Gary -
I think you're very right that the distinction gets to much of what we bat around here. I've tried to understand why some courses just don't do it for me in terms of aesthetics, and found that focusing on the "particulars" of a given golf course doesn't explain enough.
For me, most golf courses that are built on flat sites (in areas that are flattish for miles around) can at best be pretty, as no amount of earth-moving or natural-looking bunkers can give them the sense of rightness that I'm talking about and that I think beauty entails. In fact, the more earth-moving and attempts at a natural look that goes on, the further they move away from beauty (in the sense of the word that, I think, we're both using.) The human eye and the unconscious mind simply can't find an overall sense of balance and proportion in the juxtaposition. What's left is a surface prettiness. That's nothing to shake a stick at, and I'm appreciative of that prettiness wherever I see it; but we're talking about something else/more here.
I say "most" courses built on flattish sites strike me that way because there are exceptions. Those exceptions -- including some of the lesser known British courses that Sean Arble posts on -- come about because the designers seemed to have made a virtue out of necessity, i.e. they embraced instead of denying or despising the flatness of the surrounding countryside and the site itself, and thus created golf courses that seem comfortable in their own skins, at peace with themselves, and as quiet and subtle as the land itself. And when that overall scale and balance is right, I find that the particulars like bunker shapes/styles or green contours don’t matter as much to me, i.e. I’ve stopped focusing on what’s pretty because I sense instead something that’s beautiful.
I take it that the consensus opinion is that it's very hard to make a great golf course out of a flat site, and that developers and the general golfing public aren't keen on the idea anyway. I guess that's probably true. And I guess that what's also true is that a sense of beauty is more subtle -- and individualistic -- than a sense of what's pretty. But all that said, I think that in terms of new courses, it would take a brave (and/or financially secure) designer who was willing to risk being “boring” and creating a “boring” course to let a flat site stand a chance and become what it was intended to be…and then to see what kind of beauty might emerge.
All that said, Gary, I'll still be writing to you with questions in 5 years or so when my (then) 7 year old also wants to know about "art".
Peter