[A_Clay_Man]

Listening to the radio last night, one music commentator used these two terms to describe what he seemed to consider  essential, to the arts attraction.

It got me thinking about GCA and where these concepts might have been used succesfully.

First, I tried to give the modernist a break, wondering if Cart paths and half-pipes, could have somehow captivated the masses, with their paradox. Then, I realized Raynor and C.B. may have been the poster children for these two concepts.

I still don't have a clue what the hell i'm writting about. (like that will stop me), but would enjoy reading others impressions on these concepts.

*note; The radio was tuned to NPR, and the reference was to the "Ramones" and how their uniform look (and name) was contrary to the music they made. Hence the paradox and tension.


Thoughts?

[Tom_Doak]

Adam,

All of golf architecture is an artistic paradox.  You want to reward good golf shots, and yet you want to make the golf course MORE playable for the POORER golfers.

I think aesthetic tension in golf architecture is simply a matter of placing hazards which force a strategic decision.

[Brent Hutto]

Well, maybe it's because I just finished reading Tom's book on Alister MacKenzie but the whole notion of an architect designing and building a golf course is a paradox within a paradox. Leaving aside a few of the most extreme modern designs...

A golf course is created in and from the natural environment: grass, earth, sand, sky, shadow. Yet the architect imposes to one extent or another purely artificial concepts of strategy, playability and maintainability. But the end result he has in mind is to mimic elements of golf as it was played on naturally occuring ground in the early days.

So a golf course is the architect's rendering of a natural environment by artifice using natural elements. And then the whole darned thing grows and changes and experiences weather and wear and tear just like any landscape. It is wheels within wheels within wheels of paradox.

[TEPaul]

In golf course architecture when it comes to subjects like artistic paradox and aesthetic tension I think the most interesting word on the subject comes from Max Behr in his 1927 essay on the subjects entitled "What is Art in Golf Architecture?

Anyone should read the whole essay but this excerpt says a lot;

      "Golf architecture is not an art of representation; it is, essentially, an art of interpretation. And an interpretative art allows freedom to fancy only through obedience to the law that dominates its medium, a law that lies outside ourselves. The medium of the artist is paint, and he becomes it master; but the medium of the golf architect is the surface of the earth over which the forces of Nature alone are master.
        Therefore, in the prosecution of his designs, if the architect correctly uses the forces of nature to express them and thus succeeds in hiding his hand, then, only has he created the illusion that can still all criticism."

It's interesting, though, that in this essay Behr is talking about two very distinct factors---first the creation of something that's aesthetically pleasing to look at but also something that's constructed in such a way that it can best withstand the destructive forces of Nature. To Behr it's obviously not just that the architect understands how to construct something (interpretation) that makes a golfer feel like it looks natural, almost like being upon raw nature itself (before a golf course is built), but that the architect also understands how the destructive forces of Nature made that raw site get that way in the first place.

Those two factors are what Behr felt were the best and necessary prescriptions for what he referred to as "Permanent Architecture."


   

[Marc Haring]

I wonder if an example would be say the harsh, cold town of St Andrews as a backdrop to #18 at TOC, or even those old railway sheds pre hotel disaster on #17. Or are we thinking more about semi degraded railway ties on bunker faces or how about that horrible cooling tower visible from all parts of Royal St Georges. They say that tower is now redundant but the locals don’t want it removed. Maybe they appreciate the contrast it creates.

Another example; a links course viewed in the bleakest of weather? Does that sometimes create an artistic paradox?

No; I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about either.

[A_Clay_Man]

So isn't it paradoxical that C.B and Seth, repeated holes, on different lands, few of which could be argued, looked ultra-natural? I'll throw in Langford, too.

As for the permanance, perhaps Behr had that wrong? Since the acceptance of impermanance is much more realistic. And, as it seems to have turned-out, the hand of man has been more destructive than the forces of nature, to the art of GCA.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Is (was) Raynor then the perfect paradox?  More engineer than architect modifying nature to his view of order and functionality.

[TEPaul]

I've always felt the look of the National School of architecture (Macdonald, Raynor, Banks, Emmet and maybe some like Strong) are the biggest paradoxes if a natural look in architecture is the idea. The Monterrey School of MacKenzie, Hunter, et al probalby looks to me to be the least paradox. Some of the heathland architects like Colt and Alison seem like less of a paradox. Ross, Flynn, Thompson etc to me are somewhere in between. The new wave of natural looking architecture of Doak, Hanse, De Vries, C&C and some of the others of that ilk may be some of the least paradox of all.

[paul cowley]

i think some here are confusing artistic paradox and instead describing naturalistic paradox or some other when comparing raynor et al......any and all forms of art are not defined , judged or valued according to their relationship with things natural....or their ability to mimic nature.

behr was a little over his head with anything remotely described as 'permanent architecture'.....me thinks he be thinkin too much........eh TP ?

[TEPaul]

behr was a little over his head with anything remotely described as 'permanent architecture'.....me thinks he be thinkin too much........eh TP ?"

Paul:

I don't think so. Behr was an advocate of the convex angle in architecture and the use of the convex angle to protect architecture not of the convex angle simply because he observed it was the least destroyed form in nature. As far as assuming that the look of Nature was something the golfer was less likely to criticize than something the golfer observed to be man-made certainly appears to be something Behr was not right about as plenty of architecture was built that wasn't natural looking following his warning but after-all that might be precisely why so much of it was later changed---eg not many did heed his warning.

[A_Clay_Man]

Clearly Herr Doak said in two sentences, what took me and Sheryl a full conversation, not to figure-out.

Brent hints that there are pardoxes within paradoxes, which sounds reasonable and implies multiple applications. Just like everything else in this wacky genre, is case specific.

Paul, I think I was confusing the juxtaposition of the sharp edges, of say a Langford green complex, versus the blending of the natural surrounds, ala the good doctors school. If that makes any sense?


I wonder if the poorer golfer needs to be considered as much, from this point onward, as he was during the formative years of golf's path, here in the U.S. over the last 100+ years?

[T_MacWood]

In my opinion Raynor is the king of the 'Artistic Paradox & Aesthetic Tension'. Known for engineered features (notably his green complexes), Raynor's golf courses are among the most natural I've run across. He was fortunate to have been blessed with a number of extraordinary sites, and the sense to leave well enough alone between tee and green. An unaltered beautiful landscape juxtaposed with his man-made green sites creates an appealing tension. It appears to me that his features are a little less angular than say Banks, which may contribute to that appeal.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom M- SHeryl is very excited by your opinion. She has been spouting for years that the less angular, rounded shapes, are more appealing to us humans. Freud would likely site the full round bossom as the origin for that attraction,but I digress.

One example of aesthetic tension emerges when a bunker, with heaving roundedness, attracts and yet must be avoided simutaneously.  

I think she's got it!

[T_MacWood]

Adam
I'll take your word for it...but I've never been a great fan of the Ramones for whatever reason...IMO the Talking Heads were light years ahead.

[paul cowley]

tom paul.....now i have an image of this behr fellow walking around the landscape tallying 'convex angles' with concave or hell,even straight angles......was he really OK?...or did one need a flask to communicate with him and relieve the aesthetic tension?

adam and tom mac....i don't feel raynor et al were particularly involved in paradox.....they just valued function first over form and weren't obsessed with natural detailing......unlike some of his contemporaries then [or even now ]  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said:

"In my opinion Raynor is the king of the 'Artistic Paradox & Aesthetic Tension'. Known for engineered features (notably his green complexes), Raynor's golf courses are among the most natural I've run across. He was fortunate to have been blessed with a number of extraordinary sites, and the sense to leave well enough alone between tee and green. An unaltered beautiful landscape juxtaposed with his man-made green sites creates an appealing tension."

Tom MacW:

Interesting observation or perhaps I should say preference on your part. I certianly agree with you that Raynor may be the king of artistic paradox and aesthetic tension simply because his man-made features are so engineered and angular looking juxtaoposed against the natural landscapes he used. To me that certainly creates a paradox and an aesthetic or artisitc tension. To me that's never been appealing looking, at least not until relatively recently. That (my feeling about Raynor's style) is still an enigma to me, though, in an aesthetic sense. I account it (recently) to how well I've recently seen most all Raynor's course actually PLAY. The angularity clearly creates much smaller and thinner "margins for error" in playing golf on Raynor courses or courses of that highly angular and engineered look, and I like that---I think it generally just makes them play interesting, challenging and sometimes much more intense for that very reason than courses on the other end of the spectrum that have an over-all far more natural look (ie man-made features that are seamlessly "tied in" to natural grades and natural "lines").

I do not agree, though, that Raynor could be consider at all unique in his particular era for 'leaving well enough alone', as you say, between tee and green. Raynor died in 1926 and in that early era not many golf architects ever did much between tee and green compared to architects today unless they absolutely had to to overcome some obstacle or problem to routing or the playing of golf. They simply didn't have the technology in equipment compared to architects today to easily do things like shape entire mid-bodies of holes and so they simply featured what they found more simply with  man-made architectural supplements such as bunkering or mounds et al.

But the distinctions between what an architect with the style of a Raynor did and didn't do on any site is perhaps the most obvious and stark of all the major architects I'm aware of.

Architects sometimes talked about "hiding the hand of man" in an attempt to create a general natural look throughout a golf course---in a real sense to extinguish the demarcations between what they made and what they didn't touch. Some call this "tying in" their man-made features with the land (natural grades and such). In my opinion, an architect such as MacKenzie is on one end of the spectrum that way and an architect such as Raynor is on the other end of the spectrum.

Personally, I like the diversity of all of it as I think the vast differences in styles in golf architecture is the primary reason for the richness and variety of the entire art or golf architecture.

[A_Clay_Man]

Another name came to my mind when first thinking about this topic. Desmond Muirhead. His attempts at not only humor, but literally making holes artful, appears to be some sort of paradox. No?

TomM- I'd agree David Byrne was much more sophisticated, musically. However, the Ramones were (perhaps even created) a different genre, that being Punk. For head bangers, the Ramones were the bomb.

One other thought on the freudian thang..The 14th green at Pebble Beach. nough said?

[T_MacWood]

TE/Paul
I agree Raynor was not obsessed with natural detailing, but he obviously was obsessed with Nature. I’m not  
sure there was a more gifted architect at recognizing a site’s natural attributes and maximizing those attributes within his routing. My impression is Raynor preferred the real McCoy (Mother Nature) to features created to emulate Nature.

I have no idea if Raynor consciously understood the aesthetic effect his engineered features contrasted with Nature created (and he was certainly blessed with some outstanding natural sites and features which IMO intensified the effect)…..maybe he did understand, maybe he didn’t, but whatever the case, the result is an aesthetic tension that is very appealing.

The paradox being the architect known for his engineered features and forcing a number of template holes upon every site created some of the most natural golf courses in the world. The secondary paradox being clearly man-made features can be so aesthetically pleasing when juxtaposed with purely natural features.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW;

What you say there is certainly your strong opinion and only goes to show how golf architecture is and can be legitimately so very subjective. On your feelings of Raynor the architectural "naturalist" I could not possibly disagree with you more. As far as Raynor's style creating a true artistic paradox which certainly can create aesthetic tension somehow I agree with you. But Raynor the golf architectural "naturalist"---no way and never, in my book. He was about as different that way from an architect such as Mackenzie as night and day!

It's hard to say why Raynor continued and stuck with a style that he/and Macdonald used in and around 1907 (the angular and highly engineered style---there are a number of interesting theories about the reasons they did that) but the fact that he did stick with that angular and highly engineered style is obvious! He did that for perhaps close to 20 years as other well-known architects were dedicatedly experimenting with all kinds of forms and applications of blending and melding all their architecture both visually and in other ways into natural landscapes.

Mackenzie's application of camouflage in architecture, although often misunderstood, is the very best example of how that was done and perfected and the reasons why. For some reason Raynor just never got into that. The most logical reason to me why he didn't do that is probably nothing much more than the old cliche of;  "Why mess with a style that was selling?"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()