I upvoted to counteract the downvotes. The question is genuine and needs a thoughtful reply.
OP, the tech exists however contrary to expectations, to have multiple displays attached with a bandwidth constrained connection, the display tends to have all the special bits in it (contrast it with your “please stop having displays be 'special”)
To support no bits moving when image is static, the display must incorporate a framebuffer and once you add franebuffer to the display, it stops being a dumb display. Eg. You can add smarts to it and expose higher level primitives for “display acceleration” and reduce the bandwidth required further… and very quickly the display is just a computer with memory and video accelerator (aka graphics card) connected with a cable.
This is what RDP. Xdisplay and VNC accomplish. The basic complexity is not reduced but moved elsewhere. However the function gained is very useful so they exist and it’s a competitive landscape!
The really cheap ones that don't support VRR (variable refresh rate) only buffer a few lines of pixels and rely on the sample-and-hold LCD panel to act as a framebuffer between frames
OP, the tech exists however contrary to expectations, to have multiple displays attached with a bandwidth constrained connection, the display tends to have all the special bits in it (contrast it with your “please stop having displays be 'special”)
To support no bits moving when image is static, the display must incorporate a framebuffer and once you add franebuffer to the display, it stops being a dumb display. Eg. You can add smarts to it and expose higher level primitives for “display acceleration” and reduce the bandwidth required further… and very quickly the display is just a computer with memory and video accelerator (aka graphics card) connected with a cable.
This is what RDP. Xdisplay and VNC accomplish. The basic complexity is not reduced but moved elsewhere. However the function gained is very useful so they exist and it’s a competitive landscape!