I’ve seen a lot of manufactured golf courses online recently. I guess they are more photogenic.
But the sharp edges of so many of the features seem weird to me.
Courses which predominantly use the land for the hazards seem to be optimal to me.
There are highly manufactured courses that I enjoy like Hollywood but I would prefer to play Rustic Canyon regularly and prefer the look.
I presume you mean obviously artificial ones (even though most are) like excess mounding, steep banks (a la Dye) etc.
There are many (if not most) courses that use the land very well, and still have built greens, tees, and hazards. You have to build those.
A well routed golf course is one, IMHO, where you don't HAVE TO build excessive fw hazards and at least a few times, don't even need to build green side hazards. One yardstick of a good routing is how much earth you have to move, with anything under perhaps (and varies a bit by site) 150,000 probably consisting of almost all "natural" holes that don't NEED much work. Once the framework is in place with routing, architects naturally take different approaches.
Until the "everybody wants to build high end, award winning, photographically attractive" 1980s, the general mantra was use nature whenever you can, like streams, ponds, trees, sometimes natural ridges, and use bunkers only when nothing else was available, but you still wanted some kind of strategic challenge.
Ron Whitten once said my designs reminded him of a Japanese Garden, in which they believed the eye accepted artificiality as nature if the composition was good. In plainer terms, for most of my career, I had no trouble adding fill for a bunker, greens, tees, etc. Since they are obviously artifical, the only challenge is to make them look good, and naturalistic, if possible. But looking good was always the first priority.