What's with the "Natural"?

[DMoriarty]

Adam,

Your question of Why return to emulation of and  blending with the natural? is a good one and deserves an answer.  To oversimplify, my view is that courses uitilize and/or emulate nature tend to lead to more interesting and entertaining golf.  I'll try to expand when I have more time.  

TomP,  given all the time you spend admonishing TomM and PatrickM for refusing to recognize when they are wrong or that they have shifted your position, this thread is both ironic and disappointing.  

If all you were trying to establish is that lanscaping and structural architecture are different mediums, then you have more time to waste then even your past ramblings would indicate.  But of course that was not your premise when you set out.  Your position has shifted like a sand hills dune in a decade of windstorms.  

[TEPaul]

"TomP,  given all the time you spend admonishing TomM and PatrickM for refusing to recognize when they are wrong or that they have shifted your position, this thread is both ironic and disappointing."

David:

In case you never realized it my admonishing of Patrick is a total joke and he knows that. It isn't with Tom MacWood, though---I really do have some serious differences of opinions with him about a lot of things and I don't mind expressing them and either does he. We are trying to have a discussion on this subject, as hard as that seems to be to do, so why don't you just dispense with remarks like that one above and try and join in on the discussion too, in hopes that it can somehow be an intelligent and productive one!  

[TEPaul]

"If all you were trying to establish is that lanscaping and structural architecture are different mediums, then you have more time to waste then even your past ramblings would indicate.  But of course that was not your premise when you set out.  Your position has shifted like a sand hills dune in a decade of windstorms."

You know Moriarty, I don't need that kind of crap from you--noone on here does. You're proving youself to be nothing more than an argumentative little mental midget! Obviously the mediums are different, very different, in fact doesn't that say a lot about the differences of the AC building movment or any other building architecture compared to golf course architcture? Doesn't that say a lot about the abilities of one to be far more "naturalistic" in structure and otherwise than the other? That's the point I'm trying so hard to establish with both you and MacWood but all you can seem to say is 'I'm flat-ass wrong' or I'm looking at art and design and their different mediums and I can't see a single similarity between them. Of course I can see similarities but I'm trying to look at the differences too. You know---compare and contrast golf architecture to building architecture?! All I see you two doing is arguing about or trying to impress each other with what you may know about what Pugin or Rushkin or Morris or some other AC practitioner thought about Catholicism or classical building architecture vs Gothic architecture or the industrial revolution and the plight of the 19th century British worker. You keep throwing all those names or people around who probably never had a thing to do directly with golf like that's supposed to impress someone on here.

This is a golf course architecture site. Let's stick to that subject and if we want to talk about how it relates to other art forms---fine. I'm not accusing you or MacWood of wasting time on here I'm just trying to discuss this subject of Adam Collins's. It's disheartening that it's taken about three pages just to try to get you both to agree on what the point of the discussion is.

And now you're trying to tell me it's so obvious it's a waste of time. Well, then, why don't you tell me in a few short paragraphs what you think I'm trying to say here?

[paul cowley]

raynors simplistic representations of form and function were much closer to the AC movements tenons than the excess of many golden agers........ no matter how 'natural' they might appear.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Nice point. Raynor's more common use of the sort of straightish architectural line in both from and function wasn't that representative of some of the aysmmetricalness and sort of random lines of a lot of the British cottage building architecture and such I've seen. Some of that interesting building architecture looks like Hansel and Gretel lived there with a few decades of deferred maintenance.

[paul cowley]

 thanks tom.....i have designed and built many structures that relate to and are considered very 'neo' arts and crafts in embodiment and style.

 these designs are not an attempt to mimic nature but more to express simplicity and honesty in the use of natural materials and how they combine to create a structure that reflects this as part and soul to its function........maybe thats why it is easy for me to include structural elements in golf course design ...not as functionless embellishments, but as part of the strategic fabric that creates challenge and interest in a hole .

raynor was closer to the AC movement than mackenzie.

mackenzie was more about natures camo combined with olmstedian values and bound with a big dash of strategy.

or so it seems to me .

[TEPaul]

"...maybe that's why it is easy for me to include structural elements in golf course design ..."

Paul:

I'd certainly like to know more about what you mean (or don't mean) by 'structural elements' in golf course design.

[DMoriarty]

Paul said:

raynors simplistic representations of form and function were much closer to the AC movements tenons than the excess of many golden agers........ no matter how 'natural' they might appear.

I agree.  In fact I offered this exact explanation with reference to MacDonald to TomM and TomP a few pages ago, and TomM agreed with me.   Raynor is perhaps a better example, becuase he was apparently (I really dont know have much experience with Raynor) more comfortable with showing 'the beams and supports' than was MacDonald (who was apparently striving to make his work look "more natural" years after he first built NGLA.  

One thing worth considering, I think.  From an AC perspective, the "naturalness" or "unnaturalness" of the features would not depend totally on how it blended into nature but also on the handcraftsmanship that went into building it.  . . . . I see you get to it in your next post . . .
the naturalness is in the "simplicity and honesty" in the creation.  

TomP said:

Nice point. Raynor's more common use of the sort of straightish architectural line in both from and function wasn't that representative of some of the aysmmetricalness and sort of random lines of a lot of the British cottage building architecture and such I've seen. Some of that interesting building architecture looks like Hansel and Gretel lived there with a few decades of deferred maintenance.

Tom, Paul does make a nice point but you completely missed it.  He is saying that Raynor's style was representative of the AC movement.

TomM and I discussed this pages ago.  


l respond to your previous comments in due course, but to stay current I'll get to it later.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Hmmm.

So why the renewed interest in this "illusion" of the natural? Why this new focus on "minimal contrast"? Why the Renaissance?

Is it just a cycle? What about our society and culture now has led us back to the Golden Age?

Is it something about the importance of 'taste'? Is it partly so people like us can banter back and forth about the various virtues of historical approaches to GCA, and through this to identify ourselves as "in the know"? Is it just a group of people creating an identity for themselves through the pursuit of golf architecture trivia?

Is it the market? Is it just another spin which started as a way to sound different, but which has risen to a hollow refrain - "We let nature show us the way"?

Or is it as simple as man finding once again that he needs to escape to something which at least feels like nature? Has the golfer rediscovered the need to feel smaller than "the natural"?

What has led us back?

[DMoriarty]

Hmmm.

So why the renewed interest in this "illusion" of the natural? Why this new focus on "minimal contrast"? Why the Renaissance?

Is it just a cycle? What about our society and culture now has led us back to the Golden Age?

Is it something about the importance of 'taste'? Is it partly so people like us can banter back and forth about the various virtues of historical approaches to GCA, and through this to identify ourselves as "in the know"? Is it just a group of people creating an identity for themselves through the pursuit of golf architecture trivia?

Is it the market? Is it just another spin which started as a way to sound different, but which has risen to a hollow refrain - "We let nature show us the way"?

Or is it as simple as man finding once again that he needs to escape to something which at least feels like nature? Has the golfer rediscovered the need to feel smaller than "the natural"?

What has led us back?

If these were the only choices I'd go with the last one.   At least some of the golden age designers were reacting to the artificiality of the previous era.  Some of today's designers may be doing the same.  

But as I said above there is a better reason to return to the emulation and utilization of nature--  Doing so produces more interesting and enjoyable golf courses.  
Mind you, I am not all that concerned with fescue on bunker lips or things like that--  if such is consistent with the design and enhances the golfers experience, then that's fine, but it isnt a crucial element to me.  I am more concerned with the interesting and exciting situations which the ebb and flow of nature creates.  And while designers are certainly able to impose their will on nature, they just arent very good with the details-- the fluky little inconsistencies and consistencies which shape the golfers experience and inject a necessary element of randomness into the game.   As Tom Doak said on a thread a while back, ". . . there are a lot of modern courses where 'the random nature of nature' has been utterly removed from play, and the architect's substitutions aren't all that interesting."  I suppose if the designers can come up with more interesting substitutions, then I might be pursuaded . . . but they havent yet.  

By the way, this is precisely where the AC movement might come into play.   I think TomM says that there is no AC style, but instead an idea.   I would modify this slightly and call it a process.   AC practicioners believed that they could create higher quality goods by doing things more honestly and naturally, with less technology, using local resources.   Perhaps a similar approach produces higher quality golf courses.  

[DMoriarty]

TomP said:

You know Moriarty, I don't need that kind of crap from you--noone on here does. You're proving youself to be nothing more than an argumentative little mental midget!

Perhaps you need to take a deep breath and pour yourself a glass of wine, Paul.  You've recently taken to referring to my ideas as absurd, preposterous, small and insignificant little points, very poor, not worth thinking about much less discussing; you've even questioned my motives, and called me intellectually lazy, and now you call me an argumentative little mental midget.   Surely you can live with me suggesting that you have either changed your tune, or belabored an obvious yet trivial point.  What can I say?  I call 'em like I see 'em.  

Plus, you sell me short.  I may be an argumentative mental midget, but I am not little.  
___________________________________

TEPaul said:

And now you're trying to tell me it's so obvious it's a waste of time. Well, then, why don't you tell me in a few short paragraphs what you think I'm trying to say here?

Gladly . . . I will also post your previous description of your "point" so that you may compare and contrast . . .

My summary of your current point:

Because golf courses are part of the land, they can theoretically appear almost perfectly natural.  Houses, apartment buildings, and other structures are generally not part of the lands, so they generally will not appear as natural as a golf course might.

[And to this I say . . . So What?   What does this tell us that we do not already know?}  

Now, in your own words, with my bolds added. . .

The point I’m trying to make here or to you is to try to look at some similarities in any form or style of actual building architecture and golf course architecture. The reason I’d like to do that is to see if there’re any common points of purpose or principle in either of those two art forms----and specifically any points of common purpose or principle when it comes to the roll of Nature or even the use of Nature’s “lines”, so to speak  . . .
But to try to find some points of common purpose or principle in this type of relationship with Nature between building and golf course architecture does not seem to be easy. Almost all building architecture I’m aware of seems to have attempted to CONTRAST Man’s aesthetic (his engineered lines and his materials) with Nature’s. Again, this was not an attempt to meld them into virtually the look of one or both together as ONE!

In the first place, the purpose and function, utility, aesthetic, whatever, of building architecture of almost any type is so different from those same things (function, utility, aesthetic etc) in golf course architecture as to make one wonder if any points of common purpose or principle could possibly exist---and certainly when one considers the unique roll of Nature in golf! I see no similarities between this direction or expression of golf architecture and the motivations of Pugin and his ideas on corrupt religion evidenced by classical Greek or Roman  architecture and the need to return to Gothic or even Rushkin and his motivations to alleviate dehumanization of workers and the styles and cultures of a particular society in time due to mechanized industrialization of the era of the “Industrial Revolution”.
. . .
. . . In the building vein of A&C architecture, site specifics, asymmetry, randomness, natural building materials etc seem to be the goal (and the only similarity to “naturalist”golf architecture in this way, in my opinion).  So, I hope you see what I’m trying to get at here---it definitely isn’t the aesthetic of man-made golf architecture “contrasting” with its site’s natural lines---it’s the opposite—going as far as is possible to merge them into one to make where all of them begin and end seem almost imperceptible to a golfer.

___________________________________________

"TPaul:
You asked for examples of AC architecture utilizing "to the 'lines' of Nature's earth itself," and I gave it to you."
David Moriarty:
I didn't ask you for anything regarding the AC Movement.

(my bold)

Really?  Hmmm . . .

David Moriarty:
You can't be serious. I'm not interested in discussing the similarities of quotations of some AC architect and naturalist golf architect Mackenzie, I'm interested in discussing possible similarities or differences of the structures of AC building architecture and naturalist golf architecture as they relate to the "lines" of Nature's earth itself.

(my bold)
________________________

And I didnt say you were "flat-ass" wrong, I said you were "flat-out" wrong.  Rereading your posts confirms my earlier conclusion.  
____________________________________
So you are also interested in discussing the similarities between the AC movement and golden age architecture?  I wonder why I thought to the contrary?  Hmmm . . . .

TEPaul said:

Trying to draw complete parallels between building architecture and golf course architecture, aesthetically or actually is without question the wrong thing to do, in my opinion. There are without question very important and very fundamental differences between the PUPOSES of the two, in my opinion!

Attempting to generalize the two together in this way is completely missing those most important fundamental artistic and aesthetic distinctions and differences!

[DMoriarty]

TomM:

Sorry I forgot to respond to your previous post.

. . .  I meant Egan, not Pugin.  The point being that whether we consider the Red House AC or not, it had little or no direct influence on the American AC movement.

I’m not quite sure why we arguing about its origins.

I am not sure either since we seem to be in complete agreement on the origins.   The reason I brought it up is twofold:  

1.  It is my understanding that the American AC movement set aside the bit about returning to the midieval, and even some of the deep religious underpinnings of Ruskin and Pugin.  
2.  My concern was that focusing on these guys may detract from some the key connections between the AC movement and the golden age, such as the attempt to escape back into the natural.

Really both points don't change much, so take them or leave them.
_____________________

To move forward, I think we may have glossed over a key point  . . .

People like Ruskin would likely have considered truly handcrafted vernacular structures to actually be part of nature.   It wasnt the final product which mattered but the effort and skill of the human craftsmanship, unaided by the evils of technology.  (Didn't one of them think that any product of technology was necessarily impure?)   Man building a dwelling of local materials using nothing but handcrafted tools and his own skill was man in his highest natural state, and his dwelling as natural as a gopher hole or a fox den.  

But then this may hit on the real difference between the two movements.   Many have argued (including you I think) that to the golden age architects it is the result that counts, rather than the process of creation.   So, had they technology, they would have used it to try to recreate nature (ala the Lido.)  If I recall correctly, even TEPaul contends that Behr would have gladly used whatever technology was at hand to create his illusion of natural.  

I've taken the opposite position, contending that at least some of these guys new better (or learned, in the case of MacDonald.)  That is, they knew that technology would not produce the kind of results that handcraftsmanship would.  

I realize that I am talking extremes here, and that neither movement was nearly as pure as this, but I think you get the gyst of what I am trying to say, from a theoretical standpoint.  

[ForkaB]

Sorry to interrupt the lovefest, but I had a thought which is relevant and interesting (at least to me....).

When Dr. MacK grassed over that dune that is now the 9th green at CPC, he was in effect altering not only the appearance but the form of "nature."   That dune (as in the "before" picture posted by Tom MacW) was an immature, unstable one which would have surely morphed into other shapes if not "unnaturally" stabilised by being appropriated for a green site at a random point in time.  I can argue that the creation of the 9th at CPC was a striking example of man trying to exert his control over "nature" rather than some sort of paean to "nature."

As a corollary, when coastal erosion ("nature") threatens famous links (e.g. Ballybunion, Dornoch) isn't it "unnatural" to try to fight these forces through building coastal defences(unless, of course you believe in "human nature")........?

[TEPaul]

Quote from: TEPaul on December 01, 2004, 07:36:00 pm
You can't be serious. I'm not interested in discussing the similarities of quotations of some AC architect and naturalist golf architect Mackenzie, I'm interested in discussing possible similarities or differences of the structures of AC building architecture and naturalist golf architecture as they relate to the "lines" of Nature's earth itself.


”Come on Tom, we cant do direct comparisons just because both golf courses and buildings use the word "architecture" to connote their design.  What better information do we have than the similar motivations and goals of the designers?  But if you insist . . . “

David:

It’s got nothing much to do with the fact both are called architecture, I never made a reference like that. What better information do we have then the quotations of the designers? A lot better information, in my opinion----we have the art they left us. We can observe it and determine where similarities and differences exist on the specific point I’ve been trying to get across to you on here for pages---eg that the “lines” of building architecture (even AC) will almost always contrast with Nature’s “lines” while with “naturalist” golf architecture they can become indistinguishable.. But if you or Tom MacWood feel like just relying on the fact that to you a remark by Reamer on his building architecture sounds like Mackenzie could have said it about CPC, then fine by me.

“My summary of your current point:
Because golf courses are often the landscape, they can theoretically appear almost perfectly natural.  Houses, apartment buildings, and other structures are generally not part of the landscape, so they generally will not appear as natural as a golf course might.
[And to this I say . . . So What?  What does this tell us that we do not already know?}”

Well, thanks a lot for that! I don’t know why it had to take about 3 pages on here for you to agree that’s pretty obvious as I said a couple of days ago to which you said I’m ‘just flat-out wrong! “So What?” SO, it looks like we agree on the point I made that building architecture will always contrast with Nature’s “lines” while the same is not necessarily so with “naturalist” golf architecture (a type of golf architecture that Raynor never really produced, in my opinion, although Alister Mackenzie did!

Quote from: TEPaul on December 01, 2004, 07:42:37 am
While the motivations and the evolution of A&C building architecture is interesting in and of itself, I do think real similarities of it to a truly natural looking golf course is pretty tenuous, at best. The reasons are just so obvious, at least to me.The principles of building architecture as well as its overall purpose is simply too far removed from the principles and purpose of an attempt at golf architecture that's as natural looking as can be---at least that's glaringly so in my opinion.

You are just flat out wrong here, TomP.  I think you are trying to fold AC architecture into what you know about other types of architecture and this seems to cause you confusion on what AC practicioners were trying to accomplish.  Regardless of Pugin's book, AC architecture attempted to blend with nature (actually or symbolically) not to contrast with it,  so that man could escape the industrial world and get back to nature.  As for your CPC challenge, here is a quote for you, from above:"I built in keeping with the place where it stands.  Nobody could improve upon that.  To be at discord with the landscape would be almost a crime. To try to improve upon it would be an impertinence."While the quote is from an AC architect (Reamer) it just as easily could be from MacKenzie regarding Cypress Point.  In fact I will find you something similar from MacKenzie when I get a chance.  

Hopefully, from now on we can do a bit more of comparing and contrasting various art forms themselves instead of just arguing over the similarities or differences of what the various artists said about their works. Is it more instructive to look at what someone said about something or the real thing? I'll always vote for the latter.

 

[TEPaul]

"When Dr. MacK grassed over that dune that is now the 9th green at CPC, he was in effect altering not only the appearance but the form of "nature."  That dune (as in the "before" picture posted by Tom MacW) was an immature, unstable one which would have surely morphed into other shapes if not "unnaturally" stabilised by being appropriated for a green site at a random point in time.  I can argue that the creation of the 9th at CPC was a striking example of man trying to exert his control over "nature" rather than some sort of paean to "nature.""

Rich:

No question the grassing over of tee, fairway and green of the natural landform of CPC's #9 was altering the natural environment---no question at all. But the question is--how much? Again, as Behr pointed out there're a few 'necessary exceptions for golf' that make it impossible for a golf architect to create the "illusion" of a totally untouched natural environment. The question, at least to this particular discussion is---did Mackenzie alter the "lines" of that natural enviroment? Apparently almost not at all And the larger more important question to golf architecture is---if he had wholly created that landform to look as it did in that first photograph would he have created the "Illusion" that Nature created it? Since it would be identical to what we see there before he got there the answer would have to be yes.

The last question to this comparision to AC building architecture is----although we are always speaking here in degrees is there a real difference between laying seed and turf on the lineaments of a natural landform vs erecting a building (even a AC building)? I think there certainly is a difference and a very large difference!

Now, if we want to get into the similarities of the MOTIVATIONS of a good AC building architect compared to a golf architect such as Mackenzie---that's a different matter altogther, but I'm sure both would agree that the purposes, principles and mediums of their products and creations are different enough where the "lines" of building architecture can never become indistinguishable from the "lines" of nature as they can in "naturalistic" golf architecture.

With building architecture there will always be an obvious aesthetic contrast with the aesthetic of Nature in the sense of their "lines", and the same is not necessarily true with golf architecture (excepting the application of short grass of course)

[T_MacWood]

PaulC
You are correct there is a neo- or modern A&C or Craftsman look that is very popular today. I could see why you would compare Raynor to that clean and simple look.

What appeals to me about the A&C Movement is how it morphed in each little pocket into something totally unique....Holland, Belgium, Pasadena, Philadelphia, Chicago, Scotland, etc. There were so many distinct regional styles...as well as so many individiual styles from architect to architect.

David
I would agree with you...American A&C developed on a different track than British A&C....we were about decade behind them in our development as well (not unlike our golf architectral development). Obviously we were intitially influenced by Ruskin and Morris, but we took some of what we liked and rejected some of the other stuff. For example the politics...we really never got tied up in the Socialism aspect. And the rejection of the machine...we really didn't allow that idea to paralyze whatever we did. In many ways America is where the A&C movement really flourished...for some of those reason and the fact we have such a diverse culture and geography.

I am hesitant to look at a golf architect of this era and say he looks more A&C than another golf architect...I think you can find aspects of A&C philosophy in most of their writings, because the basic ideas that developed for golf architecture in the Heathland by men like Hutchinson, Low, Colt, Darwin, Folwer, Simpson, etc were similar and were repackaged or built upon by others.

When I was in NJ this summer I went to the USGA HQ to spend some time in their library (and ironically, to meet with Rand Jerris who wanted to talk about my ideas on A&C golf). The USGA is located in a beautiful part of NJ...lovely rolling country with rustic country estates with lots of land, I'd estimate mostly built in the teens and twenties...streams, deer and stone walls everywhere. At the USGA they gave me directions to Max Behr's home which is nearby....I had seen pictures of it, it was a rustic A&C inspired home of wood and stone that melded into its site in the woods...in fact it sat upon a stream...the stream actually runs under a section of the house. Unfortunately I couldn't see it very well from the road, but the stone wall with big bolders that fronts the property is a work of art.

Also nearby is Gustav Stickley's Craftsman Farms...which I didn't get out to, but hope to next time.

TE
The fact that you continue to focus upon the differences in a 'A&C building' and 'naturalistic' golf design really illustrated your lack of understanding of the A&C Movement. You could just as easily find differences between a Morris chair and van Erp lamp...two iconic A&C symbols. The A&C movement influenced all aspects of design from furniture and lamps to architecture and garden design. Your attempt to seperate one art from another runs contrary to every respected historian and scholar's view of the A&C Movement.

[TEPaul]

From Adam Collins:

“So why the renewed interest in this "illusion" of the natural? Why this new focus on "minimal contrast"? Why the Renaissance?

Is it just a cycle? What about our society and culture now has led us back to the Golden Age?

Is it something about the importance of 'taste'? Is it partly so people like us can banter back and forth about the various virtues of historical approaches to GCA, and through this to identify ourselves as "in the know"? Is it just a group of people creating an identity for themselves through the pursuit of golf architecture trivia?

Is it the market? Is it just another spin which started as a way to sound different, but which has risen to a hollow refrain - "We let nature show us the way"?

Or is it as simple as man finding once again that he needs to escape to something which at least feels like nature? Has the golfer rediscovered the need to feel smaller than "the natural"?

What has led us back?”

Adam:

Why the renaissance? Is it a cycle? Is it about taste? Is it the market? Or is it the need to escape to something that feels like nature, so that perhaps the golfer may feel smaller than nature?

It’s probably all of those things and more! This subject just fascinates me—sometimes even sort of consumes me. I hope I’ve convinced Wayne and the publisher to include this very broad but interesting subject into our book on William Flynn, to take it and perhaps him and his part in it and in the evolution of golf architecture into a broader context to include parallels in society and its cultures. If we can do that we hope to inform on some of the elements that juxtaposed, that clashed, that came together somehow to form what might be a definable ETHOS of it all!

I believe that we (as human beings) are always cycling but mostly in the last few centuries, and probably no society in the history of the world cycles more totally and more dramatically than the American society. Why is that? I think because we truly are a nation, a society, a culture and an ethos that’s incredibly fast moving, probably far more “rootless” in a social, even a personal and in a “tradition” sense  than any before us! CHANGE is our middle name---we seek it, we glorify it—while other older and more permanent cultures sometimes fear and resist change---and probably for the very reason that change actually threatens the very things they hold so dear, that may actually define them as a society and culture---their traditions—their history---which can actually become their pride in themselves!. A desire for and a mentality of change equates to action, and action makes for change. But in the end, even for a rapid action highly productive and even highly destructive society like America, change and rapid action eventually tires us out and wears us down. And what do we do then with almost complete predictability? We look back to a former time---when things were presumably quieter, more innocent, perhaps more stylish, more centering somehow.

What’s “the Natural’s” part in this? It’s probably nearly impossible to deny that for human beings, Nature itself---and certainly the observation and contemplation of what it is may be the most centering and sensible thing there is for us. I know if I go sit by the sea and watch the heartbeat of Nature in the rhythms of the sea coming against the shore that it’s always been that way, and that’s both soothing and centering to me as it is to so many---that what I’m looking at is identical to what some dinosaur saw eons ago. But at the same time, we, today must truly understand what kind of an age we now exist in and just how different it is from any age that has ever come before us! The Industrial Revolutions that so changed the way we lived and thought and then the technological explosion that has shown us what we’re now capable of---that we now understand that we truly are capable of annihilating the very thing that’s been forever the heartbeat of our Universe---Nature, and it’s permanency and pace! That we can now not only muss it up but destroy it altogether if we don’t use some diligence of thought and organization. (Don’t get me started again on my idea of the American ethos of “Manifest Destiny” with its massive DUALITY-----of pride in ultimate power combined with guilt in the things we can see our power destroys—eg very much including Nature, and the majesty of its “beauties”.

It’s no wonder at all we’re cycling back, mostly in America. The fad of recent golf architectural restoration is a turning back to a time we feel had more innocence, more style, more naturalness than our own time. These old courses, we feel are like great old art coming out of our attics to be put back over our mantelpieces again! Wayne’s heard me say 50 times to people interested in a golf course project we’re working on that the best example of making hay from our cultural tendencies to turn and look back and cycle back is the perhaps billion dollar industry of Ralph Lauren. It’s the theme of his empire---the style of his clothes, the name, the look of the models and the black and white photographs of carefree, somewhat languid and supposedly sophisticated people that look to be from the 1920s (the Golden age in many ways) is his massive hook and allure!  

I think most of this renaissance in golf architecture to “the Natural” or more naturalness emanates from America. Why wouldn’t it?---we’re the ones who innovated most of the styles in golf architecture in the last half of the 20th century that now seem to be wearing out their welcome. We’re the country that corrupted our “Golden Age” golf architecture more than any other country. Other countries obviously didn’t see the point in that---but we did because “change” is our middle name!

Great questions you ask, AdamC. This is a wonderful thread you started. I love this renaissance back to “the Natural” but unlike perhaps what David Moriarty said above, I want to look at it and its future, probably its forward cycle or upswing that’s clearly upon us not just through my own eyes and my own preferences but through the eyes of all golfers in a general sense. Even at i’s best and most popular I don’t think it ever has the capacity to be more than a slice in the pie of the overall styles of golf course architecture. Vast differences in styles is probably a good thing in the end---it creates a broader spectrum from which to choose and undoubtedly golfers do have vastly different tastes and preferences in what they want from golf and golf architecture.

I’m still working on my post for you that centers around the ideas of Behr and his philosophy about not just THAT golf and architecture should never lose that necessary part that real Nature (“the Natural”), or the almost complete illusion of It, provides but WHY---why it may be central and fundamental to the golfer himself. That’s apparently what he believed. I think he was right but only to an extent, and with now 80 or so years of the clarity of hindsight since he wrote those things I feel he was right in a way---at least for some but what he may’ve gotten wrong is that the sensibilities of golfers would virtually demand it someday. That does not seem to have been the case, but who knows---because now we really are into a renaissance to that former time of naturalism---some of us anyway are turning and looking back for “the Natural”!

More later, unfortunately!  

[Adam_F_Collins]

TEPaul,

You express some of my thinking as well. Particularly the duality of man exercising his power over nature, while at the same time expressing his guilt in - and perhaps even a fear of - wielding it.

I also think that there is a renewed general interest in "The Traditional", which may be a factor here. There is a great interest in golf's history and tradition. There is much debate over equipment and what it's doing to the game, as well as the debate over the changes in course architecture and construction, compared to the golden age.

But I see the shift in aspects of my own work, which is graphic design. For instance, I'd say that the most popular display typeface of the new millennium so far (from where I sit) is Copperplate, which was designed by Frederic Goudy and first appeared in 1901. Now, this may seem like a weak link to some, but to me, it is another indicator of something repeating itself. A typeface is used to articulate aspects of what we're thinking and feeling - what we want to share. Why is it that recently, more and more people are choosing to express themselves in "traditional" typefaces, while more and more condo's are going up which look strangely Victorian, as do more and more clubhouses - and there's this recent renewed fixation on the natural in golf course architecture.

I know it's hard to analyze history when you're standing in the middle of it, but it certainly is interesting to try.

[TEPaul]

"TE
The fact that you continue to focus upon the differences in a 'A&C building' and 'naturalistic' golf design really illustrated your lack of understanding of the A&C Movement. You could just as easily find differences between a Morris chair and van Erp lamp...two iconic A&C symbols. The A&C movement influenced all aspects of design from furniture and lamps to architecture and garden design. Your attempt to seperate one art from another runs contrary to every respected historian and scholar of the A&C Movement."

Tom, you think whatever you want to think about my understanding of the "Arts and Crafts Movement" and its inflluence on "natualistic" golf architecture or furniture, lamps, garden furniture or the Catholic religion, socialism, or even the hula hoop---I really don't care! You and I very definitely look at this entire subject of golf course architecture quite differently apparently.

I'm not trying to separate one art form from another at all--only trying to point out what I think some of the differences are between them as OTHER THINGS influenced the evolution of golf architecture.

I'm very interested in the evolution of an archtect such as Mackenzie because I believe he took his art to the very highest point of golf architectural "naturalism", certainly to that time of the late 1920s and 1930s and although he did ply his early trade and art in the heathlands and was obviously influenced to some extent by what was going on there then, obviously including the influences of the AC Movement, there're clearly other and very important influences, even ones of his very own making that primarily influenced his work, and the style and character of it. One was most definitely the entire idea of military camouflage that he significantly picked from his experiences in the Boer War and fundamentally applied to the structures of his golf architecture and how to tie them into existing natural lines as to appear almost indistinguishable from them. That, in fact was the primary purpose of his military camouflage theories applied to golf architecture.

What are you going to tell me next---that it was the AC Movement that influenced the Boers in how they camouflaged their military trenches against the British and that therefore it was the AC Movement that primarily influenced Mackenzie's architecture?  Read Doak's book about Mackenzie's architecture and what the influences on him most likely were---it's good!

You've got to open your mind and let some air and light, some diversity of thought and fresh ideas and perspectives in, in my opinion. You've got a one-track mind that's restrictive to the accurate understanding of all of the influences on the evolution of American golf architecture, in my opinion. Obviously you learned something about the AC Movement, and you know it and are impressed by it. But that's not all there was by a long shot no matter how much you try to make it so or tell me I don't understand the AC Movement. What you suffer from, in my book, is "projection". Look it up in the dictionary, or let me help you; "psychol. the act of ascribing to someone or something else one's own attitudes, thoughts etc."

Is the AC Movement the primary influence on Tom Fazio's school of the "picturesque" too that's now merged into the "Modern School of the Photographic"?

Me focusing on differences in art forms is definitely not the same thing as completely seperating them and if you don't know that you don't know much.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I'm very much enjoying EVERYONE'S contributions - when they're directed toward the topic. There are valuable points coming from all sides. The answers to these questions are multi-faceted and lend themselves to multiple perspectives.

[Craig Sweet]

What really blows my mind is this: In the late 1800's and early 1900's when many of our "classic" golf courses were being designed and built, in what was then the "country", people were transported in carriages and trains. Very few cars existed. Street scapes...roads..travel lanes....were narrow and "smaller"....golf courses reflected this as well....shorter courses, smaller greens,less acreage used, etc. Golf courses fit the mindset of what was considered a "comfortable" level or use of the land.

Now, if we zoom ahead to 2000...roads are wide and getting wider...street scapes are no longer narrow...and our comfort level has widened.  Golf courses also reflect this change in the human mindset about what is naturally expected and "comfortable"...fairways are wide...greens fast...distances are long.

A backlash to this ever expanding mindset is occuring...architechs and city planners (Duany??) are looking to "redo" the suburb of old into quaint images of yester year, not geared to the car, but rather built on a more human level...is this not what is also occuring within the golf course design world? Is there not a small group of architechs looking at the excesses of course building and seeking a smaller comfort level?
 

[TEPaul]

AdamC:

Why don't you and I try to carry on this discussion you started and let Tom MacWood and David Moriarty discuss whether it was Pugin's hatred of the influences of the Catholic Church and classical architecture and the need to return to the coziness of Gothic architecture or perhaps Rushkin's advocacy of socialism and his fear of the dehumanization of art and the British spirit that influenced the entire history of the rest of the world?  

Regarding what you say about typeface reversion is interesting and something I know nothing at all about. For your other remarks I feel it's all pretty much the same basic motivations---it's likely a massive influence of the side of a cycle that's swinging and looking back at many things from a former time, certainly not just golf course architecture.

If you want to see something that might blow your mind, certainly when it comes to the subject of naturalism or "The Natural" you should check out the entire painting art genre known as "American Sublime". It's sometimes massive works are incredibly beautiful but dramatically scaled, exaggerated and idealized scences sometimes depicting such things as an entire evolution of an Empire (Thomas Cole's "Course of an Emprire" in five massive paintings). It deals in the whole concept of "the SUBLIME" which is fascinating in itself and its evolution but many of these paintings are the American depiction of Nature and the majesty of the raw country and the simultaneous potential destruction of it from the pioneering, adventuring frontiersmen and those opening up the west in a hurry. In a real way the American Sublime genre of painting art was a real attempt at conservation and preservation at least the beginning attempts at making Americans aware of the need for it.

[T_MacWood]

"I'm not trying to separate one art form from another at all--only trying to point out what I think some of the differences are between them as OTHER THINGS influenced the evolution of golf architecture."

TE
You can describe it anyway you want...contrasting building architecture with 'naturalistic' golf architecture...pointing out differences...it appears to me you are simply seperating one artistic medium from another in hopes of creating a unique hsitoric golf architectural movement. Seperating one medium from another or contrasting on to another really isn't a very difficult thing to do, especially if you are oblivious to social, economic and artistic realities of the time. But whatever the case I'm still interested in the presentation of your theory.

Obviously MacKenzie's experiences in South Africa influenced him, as did Tom Simpson's forays into art, Raynor and Langford's engineering background, Folwer's interest in gardening, Maxwell and Ross's love for music, Tillinghast's interest in Americana, antiques and Art. Inviduality was the hallmark of that era, and it was due to the devirgent backgrounds, experiences and interests of the architects.

If your goal is to come up with and define a new Naturalistic school of golf architecture (based largely upon the writing of Max Behr and MacKenzie's fabulous California work). And to place a number of architects within that School....may I suggest you look to Britain, London specifically, and the first naturalistic work of Park, Colt, Fowler, Simpson, Abercromby, Beale, MacKenzie and the Sutton's....in fact a more accurate designation might be the British School of Design.

Another interesting excersise might be to trace Behr's writing over the years....to see how his philosophies evolved from his earlier years at Golf Illustrated to the later years in California, and the impact of MacKenzie and others, and possibly the California enviroment on his thoughts and ideas.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Funny you should mention the Picturesque Movement....Rand  Jerris is working on an essay exploring its influences upon early golf architecture.

[TEPaul]

"You can describe it anyway you want...contrasting building architecture with 'naturalistic' golf architecture...pointing out differences...it appears to me you are simply seperating one artistic medium from another in hopes of creating a unique hsitoric golf architectural movement."

In hopes of creating a unique historic golf architecture movement??? Some of the things that seem to appear to you are truly bizarre! I have no idea what you're talking about---none--zilch! Never in my entire time on here have I ever mentioned or even implied anything remotely like that.

I'm primarily interested in the EVOLUTION of golf architecture--eg what the influences were at any particular time and what those influences resulted in within the art form at any particular time.

The architect that Jerris is personally very much the most interesting is Tillinghast. I'll be sure to tell him to pay careful attention to that time in the mid 1930s when he sold his architectural principles to the PGA of America!