Michael H,
On uphill shots, it is sometimes necessary to extend the bunker back to the golfer more than normal to assure vision of same. On the other hand, when the slope facing the green is steep, it may not be necessary. My guess is ANGC falls into TD's scale for ability to be noticed category, at least to some degree.
Some other random thoughts, based solely on my experience.
In one of my first ASGCA meetings, in Dallas in 1983, one of our venues was the (now) TPC Four Seasons in Las Colinas, then just Las Colinas, an original RTJII design. He came to lunch after we all played, eagerly hoping to be praised for the work. I was a bit surprised at how rough the others were on him, basically saying, "I know this is Texas, but the bunkers really didn't have to be that much bigger!"
In reality, I have heard similar complaints about at least Press Maxwell work - looking at a typical green, what you see first is the bunkers and secondly the green, etc.
Being mentored by Dick Nugent, I have fallen into the same category, at least earlier in my career. He believe big and bold was nearly always better. When we discussed subtlety, his reaction was usually, "bah humbug on subtlety!". So yes, there was an era where the scale kept getting larger. Not that this was all bad. Scale was bigger in everything, from the width of streets to the size of houses, and I always thought it was a bit of practicality, combined with the general feelings of prosperity after WWII.
Besides, MacK built some pretty sprawling bunkers. And many modern architects did not. Random recollection....I saw a set of Art Hills plans and thought the bunkers looked puny and under scaled (at least in comparison to plans we drew for Dick). I thought they didn't know how to draw plans! But then, I saw a few courses and low and behold, they simply built bunkers smaller than Nugent tended to.
On the practicality side, given the maintenance emphasis through the 1960-70's, when golf was a similarly tough biz to now, once power rakes came on the market, bunkers bays were designed to be raked by them - a minimum diameter of 20 feet or so. (now down to about 16 feet for many rake models) The grass noses were shaped for machine mowing, and that was at least a 25 foot diameter, probably more. It still is if you want a machine to mow the banks without stopping, backing up, etc. That alone made bunkers bigger than they had been in the Golden Age.
Now, after many bunker reduction projects, and in the realization that the green should be the main visual focus of the approach shot artistic composition, my bunker sizes have gone way down, and frankly, in nearly every case, I think the smaller bunkers have made for better designs. Sometimes, I stand out in the fw, look at the green, and use my thumb to cover the outer portions of bunkers, well away from the greens. Rarely do the last several feet or yards do much to enhance the composition, and hence, they are easy to fill in with grass.
When drawing plans, I have settled on a general rule (oft broken) of thumb that if a green is, say, 60 feet wide, any flanking bunker should have its outside limits <60 foot from the green. Obviously, it varies depending on the function of the bunker, but in general, it seems to fit my eye.
End of random thoughts for the day, LOL. Short version, yes bunkers can tend to be too big!