>>3631703It's how the world works anon. Same for audio mastering (look up loudness , photography, cinematography etc. .
They cater to the lowest denominator when addressing a big audience, with wildly different equipment.
In general optimising for your display medium is a good idea. Photographers have been optimising their technique and editing/development for the enlargers and papers they were using since forever.
The problem arises when you can't do that since you don't control the display medium. So you have to make a choice between optimising for a subpar, say display, owned by the majority of the audience (at the expense of the few with better displays), or optimise for a better display owned by a minority. The choice was simple for those targeting as big an audience as possible.
I don't think this is the only issue though. The above is compounded with the fact that various trends, that come and go, dictate the editing style.
Related to photography for instance, at first the pictorialist trend was in vogue (soft, low contrast and heavily manipulated images), then this became out of fashion with the group 64 aesthetic (sharp, high contrast images, almost HDR), and then a myriad other things that came and went (soft focus and star filters in the '80s, HDR more recently, etc.).
There's no "solution" to that, if you don't like the aesthetic you have to ride it out until it changes to something different.
