I kind of agree with Ruined.
As long as 'sharpness' and the lack of aberrations sells lenses, lenses will tend to become more 'clinical', which is good for some. Not so for others maybe - but then there's always older lenses with more 'character' that will stay around for a long time. I'm hesitant about the new Sigma 50mm for example, and would really say I prefer the old EX version exactly because I like some of the subjective qualities of that lens.
So optical perfection is one side of things, but if you like the more 'artistic' side (extreme examples like lomography and heavily processed instagrams come to mind), then the camera is brought back down to earth as a mere tool, not an optical instrument designed for scientific purposes. And it's for everyone to see what tool best fits their needs.
Often it's the advanced amateurs in any discipline that have the 'best' and 'newest' gear, simply because they think that's absolutely needed or through marketing and forums like these, they are led to believe they will be less of a photographer without it. It's the real 'pro's/artists' on the other hand who can do with 'less' and still get 'more'. Maybe it will help us to focus on photography once we let the relative 'importance' of our gear go.
For fun, I like to play around with vintage lenses on my NEX. The less than perfect optics can create really interesting effects, or sometimes I like to try my best at shooting 'photography' even with a cheap compact or whatever inspires me at the moment. The limitations sometimes bring out the better in me. Will that save me from the sharpness bug? Well... at least it brings the notion of gear perfection into perspective.
Mind, I'm not preaching that I know it all, cause after all I'm not quite there - GAS afflicted as I am.
So while on the subject, where in the world is that new, stunningly SHARP 100-400L? I absolutely need
it to improve my photography!