I would say that it might be true that minimalism has in some cases migrated to spectacularism as a fad, if your definition is that a spare and economical presentation of what is there on the natural ground is cleverly blended into a golf design that offers traditional good value golf at very low cost to build and maintain is real minimalism. Then, spectacularism is any extra effort to faux create natural looks that might be thought of as having a natural context of more and bigger natural features than exist on that ground, or anywhere in nature.
So, Chambers Bay is spectacularism, while Sand Hills remains the poster child of minimalism (or Wild Horse...
) BallyNeal, is a leaner, going by what Tom D., often describes as their construction process, whereby the efforts to get the 'look' were greater than many might guess, yet not really that much compared to the big efforts that are made to get the look in other venues.
I'm going to be curious as to where Prairie Club comes in. It is surely not going to meet the purist minimal standards as Sand Hills, yet I don't think it will be an over reach to create spectacular looks like Chambers Bay, or Sutton Bay. I'm guessing that it might be closer to BallyNeal, maybe Dismal River.
But, we can't just keep focussing on the standard of minimalism looking like Sand Hills or Wild Horse. What about Mike Nuzzo's Wolf Pointe. What is that? I don't think it is really minimalism in a pure sense as we have followed it's construction on Mike's website; but probably a lot closer to minimal than spectacularism. It seems like Mike did as sparing of a construction job as he could to get the most exciting golf, on such barely remarkable terrain. Those that have been to Wolf Point will have to say...
Some constructors are going to be better than others at building bunkers and shaping land contours that appear very natural. The more effort and time they put into getting that very natural, or in some cases faux and over-the-top natural look, the more spectacular it can be graded, IMHO.