Tom Paul;
You're correct in stating the The Old Course does not yield visual cues purposefully or with design intent. It's really sort of amazing standing out there at times at how non-descript everything is...caddies pointing out lines at distant clouds, etc. I find it amazingly ironic that Jack Nicklaus loves TOC, yet has been one of the champions of the "total visibility" school of design.
That irony gets to the heart of what you're speaking about. Recent discussions of Rustic Canyon led to David Moriarty's really good descriptive essay that pretty much concluded that the genius of the course is simply the vague uncertainty one has out there, even after multiple playings, simply because the course itself is so "undefined".
On that thread, I wrote;
"Is the genius of RC simply the fact that it's so "undefined"?"
"After decades of modern courses that are "tough, yet fair", "visible", and "strategically obvious", Rustic Canyon seems to turn all of those philosophies on their head in a vague, unsettling, uncertain manner that seems to wear as well as any subtly complex puzzle."
I'm making this point not to pick on Nicklaus or once again laud Rustic, but simply to illustrate some of the almost diametrically opposing philsophies at play in modern design. I've attempted to outline those ideas on threads like "Architecture Splits in Two", at that time using C&C's "Hidden Creek" and Ron Fream's "Shore Gate", which are two relatively adjacent courses in south Jersey on similar land forms that couldn't be more different in approach.
So yes, to get back to your original point, TOC is indeed golf in the raw, without visual indicators, and I must confess a preference for that type of approach. However, I think you might be pushing TOC example too strenuously when you point out that even the earliest American stalwarts of design like Macdonald and others generally eschewed that model in favor of something more man-made and engineered.
I think the key thing to realize here is that TOC really was just always ideal land for golf, without trees, on sand, and as long as their was enough clearing between gorse bushes to whack a ball out to the river and back, pausing once in awhile to play to targets at regular intervals in the form of holes, not much more was needed. But, realistically, even that course became much more formalized with time, as it was widened considerably to accommodate busier incoming and outgoing play, and bunkers were dug, and tees and greens stabilized and formalized. Brand new holes like the 17th were created.
Such evolutionary design differs from the problems the American architects were confronted with. Even Macdonald's NGLA, which all would agree is a superb site, would almost assuredly not have been feasible as a site where one could "play golf in nature unaltered by man!", as you put it.
I would imagine that the site as found by Macdonald was probably covered in thick growths of bushes, with other areas of mature trees. It differed considerably from the natural linksland he saw abroad, yet as best as possible, and with the engineering he had at his disposal, he certainly did try to emulate not only the strategies found on great holes overseas, but also the naturalness, as well.
I just believe that there aren't many sites available that are so ideal that one can play in nature unaltered by man. (Interestingly, it seems that some of those places in this country might be found right smack dab in the center, but are far away from urban population centers).
I believe the first American architects understood this pretty quickly and decided to build variants of what they knew traditionally on new and different, largely inland terrain.
I also don't believe they were particularly interested in providing much of visual cues, as witnessed by holes like The Alps, or much of what you see (or don't
) at Yale, for instance.