Ha, ha, ha – you had me going. For a moment there, I honestly thought you were serious. Your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek, right? A one-size-fits-all, push-button approach to working on, perhaps THE most individual part of a person's visual character – their face? I guess corporate homogenization is not only becoming accepted, but is being actively sought.
Gimme a break. What is photography becoming?
No, I'm serious.
Or maybe I could put it differently.
I want smart objects in LR where a smart object might be "trees" or "leaves" or "sky" or "clouds" or "faces" or "cars" or etc that I can then work with.
The brush is a dumb object and the "fuzz" around the edge is to allow for it to be used inaccurately.
Sometimes, if I'm lucky, I can work on the sky's colour simply because that's the only blue component in an image. Throw in something else plus a complicated "horizon" and working with just the sky can become precarious. Again with clouds it is necessary to rely on them being grey or the highlights or ... plus sometimes the sky isn't blue.
While it works, it is a very manual and dumb way of working.
What is photography becoming?
Something that it wasn't before.
It has been doing that for about 10 to 15 years now.
And to be quite frank, whilst LR and PS have made life more interesting, neither product has really revolutionised the way we edit photos since the introduction of parametric editing.
Then again, maybe I'm asking in the wrong forum. C1 beat Adobe to a more advanced tool for fixing keystone issues (and their tool, whilst manual, is far better than LR's). Maybe they'll deliver on this first too?