- the right amount of ...........................
-A naturalist creates as great a course possible on any given site
-That works! 
- I too am going to give myself an "A+!"
(I'll put the
p.s. up top here) I give myself a "C+" so far as I am still working on this one.
Who is to determine "The right amount? Consider yourself taken to task as a self-appointed arbiter.
So, no, perhaps it doesn't "work", that won't work for me, maybe you grade yourself too easily, Tommy-man. I don't have the answer, if there is one yet.
(I am certainly not, THE arbiter, either.)
I was just lying there thinking about the term "Naturalistic" as I awoke. Naturalistic is a visual description and is inherently a bit limited by that characteristic. It may endorse a certain judgement - right or wrong that it doesn't necessarily deliver.
Unfortunately, "Naturalistic" can be
disharmonistic and
dysrhythmic. Features can have a very natural-appearing character, well-intentioned but over-done (Who
is to determine what is over-done?) or inappropriate to the inherent natural features.
It's probably mathematical in theory with harmonic wavelengths of visual light (color) and mechanical components (feature shaping) of the package. (Interestingly, Ran has perhaps unintentionally removed the wavelengths of visual light from the equation with his excellent B & W photos of Friar's Head. They appear old-timey and very appropriate to the design, but automatically create an image that deprives the viewer the full picture. (I'm not saying that that is for better or worse, just observing.))
B & W is very powerful in this case in this forum. It removes the seasonality from the image to a great degree, it denies the viewer the colours and focuses on the mechanical. It automatically creates an association for the viewer that may or may not be entirely fair especially if used in comparison.
Again considering the term "naturalistic"....As another example and.....NOT to pick on them!....... but the best example of which I can think is when Hamilton Farm first opened (They've really changed it now), the bunkering, which is prolific, was very rough-edged and there was such a jagged-ness and there was so much of it it was almost nauseating. It was distracting and it did not fit the site.
So in a way, Tommy, I do basically agree with your statement
"with the right amount of earth-moving and man-made features needed to make it seem as if it is in total tune with its natural environment", but it is capricious and arbitrary. Different observers will have different thresholds and opinions of the same views whether 2-D or 3-D as they see them.
Naturalistic is a terminology, but it may not survive scrutiny any better than minimalism in a way, but it does provide a category and a descriptive term that can be useful, but again, it is not all-encompassing nor able to convey a certain
"je ne sais quoi" which is what we're trying to pigeon-hole here.
Right and wrong will be vastly different for different people.
Minimalism is a marketing device and naturalistic is a visual interpretation. Perhaps they are best described as so-called overlapping circles on a venn diagram (Interestingly enough, the three primary colour circles that overlap to form other colours are a perfect example of a venn diagram for those that don't remember spatial mathematical terms!) The venn diagram circles will overlap more on some courses than others and those that have more harmonic circles or greater level of overlap will perhaps be the most appealing to most observers.
So unable to describe what I am to list, I have produced no courses yet for the list.
I also wouldn't call that photo of Tallgrass the most representative of that course as it is not THAT sandy and that view of LI NAtional is not particularily offensive to me, just to complete the photo opinions . (Laurel Links is not showing right now)
