I think there's a little bit of a false dichotomy going on here. The opposite of subtlety isn't eye candy. Perhaps I'm misreading Ben's point, but "eye candy" has always struck me as a negative term, as in a dramatic feature that has no strategic playing value (e.g. a waterfall, framing containment mounds, etc). None of those things would make hole "memorable" to me (at least not in a good sense). Or does Ben believe those that value "memorability" are only interested in visuals (regardless of the play)?
I'll confess that I'm probably one of the "elevation whores" that Ben referred to in the "flat sites" thread.
However, I reject the notion that dramatic land is exclusive of subtlety. Oftentimes, the dramatic features of the land can obscure some of the subtleties of the individual holes. For example, on Pat Mucci's "Putting Golfers on the defensive" thread, we discussed how the large scale of overall terrain is used to hide the subtle uneven lies in the (relatively flat looking) fairway.
I guess I don't understand why some believe strategic angles, well-contoured greens or other subtle nuances are any more likely to be applied to flatter land than to bolder topography.
I tend to find holes with bolder topography to be more memorable, but it's not because I don't like subtlety. Topography adds layers of complexity to a hole, whether it be adjusting for the impact of elevation change, the effect of uneven lies, the higher likelihood of visual confusion / uncertainty, and all of this is in addition to simple photogenics.
When you ask if memorability "trumps" subtle nuance, it reads as if they're mutually exclusive. To the contrary, if there is a cool subtle feature, it's more likely I'll remember the hole. But if there's a cool subtle feature combined with a neat landform, I'll probably remember it more.
Am I misreading this?