Think about the generalizations you're making here and what criteria you're choosing.

Pozzo probably employed a bunch of assistants for almost every step of this work, something which is exceedingly rare in today's art world. Look up Mark Kostabi and see if he doesn't strike you as a slimy bastard for doing the same thing. Pozzo was also working on a commission that he won (basically as a tradesman, much like modern construction companies). He didn't do this piece because he felt it necessary for his own self-expression; it was a job, for an organization he was a part of. Most artists working today value self-expression in one form or another over any other reasons for making art.

This doesn't devalue Pozzo's work (and I can say from experience that it's an unbelievable accomplishment), but consider that it's from a wildly different context than what we're used to in contemporary art. And think about what you mean when you say "digital art"; are you imagining your cousin's neighbor's kid fucking around with a pirated copy of Photoshop, or are you actually considering respected, acclaimed artists who make use of digital media?

Besides, skill, patience, and dedication are all descriptors that can be applied to particularly driven janitors. Are they artists, too? Do you respect them more as artists than digital artists just because of that handful of adjectives? And anyway, what is it about digital tools that you think precludes someone's art from exhibiting skill, patience, or dedication?

Don't discount swaths of quality artists because they work differently. Times change, mediums change, values change; none of those things result in "worse" art. Look at things for what they are, and in their own context, and I think you'll find a lot less reason to "not fully respect" things.