to the table, then it looks uninspired to me. That doesn't mean it's bad, or technically incompetent, it just means it's not doing much for me personally, and I will probably forget it soon because it doesn't stand out from the crowd. Mileage may vary, because art is one of the most subjective things there is.
I would never call work of someone who had mastered a style uninspired, but I clearly wasn't talking about masters in my post. I was talking about beginner or intermediate artists who are still finding themselves. Artists learn through replication and looking to others' work, but until one synthesizes their influences and their own personal quirks (one's own personal visual library of references, taste for specific rendering techniques, line weight/control, etc) into something of their own, it doesn't look like a "master", it looks like someone doing a serviceable job of replicating something else.
Classical cartooning, classical art training, and anime/manga can and should mix and learn from each other all the time. Just using a specific set of references doesn't make something inherently bad any more than it makes it inherently good. As with everything, it's all about execution.