If I may, I would like to just make 2 points that may help to bring these different perspectives together, although something tells me that’s just not possible!
Look/Aesthetics v. Playability/Strategy
In my opinion, “look” and “aesthetics” are not mutually independent from “playability and strategy” because there is a definite overlap between the two. They are inextricably linked. Hazards that appeal to your senses do not just hang as pictures framed on the wall, they are an integral part of the golf course that must be played from when you find yourself in them, which you will from time to time no matter how hard you try to avoid them. So when you “look” at those rough and rugged bunkers, you don’t just see a pretty picture on the wall, you see a hazard that is more likely to produce inconsistent lies and positions than those in the cleaner, perfectly maintained, perfectly edged, flat floored looking bunker. These hazards don’t just “look” different, they are likely to play different as well. They “look” different because they are made different and, therefore, will play different and, alternatively, they “play” different because they are made different and, therefore, “look” different. [Note: You can substitute another description for “rough and rugged” as that was only one example. By way of example, think of two similarly situated greenside bunkers with the same depth, but one is a pot where you can’t see the bunker floor and the other is open so you can see the flat floor of the bunker. Same basic strategy? Yes. Same visuals? No.]
It is difficult for me to understand how the same people who advocate the return of more irregular and un-maintained bunkers can argue that there is no difference in playability/strategy between these different bunker forms. Yes, "the bunker must be avoided, irrespective of its form," but I think you have to ask yourself to what degree. When bunkers are perfectly edged and the sand is perfectly consistent and perfectly maintained, the degree to which you are trying to avoid that hazard might be less than the degree to which you are trying to avoid the rough and rugged looking bunker which is more likely to play rough and rugged. So all other things being equal, those pictures that Tom MacWood posted are quite illustrative, at least for me, because that BWR bunker (‘I’m looking at it as a general example, not as it relates to that hole in particular) is just not going to send the same visual signals, and not just because it “looks” cleaner and more uniform but, perhaps more important, because it “looks” like it will “play” more consistent and uniform and that I will be less likely to get screwed! Consequently, is it really true that "the look of the bunker has absolutely nothing to do with the decision making process, shot and club selection?"
Psychology
Pre-shot psychology: If it looks different but will not play different, then the “look” obviously has little to do with pre-shot strategy. But if it looks different and will play different, then the “look” definitely has far more to do with pre-shot strategy.
In-shot psychology: Even if it “looks” different but will “play” the same, there can be different visual signals that might distract you to a greater degree and prevent you from staying committed to your pre-shot strategy. Just think about why it is that golfers find themselves deviating from their pre-shot strategy once the club starts moving. Anything that affects your ability to remain focused on the target and brings doubt and fear into the equation by distracting your attention from that target, thereby affecting the shot/result, is definitely part of the architecture as far as I am concerned.
By the way, Bobby Jones was absolutely correct when he stated that "there is golf and then there is tournament golf and they are definitely not the same." What else could explain club players with 0-5 handicaps regularly shooting 85-95 in the medal play portion of their club championships!
However, the “architecture” doesn’t change between golf and tournament golf, just the golfer’s state of mind and the degree to which he/she cares about his/her performance and results. So to say that one doesn’t see or isn’t affected by the Pacific Ocean on the 16th at Cypress Point during even a casual round seems a little far-fetched. The only place any golfer is truly unaffected by architecture and the surrounds is at the driving range, where there is no responsibility to find your shot and hit it again. Almost every golfer I know, even in the most casual of rounds, wants to hit quality golf shots. The challenge is always present, and the architecture is fundamental to that challenge.