I think it's so interesting to go all the way back to the beginning, perhaps the late 1850s, to see both what happened and why when man-made architectural features first began to mix with wholly natural landforms that’d been used for centuries in “early” golf.
At first it seems only rudimentary techniques were used to support natural features and landforms from erosion by wind or water---such things as crude boards or logs supporting natural bunker sides and such from collapsing or eroding.
Eventually, man-made means were used on land outside the natural linkslands to make some sense for the game only perhaps without that much thought to long lasting structural integrity and probably much less thought to how those man-made features actually mimicked the look of natural forms and Nature itself. Through the remainder of the 19th century this was the era of very rudimentary or geometric architecture.
Why did early architecture evolve into startingly geometric forms? According to a golf architecture philosopher such as Max Behr simply because it’s natural to man to make order (what he feels is necessary for the playing of the GAME of golf) out of what he perceives as disorder (raw natural landforms) and that apparently man feels it necessary, at first, to use exactness—eg geometry—to achieve this purpose.
It’s even more interesting that within perhaps 20-50 years after the wholesale application of rudimentary and geometric features of man-made architecture in golf a virtual revolt began in golf architecture to return as much as possible to the look and feel of truly natural looking forms in man-made architecture. All kinds of interesting theories evolved from this direction---probably the most interesting being the real reasons for Mackenzie’s ideas on the principles of camouflage (military camouflage) in golf architecture.
Somewhere in this early era (1900-the early 1920s) the idea of using “Art Principles” entered the business of building golf architecture. Clearly, early golfers and those who built golf courses had come to realize the essential of somehow preserving the look and feel of Nature itself in golf and its playing fields---as it once had to be in the linkslands. Why did that happen?
It may very well have been the obviousness reflected by this remark by Max Behr;
“Indeed the veriest tyro is unconsciously aware that golf is a contest with Nature. Thus, where he meets her unadorned, unblemished by the hand of man, he meets her without criticism. May we not say, then, that in the degree the golfer is conscious of design, in that degree is the architecture faulty according to the highest tenets of the art?”
What “art” is Behr actually speaking of? Most likely the sufficiently developed art of landscape architecture. And what are the tenets or principles of the art of landscape architecture? According to Cornish and Whitten they’re broadly Harmony, Proportion, Balance, Rhythm and Emphasis!
I’m not that knowledgeable on landscape architecture but I can’t imagine I’d have much to quibble about with the application of the first four of those tenets or principles in golf course architecture. But it may be the last one, Emphasis, I have some issue with. What is the function of Emphasis in landscape architecture as it applied to golf course design? According to Cornish and Whitten it’s ‘The eye is carried first to the most important part of the arrangement and then to other details’.
The most important part of the arrangement? What could that be? Probably where you’re expected to hit the golf ball. On the other hand, it could mean, in some cases, the eye is carried first to that part of the arrangement where you should NOT hit the golf ball. In either case, the degree to which this becomes formulaic in golf design is the degree to which the golfer becomes dictated to by the architect as to where he should go, or even must go.
Personally, I don’t think that’s a good thing in golf or golf architecture but I recognize I may be the only one, at least that I know of, who feels that way. I think the architect should try to deceive the golfer or at least not shrink from the possibility of deceiving him, just as Nature itself tends to unintentionally deceive him constantly. Only then can a golfer feel the satisfaction of where he stands in his mental and physical contest with Nature that so many say should always remain an essential ingredient in the sport of golf!
As useful examples, using PVGC’s holes as examples, does the tee shots of the 1st, 4th, 6th, the second shot of the 7th, the tee shots of #8 and #9, #13, #16, the old dual fairways of #17, and the second shots on #1 (some), #2, #12 (some), #17, #18 really show you the way? I don’t think so---you pretty much have to imagine them on the first playing and pretty much feel them after that.
I love golf holes when a first time golfer has to ask; “Where do I go?” or even “Where’s the green?” Not that all holes have to be like that—just more of them. I say, in the future, golf architecture should strive to do more de-emphasizing of the landscape architect principle of “Emphasis” of leading the golfer’s eye to the most important part of the arrangement. That certainly is not the way of Nature, certainly not always.
I recognize that there’s a strong contingent that says in public golf there should be no deception because golfers may only play the course one time. That’s fine then---in public golf the architect should then lead the golfer around the course with formulaic obviousness if public golfers feel so strongly that way. But for the rest, make it more interesting than that---make them find their own individual ways born of increasing experiences with a golf course.
Perhaps both types---the type that’s completely obvious, and the type that isn’t, could even be called “The Big World Theory” of golf course design! In other words, there’re necessarily huge differences in golf courses and their architecture---since there should be something out there for everyone!
