To be honest, over the years, I have found the group think here defending blind shots and to a similar degree, centerline bunkers, really over the top. Regarding blind shots, nearly every architect in history and most good players dislike them (hate probably being too strong a word) Of course, Pre WW 2 guys had less tools at their disposal to correct routing deficiencies, and perhaps strove even harder to avoid them in their routings.
For the most part, a course of no blind shots is always the goal. Of course, most of us would put up with them once or twice a round, if obviously required by rock that can't be blasted, or some special topographic feature (like 8 at PB, just too good too pass up even with a blind tee shot) RTJ was criticized in part for too many sharp doglegs, with tee shot LZ bunkered both sides and the green not visible (see Hazeltine, 1970 US Open)
Strategic players are like generals, they don't like to go to battle without a clear idea of where the enemy lies. If you believe in strategic design, your probably should believe in making holes as visible as possible. I recall a debate in Golf Digest, or somewhere about the 1970's about whether not seeing the bottom of the pin from the LZ would be considered blind, and Jack Nicklaus and other pros loudly argued for that. While not always possible, I try to flare the backs of greens up high enough so they are visible to give some distance perspective. Pros want to know how far a tucked pin is from the outside edge of the green, but I have always found that hard to achieve for various reasons.
Similarly, every good player I know prefers to see the entire hole from the tee if possible. Like blind shots, they realize that many doglegs prevent that and a few are okay. Again, if strategy is planning one shot ahead, seeing one shot ahead makes some sense, even if you aren't hitting the green with your tee shot.
I have probably only designed a few blind tee shots in my 50+ course career - 12 at Links of Sierra Blanca in NM, with the old runway presenting a look similar to 18 Rivera, 4 at Firekeeper (mimicking 4 at Royal St. George in Scotland) and to a lesser degree, 6th at Giant's Ridge Quarry, where the natural mine spoils were too good to flatten so the fw is blind. There may be a few more. For par 3's, 17 at Cowboys is the only real uphill par 3, and I bracketed the green with bunkers (as I usually do on uphill approaches) to make up for the blind putting surface with pretty clear definition of its edges. There may be a few more, as well, but I don't recall them.
As to Joe's last comment, I believe a look at golf architecture proves otherwise. And, as I have commented before, literally a million songs use the same 4 chords and yet they are all different enough to be distinctive. Only on this discussion board, would having "best practices" or strong principles would be regarded a bad thing. Too many here overly laud the obvious exceptions that prove the rule. Those exceptions do exist, and most of us know them when we see them. But I agree its not really totally black and white, what I'm saying is a few make them the pleasant exception, too many and then its just a case of a lot of bad holes.
However, IMHO, that is not the way to attack a design problem, starting with the idea that every hole should break some good conventions, at least in the basics. Once the basic hole is created, if you want to make the hazard a rattlesnake pit over a traditional sand bunker, go right ahead. I for one, would prefer to see the snakes well in advance, though.
Just my $0.02