Why are golfers so......

[TEPaul]

"When an art form crosses paths with the John Q Public you are bound to get all sorts of diverging opinions...film, music, literature, cuisine, golf architecture, etc."

Tom MacWood:

Good point. The next logical question about golf architecture then is why do we try so hard to gain consensus of opinion about golf architecture on any particular golf course? Why do we go down the road towards sameness on all golf courses, as golf architecture and particularly its maintenance practices have done in modern times? We do fixate on consistency which leads to sameness, wouldn't you say?

You often mention golf architecture as a type of art form but there's an important distinction between it and other forms of art that you mentioned above. Golf architecture is mutable and interactive everyday, those other art forms aren't. Do you agree that golf architecture that fits into the "Big World" theory should be in order? It only means that difference is good--it's healthy---it could actually allow golf architecture to be as varied as other art forms, as film, music, literature, cuisine. In that way there could be and would be something for everyone's tastes. The thing that has to be stressed, though, is there would also be many things that were not appealing to the tastes of some or many on any particular golf course, and that should actually be looked at as a good thing---a healthy thing for the art form of golf architecture.

When some of the great architects of the past scratched on the surface of the importance of "controversy" which they wrote about, they were obviously onto something fundamentally important and very likely healthy. But the idea of consistency and standardization always seems to compete with the idea of healthy controversy, and the idea of consistency and standardization seems to be winning little by little as golf architecture and its maintenance continues to evolve into the future.

[T_MacWood]

Cuisine isn't "mutable and interactive everyday"? Music...instraments change, arrangmements change, voices change? The gardens of Japan are inactive and made up living material that change with the seasons, if not from decade to decade, century to century, if only slightly. Architecture evolves... buildings weather, the plantings around the structure evolve, the function within the rooms change. There is something very appealing about a weathered old building.

What are examples of "we try so hard to gain consensus of opinion about golf architecture on any particular golf course?"...that leads to sameness?

[Craig Sweet]

Just a few thoughts here...if I just paid $50 grand to join a club and another $12 grand for my yearly "dues" I darn well better like the course...and defend the place. Otherwise I'd look like a fool.

Personally, when I talk with golfers at our course about their favorite places to play they always talk about condition, price, and in general terms, the degree of difficulty.

Golf gives you so much to talk about in terms of the "playing field" whereas other sports do not....fortunately, baseball has "stats" that can keep a conversation going all winter long...but very few baseball fans are going to spend much time on the facilities... But golf...a picture (actual or planted in your mind) is worth a thousand words!

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood;

Regarding your post #27---we've had that discussion before. Maybe you think art forms such as music, literature, cuisine, building architecture, painting are interactive art forms similar to golf architecture but I don't. For starters I look at Behr's point that the painting artist is the master of his medium (paint) but a golf architect should never attempt to be the master of his medium which is the surface of the earth and the forces of nature. And secondly, none of the art forms you mention have a sport that's played in, on and across them. That's a huge difference in my opinion, when one starts considering interactivity and an art form. Listening to music, reading literature, eating cuisine, looking at or moving around or working in a building or looking at a painting aren't remotely the same and so I see golf architecture as vastly different as an art form.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Painting, garden art, cullinary art, music, architecture, golf architecture...they are all examples of art meeting a human activity. In fact can art exist without human interaction?

I've not thought of a painter in those terms...trying to dominate his medium. In fact the most enduring masters--it seems to me--were able to work in harmony with their medium (and their subject matter). One of the tenants of art is the imperfection of Nature....like nature, art should be imperfect. When one attempts to dominate a medium he is attempting to remove imperfections.

I'm not sure I would agree with Behr's cut and dried assessment of painting...the artist is often at the mercy of nature. From the natural pigments of his paint, to the vagaries of one brush to another, to the nature of light, to the subject matter he chooses, to the limits of his imagaination and experience, to the presentation  of his finished work, including frame, space and light as well as the independence of the individual viewer and the artists inability to control their unique perceptions.

Not to mention the natural processes of age...colors change over time, surfaces warp, paintings crack and often take on beautiful patina. Nature has an effect on art long after the artisit is dead and buried.

[GeoffreyC]

When an art form crosses paths with the John Q Public you are bound to get all sorts of diverging opinions...film, music, literature, cuisine, golf architecture, etc.

Tom and anyone elase who might want to respond-

Where on earth did the idea that a golf course was a work of art get started?  To the HUGE majority of golfers and I dare say most who "get it" as well, a golf course is a playing field where the object is to get a little ball into a 4 1/4 inch hole in the fewest number of strokes. This might be done competitively or for recreation where we hope to socialize, interact with nature and test our skills.  I would argue that most of us would also agree that a playing field that harmonizes with nature and creates strategy while pleasing the eye is better then someting that looks as if it were dropped into place by a helicopter but "a work of art"?  

Is Central Park "a work of art" or a functional entity that needs to meet the recreational needs of today's NYC residents?  Would we want to "restore" it to exactly the way it was 100 years ago?  

I ask this not to pick an argument or to say that pure restoration in some cases isn't the best choise (as most know I think it can be the absolute best choice) but to really get at what you mean by a golf course as a work of art.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Painting, garden art, cullinary art, music, architecture, golf architecture...they are all examples of art meeting a human activity. In fact can art exist without human interaction?"

Tom MacWood:

Of course art can't really exist without some interaction of human activity such as looking at it. Does a bear shit in the woods if someone isn't watching him?

The thing I believe you need to consider or certainly consider more completely is what is the nature and differences of that human activity regarding any art form? It seems to me there's a world of difference between art forms when you apply to them the necessary activities that're required to appreciate them the way they were intended to be appreciated. A world of difference between looking at a painting and playing a sport across an art form that seemingly needs a large participation of Nature itself in it's art form. The art form is certainly important but so is the nature of the activity, and there're vast differences that way.

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
I don't know precisely when golf architecture was referred to as art or who was the first to make that connection. The first instances I've found are in the early years when golf design went from a simple process of staking out a course in an afternoon (with formulaic cop hazards) to working in harmony with a sites natural advantages. Horace Hutchinson was one of the first...and he had an art background. Darwin also made the connection (a protege of Hutchinson), as did Charles Ambrose, who was also an artist. Here are some early examples:

Golf Architecture is a new art closely allied to that of an artist or sculpture, but also necessitating a scientific knowledge of many other subjects.~~Alister MacKenzie

The point, however, which we have to consider is that although golf architecture may be a curious and irregular form of architecture, it is architecture none the less. It has to do with building, planning, constructing in as true sense as the most ambitious works of genius with which the art is usually associated. Cathedrals, bungalows, gardens and golf courses may appear to be conflicting examples of constructive ability, yet the principles governing them follow precisely on the same lines.~~Newton Wethered and Tom Simpson

In golf construction, art and utility meet; both are absolutely vital; one is utterly ruined without the other. On the artistic side, there is the theory of construction with the main fundamental that we copy nature; in this all seem to agree.~~George Thomas

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 which dominates its medium, a law that lies outside ourselves. The medium of the artist is paint, and he becomes its master; but the medium of the golf architect is the surface of the earth over which the forces of Nature alone are master. ~~ Max Behr

If there has been improvement in the art of constructing golf courses, it has been largely due to the willingness of the best architects to imitate humbly and lovingly what nature has placed before them . . . And when the finished product appears it so blends itself with the surrounding landscape that few can tell where nature ends and art begins. ~~ Robert Hunter.

Architecture is one of the five fine arts. If the critic’s contention is true, then architecture must be a ‘fetish’, as the basis of it is the copying of Greek and Roman architecture, Romanesque and Gothic, and our own times among other forms, Georgian and Colonial architecture. One must have the gift of imagination to successfully apply the original to new situations. Surely there is nothing ‘fetish’ about this. I believe that in reverencing anything in the life of man which has the testimony of the ages as being excelled, whether it be literature, painting, poetry, tombs---even a golf hole.~~CB Macdonald


I've never been crazy about the term 'getting it'. Everybody has their own preceptions and opinions. If I say someone else gets it or doesn't get it, that assumes I get it, and I'm not sure I do get it, because whatever it is, my understanding and perceptions of golf architecture are constantly changing. I doubt I'll ever completely get it...if that's even possible...but enjoy the process of trying to get there.

Central Park is defintely a work of art. No, I wouldn't want it restored to what it was 100 years ago, but do want it preserved and protected. I completely agree with you, that restoration isn't always the best alternative...in fact I'd say restoration should only be contemplated with very special designs (that have been compromised in some way).

[T_MacWood]

TE
They are are all different. For example with Japanese garden: walking down a path observing nature and the vistas and scenes the artist has created, sitting by a stream taking tea in a tea-house, the act of contemplation are different activities than tasting a work cullinary art or living in a work of architecture or playing golf on a work of golf architecture? There are many forms of art and many diverse activities associated with these art forms. Why in your opinion aren't these non-golfing art forms "mutable and interactive everyday"?

[TEPaul]

"Why in your opinion aren't these non-golfing art forms "mutable and interactive everyday"?

Tom MacW:

They are mutable to some degree of course. I suppose the Mona Lisa may be on the low end of mutability, though, since it's under bullet-proof glass in a temperature controlled environment.

A golf course is probably at the high end of mutabilty as an art form due to the increased interactivity of how a golf course is used compared to most other art forms.

[TEPaul]

Geoffrey:

Why is golf architecture referred to as "art" or a "work of art"? Probably because so many have referred to it that way over the years. Most would probably make the distinction between golf architecture as "art" though and the so-called "Fine Arts" of which architecture generally has not really been considered a part. I, for one, though, don't wish to discuss and debate that distinction on here for the next five pages!  

Behr, the golf architectural philosopher, did refer to golf architecture as art probably because the general definition of art is something along the lines of 'the quality, production, expression, or realm of what is beautiful'.

In a series of sort of a posteriori reasoning Behr concluded that in golf architecture beauty always accompanies economy of structure and when we perceive that we perceive a form of truth. What did he mean by perceiving truth in this context (golf architecture)? He went on to say that the truth of this beauty rests on a fundamental principle---that its lineaments (the surface of the earth) are the surface revelation of a perfection that lies beneath---‘Hence it is a fundamental principle that we must search for; that basic principle of all, which, in the degree it is apprehended, points the way to beauty and order, to the LAW of NATURE.’

This is obviously why Behr mentioned that ‘the medium of the paint artist is paint and he becomes its master, but the medium of the golf architect is the surface of the earth over which the forces of Nature alone are master’.

Obviously, some may just look at golf architecture and respond to it as they would to a painting as art but as we all know there's a lot more to golf architecture and how golfers respond to it as perhaps even an art form because of the interactivity they experience through the game of golf on it.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom Paul- Thanx for those quotes in post 33. I did some research and found this;

Sometimes I watch interviews of actors on television, who talk a lot about the theory of their work and what it means to act something out, to be someone or something else. I’m not very interested in any of that theory stuff. My approach is that, “here it is – let’s go to work and do our job.”

Would you know what GC Archi said this?

[TEPaul]

Adam:

All those quotes regarding art in golf architecture in post #33 were supplied by Tom MacWood, not me. Frankly, I'm completely fascinated by all those actors and what they have to say about their craft who discuss their techniques with students on the "Actor's Studio". It's probably for many of the same reasons I'm completely fascinated by the writing of Max Behr. As one can see on post #33 a lot of architects mentioned art in golf architecture but Behr went much farther down the road to explaining the reasons why compared to the rest of them.

[GeoffreyC]

Thank you Tom and Tom.

There is much food for thought in those quotes and in this whole topic.  The interaction of man with the playing field/work of art, the evolution caused by nature and living organisms, the evolution/advancement   of the game and its equipment, the wants and needs of the players/members and the intrusion of government or the outside community are all factors in what our golf courses look like over the course of time.

Its a very complex and interesting topic.

[A_Clay_Man]

Apologizes to Tom MacWood. Thanx Tom.

There was another quote that rang through my head reading this thread. It just so happens to come from a golfing actor. Michael Douglas' quote in "wall street" when watching the morning's sunrise. It went something like, " I've never found a painting that captures the beauty of..."

Pointing being, that natures aesthetics, are incomparable to man's futile attempts.

And maybe that's what Behr knew? and Perhaps, why he advocated the naturlaizing, or natural forms, to be used in GCA?