I see Jay's point, ie if we value and promote 50 yard wide fairways and meaningful (as opposed to directional or eye candy) bunkering, we must value and promote them for a reason -- and the only meaningful reason is because they create interesting and challenging dynamics & relationships between the tee shot, the approach shot, the green contours and the various hazards and recovery options of the surrounds. So: knowing where the pin is that day seems to me essential in, let's say, 'actualizing' all the potential strategies the architect has created. Indeed, I'd say that knowing where the hole is cut that day is the *only* thing that actualizes that strategy, and so is the only piece of information a golfer needs or 'deserves' or should want.
BUT: in this softer and more pampered version of the game we play today (compared to the average golfer in the 1920s who tackled 6400 yards courses with hickories and haskells and routinely shot 100), there is indeed so much *additional* aids and signs and signifiers being provided golfers every step of the way that I can understand someone like Tom saying: 'Every once in a while I'd prefer that you do *without* that information. Maybe on some holes you'll be pleasantly/unpleasantly surprised; maybe on other holes your eyes will need to be good enough to get your own answer from way back on the tee; maybe on some holes you'll be able to get the information for, say, the 5th green while you're walking up the 3rd fairway, or you'll look for the 9th green while you wait on the 7th tee. In short: relish rhe challenge, man!"
I understand that perspective too -- though I'd suggest that if the goal is to encourage golfers to embrace the spirit of discovery and the challenge of the game, we might do that better by having only two sets of tees and building savagely deep bunkers and creating severely contoured greens than by not telling golfers where the pins are cut that day.
Peter