Edit: link to his website https://www.kylemcdougallphoto.com/
At the other end of this same spectrum, there’s Troy Paiva, who has gotten quite a bit of press for nighttime “light painting” of abandoned aircraft, cars, rural buildings, etc.
https://lostamerica.com/photo-items/the-mojave-airport-boney...
BTW, I found the original submission photos to be compelling, very cool compositions just jarring colors.
It seems for me, that the goal of editing was not to fix the light, but to move away from real life. Probably something along lines "to reduce level of detail, to let onlooker's mind to fill gaps in details by itself". Or maybe not: this possible explanation is a result of my mind filling gaps, so it is a projection of my mind onto reality which speaks more about me than about reality.
I realize all photos are enhanced, either in post or in the phone camera. Sometimes it’s necessary to “fix” bad lighting or make something “pop,” but I prefer it when it’s subtle and still realistic. Ansel Adams tweaked the heck out of his prints (contrast and dodging and burning), but the result still looks like a natural scene, as it might appear when the light is just right.
Instagram filters have the same problem, they might convey a mood but many of them look unnatural, for example an outdoor shot with fluorescent sunlight. I probably shouldn’t call it a problem, it’s just an artistic statement (for example choosing a hue to match the mood), though with filters it does feel a bit commodified nowadays.
I for one agree with OP - fix what you can from RAW since it rarely looks like reality, unless having ideal lighting conditions. But this 'overprocessing' (aka moving away from real look) is too much for me, I like how reality looks like already.
I see it everywhere these days - street photography, landscapes, even portraits. Folks often tend to do the same effect over and over for all photos, so everything looks the same. Almost like copy&paste in Lightroom. I mean great photos done in full frame/medium format cameras, then changed to look way too unrealistic. I've done similar when I was beginning in photography with 'the more the better' logic, but the appeal is just not there anymore.
You might well like this:
Purely documentary photography only happens in news stories, crime scenes, surgical theaters, and morgues. Everything else is art, to some greater or lesser degree. If you don't like impressionism or whatever, fine, but you add nothing to the conversation in just saying "this is bad because I don't like it" as if that had any use to anyone - that's not even valid criticism, which is an embarrassingly low bar to fail to clear.