The step of inking was invented simply as a way to make the art more easily printed. The first "inkers" weren't even artists. With advanced in printing techniques, it's not even necessary anymore. So either it's a mechanical process or it's an art. I say the latter. In which case, the ink artist should have free reign and the pencil artist be damned.
I don't accept your premise that it can only be either one or the other. It's an assembly-line process designed to expedite art for printing. Any relationship between two artists working on art together is never the same as another. Some work well together, the balance may be different in some pairings, who knows but the notion that one should always have "free reign" and the other should "be damned" is ridiculous on the face of it.
And secondly, what "advanced printing techniques" have made inking unnecessary?
Illustrations, including pencil illustrations were used in ads in newspapers, magazines and books the same time using the same printing techniques that were used for comics. No modern advanced techniques necessary.
Saying "advanced printing techniques" have made inking unnecessary, is like saying digital cameras made photographers unnecessary. There is software available today that can be used to do much of what inkers have done traditionally. But someone is still making the same decisions that a the inker did. Converting fairly tight pencils into crisper cleaner lines, that's just substituting one tool for another. And a digital colorist taking rough pencils and converting them to finished art is just making many of the same decisions as an inker does in the traditional method. We now have more options with photoshop, and the assembly line may look different sometimes, thats all.