The larger discussion that this connects to is about the relationship between form and content. Generally, people you might describe as sophisticated critics te

The larger discussion that this connects to is about the relationship between form and content. Generally, people you might describe as sophisticated critics tend to dismiss the idea that form can be a neutral container for content. Form and content are "indissoluble" or they should form a "unity", or at least be in "harmony". Often the goal is for the form to be in the service of the content, subtly supporting and amplifying it. In practice, tailoring form to content, or pursuing form for its own sake, requires more resources. It's a luxury. Standard formats are the most economical way to transmit text, for the producer. But throwing away the skill of the typographer altogether (just using standard forms/formats) means throwing away the artistic experience that typographic design can sometimes achieve, and the reader loses out in that scenario. It's routine to hear cinematographers and film editors talk about how their craft should be invisible. That doesn't mean they force every scene into the same straightjacket, or that you can't see their craft if you look. Typography is a little bit different, but it is often obvious when a typographer is trying hard to show off. Whether that kind of result appeals to you or not is a matter of taste.