Well, because you can find thousands of them pretty much everywhere, and the majority of people got used to see the place. Sad, because the place is still as spectacular as it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago (apart from the amount of people that you'll meet there, but that's a thing you can't know from the pictures). The point here is that both photography and travel became much more affordable in the last decade; and it's not only a matter of money, it's also about the more user-friendly photographic tools and the incredibly simple way you can book pretty much everything for a trip to other end of the world from the palm of your hand in about 5 minutes. Combine these factors, and you'll get an esponential increase in the amount of photographic tourism. Many wild places got way more accessible and easier to reach. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this with a negative note; I'm actually happy that more people get to see the beautiful locations that this Earth has (hopefully behaving responsibly in the meanwhile, but that's a whole new argument). We all deserve to travel and explore, and I'm glad we found a way to allow more people to do it. Anyway, returning to the main argument, if ten years ago you would have traveled to Iceland, you would have probably found 1/50 of the photographers that you will find if you travel there nowadays. This flooding of photos brought photographers to enhance their pictures more and in more creative ways, in order to differentiate and to emerge from the crowd. Far from me to say that landscape photography should represent reality, it's not hard today to find pictures that made a long way (to say the least) from what was the original view of the place.
Truth is that the vast majority of people nowadays are no longer surprised by a good photo. Actually, not even by a great photo. The average attention threshold is a bunch of seconds, and there are high chances that your audience will "observe" the pictures you put so much effort in on a 5" screen. Not so rewarding, eh? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that EVERYBODY is doing that. There are still people - both photographers and non - that will visit your website or your art gallery and spend a decent amount of time looking at your pictures. But unfortunately it's becoming more and more a "niche" thing, something that it's not common anymore.
The ever-growing loss of attention together with the saturation of the market and a consequent increase of competition, due to the fact that as we saw earlier that both photography and travel became way more affordable, led to an increased number of artists that crossed that invisible line between photography and digital art, creating scenes that were simply impossible to see in the real world. In a few words, creating artworks with the precise aim to sensationalize and make you stop for a few seconds more while you are scrolling your social feed to say “wow”. A purely aesthetic purpose, empty photos generally made to sell a location/service.
You see, a few strings up here I mentioned a few examples all related to the post production part of the creation process; but truth is that a creative post production workflow isn't the discriminating factor between producing good or bad landscape photographs. I personally know and respect artists that became famous for their own particular post-production style, because I know that it's just their way to express and transmit the emotions they felt while shooting. And as I said, I respect and admire that. I wanted to clarify this point before you jump on your chair thinking that I'm just debating on how we should post process pictures. The approach I'm talking about begins on the field, or even before than that: photographers that reach the place, take the shot and go away, photographers that don't savor the moments spent in the wilderness, photographers that don't respect the environment and trash out the place in favor of a better point of view or an “Insta worthy” picture. In other words, people with a camera, not nature lovers. Persons that see the landscape as a means to reach an end, generally popularity, and not understanding that the landscape itself is the end. That's the approach I'm referring to, and the one I condemn.