Did the Arts and Crafts Movement really influence GCA?

[TEPaul]

"TE
I don’t believe Dunn or Willie Park spent much time at all in laying out those Victorian course. And yes Willie Park did spend a good amount of time laying out and building Sunningdale and Huntercombe in a more naturalistic manner."

Tom:

Well thank you for that. Do you now see the point and importance of both the heathlands itself (precisely what it was compared to the linksland) and particularly the importance of the time and effort Park Jr put into Sunningdale and Huntercombe (compared to the courses you mentioned that came previous to S & H?).

Don't let it disappoint you that this very same answer can be found in Part One of C&W. (and yes, once again, I really have read a hell of a lot more about golf architecture and its history than C&W ).  

"The question remains why? What changed in the late 1890’s?"

To understand my answer to that why don't you start by reading a few more times the answer in the first paragraph I just gave to your question just above.  

[TEPaul]

Adam Collins said;

"A great quote from one of Frank Herbert's "Dune" books:

"History is always changing, but few realize it."

I read that many years ago and have never forgotten it.

Adam:

Would you mind telling me exactly what that quote means to you? It's very interesting---but it could mean a number of things to different people.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
I would agree that it was a fringe movement if you include all its socialistic and communal aspects--there were relatively few ardent supporters--but there is no denying its aethetic impact, including promoting naturalism. It is difficult to find a historian who does not list Ruskin and Morris as two of the most influencial (if not the two most influencial) aesthetic theorists at this time. It is the return to a more naturalistic aesthetic in golf architecture around 1900 that we are discussing, not Willie Park and HS Colt forming a guild.

"Of course there was a "golden age" of GCA.  Ran says it is so.  Whether or not it was THE "golden age" or even the only "golden age" is arguable, however."

Could the contrarian on this topic be returning? If there was no golden age, I guess there is no reason to explore its influences.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Your answer, if I remember correctly, was the heathland site. Your theory being the unique heathland site jarred Willie's memory of the links unlike the parkland. But your answer does not account for the pre-Sunnigndale heather courses--including Willie's Nottinghamshire. Why did he spend more time in creating a more naturalistic inland course at Sunningdale and Hutnercombe...when in the past he had followed the Victorian model?

[Adam_F_Collins]

Adam Collins said;

"A great quote from one of Frank Herbert's "Dune" books:

"History is always changing, but few realize it."

I read that many years ago and have never forgotten it.

Adam:

Would you mind telling me exactly what that quote means to you? It's very interesting---but it could mean a number of things to different people.

What it means to me is this:

The future has yet to happen, so it only exists in our anticipation of it. Therefore all that actually IS, is a momentary "present", and an ever-changing perspective between ourselves and what happened in a given moment of history.

So our days are filled with interpretation and reinterpretation of varying degrees of history. It could be a second ago, ten minutes ago, or a hundred years ago. That history is getting more and more distant from us with each passing second, plus the momentary present is giving us new information to incorporate into our analysis.

The changing perspective of time, combined with the new information of the present creates a perspective for each of us which is constantly in flux - so every time we reconsider the same  period or event in history - it is that much further away - and we are that much different, as we have had that much more time for new experience, insights and conclusions.

The meaning of things changes with a change of context. A car in a parking lot means something different than a car in a swimming pool. A golf ball in the grass means something different than the same ball does in your soup. Beer and single malt tastes a whole lot different to you now, then it did the first time you tasted it

Our movement through time and the new information we acquire through our life experience means that the context of our analysis is always changing -

-So the conclusions we reach through our analysis of history - and therefore history itself - are always changing.

Confusing enough?

[Adam_F_Collins]

On top of that, people are always talking history over, rediscovering and reconsidering it. This conversation is written, spoken, reinterpreted and shared in various ways - becoming a part of the history of the subject it started out just talking about.

This discussion on Golf and the Arts and Crafts movement, is now - for some, a part of GCA history itself.

So there is visible pressure here to change history in a more notable way. Which is what makes careful and thoughtful discussion important.

Because if you think about it, you can see the potential importance of the discussion itself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

My focus on other disciplines is in large part a refutation of your generalizations about other disciplines.  You are one of the strongest proponents on this website for basing opinions on known facts (ex. seeing a course, reading a book, etc.), yet your critique of TomM's theory is purely based on generalizations.  What is with the Anti-Tom MacWood Bias?  Or is it Anti-A&C Bias?

It's not a bias, it's disagreement with the conclusion.[/color]  

DMoriarty,
The flaw in your argument is that you refer to GCA in the context of other disciplines, rather then refering to and placing GCA in the context of GCA, not other disciplines.

A good portion of this dispute seems to come down to a single question . . .

Immediately prior to the supposed "Golden Age," was golf course design and contruction heavily influenced by Victorian Industrialization?
   
According to some sources-- I cite two above, and TomM has more I am sure-- the answer is Yes.

This is where we disagree.

The answer is clearly NO.

What you lose sight of is that toward end of the Victorian Era
(1837-1901), in the 1890's there WEREN'T more than a dozen golf courses in ALL of AMERICA.

There was no credible data base upon which to draw any conclusions.  Golf and the fields of play were in their infancy.

But, golf's popularity was about to skyrocket, MOSTLY under the influence of the great courses/holes in the UK.

By 1916 there were 742 golf courses in America.

A virtual explosion of golf courses had occured, and many, if not most of the architects either had their roots in the UK or traveled to the UK to get their "degree" vis a vis the school of hard knocks.

As to your theory of the architects distancing themselves from geometric design and artificial creation, CBM, SR and CB's embodied those concepts-features in a great many of their designs, which were highly acclaimed, then, and
today.

A major influence in the period between the 1890's and 1930 was the return to the roots of golf as it existed years and years ago in the UK, rather than the influences of a NEW A&C movement.

The Eden, Redan, Road Hole and other template holes were reproduced, successfully, in sufficient numbers by a variety of architects, further reinforcing the notion that golf wasn't going through a revolutionary A&C period, but a reaffirmation and revitalization of successful designs from the past.

By 1930 almost 6,000 courses had been built in America.
Many by the men most influenced by CBM and architecture as it existed in the UK.[/color]

. . . . Courses designed on similar stereotyped lines
. . . . Plain, straight and unnatural looking cop bunkers extending from the rough on the one side, to the rough on the other, a bunker for the drive and one for the approach
. . . .  Holes built with  with mathematical precision.  
. . . .  A complete absence of strategy, interest and excitement.  
. . . .  Amazingly bad.  
. . . .  Natural features were incorporated into the courses only when an "irremovable object intervened to prevent the designer carrying out his nefarious plans."
As Leach's article in American Golfer said, "This was Victorian golf architecture."

Dave, what are you talking about ?
At the end of the Victorian Era, there were barely a dozen golf courses in America.

Would you describe GCGC in the context of the statement you quote above ?

Does one article from one author validate a premise ?
Is his word the "Gospel"  I don't think so.
But, if you want to jump to preordained conclusions, I can see how you would cling to his every word.[/color]

Now if we accept that such a dark period existed, then everything else pretty much falls into place . . .
I don't buy that for a minute.
The Victorian Age wasn't the Dark Age, in fact some of the arts flourished.  And, near the end of the Victorian Era there were barely a dozen golf course in ALL of America.  
Hardly the data base from which to draw conclusions, even wild ones.[/color]
 
Both sides agree that the supposed "Golden Age" Designers followed a more natural aesthetic, and that they looked to the pre-industrial links courses as their guide.

That's nonsense.
Firstly, there were no pre-industrial links courses in America.
And, CBM, SR and CB's certainly didn't adhere to your theory, and, I don't believe that Emmett and Travis did either.[/color]

Now to turn to other disciplines.   The defining characteristics of those now considered as part of the late 1800's and early 1900's Arts and Crafts Movement are as follows:  

1.  They rejected Victorian Industrialization.
2.  They attempted to return to a more natural aesthetic.
3.  They looked to pre-Industrial forms as their primary guide.

Now GCA seems to fit pretty well here to me.   But I can be pursuaded otherwise, but thus far there have been very few facts which would indicate to the contrary.

Again, there was a reaffirmation and a revitalization of the courses, holes and features found in the UK, hardly a rejection of Victorian Industrialization, rather, the understanding of the "MOST SUITABLE" fields of play for the game.

CBM, SR and CB certainly didn't return to a more natural aesthetic.

As to looking for forms, practically NOTHING existed in America, hence they returned to the historical architectural origins of the game, which I might add, was never defined as the A&C movement.

Developing a theory is fun and interesting.
Claiming it's legitimate just because research was undertaken in the formative stages of the theory isn't valid or scientific, by any stretch of the imagination.

You're free to embrace the theory.
I don't.
But, that doesn't meant we can't have interesting conversations and debates about it.
[/color]

[DMoriarty]

Immediately prior to the supposed "Golden Age," was golf course design and contruction heavily influenced by Victorian Industrialization?
   
The answer is clearly NO.

So what was MacKenzie talking about?  Is he absolutely nuts?  What about the American Golfer Article?  Can you honestly say that these guys are "clearly" mistaken in their description of gca in the mid to late 1800's? Outside America?[/color]


What you lose sight of is that toward end of the Victorian Era
(1837-1901), in the 1890's there WEREN'T more than a dozen golf courses in ALL of AMERICA.

Yes, but there were golf courses in Scotland and England.   Why are you trying to limit your facts to numbers of courses in America??  Further, the number of courses is not nearly as important as their influence.[/color]

There was no credible data base upon which to draw any conclusions.  Golf and the fields of play were in their infancy.

Golf had been around for hundreds of years!  And as you acknowledge most of those who were designing in America had extensive exposure to this ancient golf tradition, or learned from someone who did.  [/color]

A major influence in the period between the 1890's and 1930 was the return to the roots of golf as it existed years and years ago in the UK, rather than the influences of a NEW A&C movement.

Patrick, there was little "new" about the ideals or aesthetic of the AC Movement.  Rather, A PRIMARY CHARACTERISTIC OF THE ARTS AND CRAFTS MOVEMENT WAS THE REJECTION OF VICTORIAN INDUSTRIALISM, AND THE RETURN TO A MORE NATURAL AESTHETIC AND THE EMULATION OF PRE-INDUSTRIAL STYLES AND PROCESSES.

So, when you golden age gca was "a return to the roots of golf as it existed years and years ago in UK, TomM and I say . . . Exactly!  That is exactly why we should consider it an AC Movement.

-- If you wanted to define AC printmaking, you'd say it was a return to the roots of printmaking as it existed years and years ago in UK. . .
--  If you wanted to define AC weaving, you'd say it was a return to the roots of weaving as it existed years and years ago in UK. . .
--  AC building design? a return to the roots of building design as it existed years and years ago in UK. . .
--  AC lamp making?  a return to the roots of lamp making as it existed years and years ago in UK. . .
--  AC [insert any discipline here]?  A return to the roots of [insert same discipline here] as it existed years and years ago in UK (or whereever you are). . .
[/color]

The Eden, Redan, Road Hole and other template holes were reproduced, successfully, in sufficient numbers by a variety of architects, further reinforcing the notion that golf wasn't going through a revolutionary A&C period, but a reaffirmation and revitalization of successful designs from the past.

Again Patrick, what you are describing, especially in the part I bolded, is precisely what the AC was all about![/b]

DM said
. . . . Courses designed on similar stereotyped lines
. . . . Plain, straight and unnatural looking cop bunkers extending from the rough on the one side, to the rough on the other, a bunker for the drive and one for the approach
. . . .  Holes built with  with mathematical precision.  
. . . .  A complete absence of strategy, interest and excitement.  
. . . .  Amazingly bad.  
. . . .  Natural features were incorporated into the courses only when an "irremovable object intervened to prevent the designer carrying out his nefarious plans."
As Leach's article in American Golfer said, "This was Victorian golf architecture."

Dave, what are you talking about ?
At the end of the Victorian Era, there were barely a dozen golf courses in America.

Patrick those arent my ideas, those are paraphrases of MacKenzie and of Leach's American Golfer article.   Of course they are talking about courses beyond America.[/b]

Would you describe GCGC in the context of the statement you quote above ?
No.  It is not my statement. I doubt they had GCGC in mind.   But GCGC is interesting in that there are some very industrial features, yet it is by no means bad. [/b]

Does one article from one author validate a premise ?
Is his word the "Gospel"  I don't think so.
But, if you want to jump to preordained conclusions, I can see how you would cling to his every word.

It is not just one article Patrick (I cited two, by the way.)  Those were just two articles I had handy.  Simpson referred to the period as the "Dark Ages."  Cornish and Whitten do offer lots of reasons for it, they quote Simpson and say that much of this architecture is terrible.   Hutchinson as well.  In fact the descriptions of what went on during this period in England seem remarkably consistent.  I have never read where a contemporary of the period spoke positively of this design.

The Victorian Age wasn't the Dark Age, in fact some of the arts flourished.  And, near the end of the Victorian Era there were barely a dozen golf course in ALL of America.  
Hardly the data base from which to draw conclusions, even wild ones.
I should have put "dark age" in quotes.   Simpson's words, not mine.  He was referring to the inland architecture.
[/color]
 
Firstly, there were no pre-industrial links courses in America.
And, CBM, SR and CB's certainly didn't adhere to your theory, and, I don't believe that Emmett and Travis did either.

Come on Patrick, I am obviously not just talking about America.  And I did not attempt to classify any of those you listed.


CBM, SR and CB certainly didn't return to a more natural aesthetic.

This is an aside, I think you tend to underestimate CBM's appreciation for the natural aesthetic.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

Since the "Golden Age" was primarily an American experience, one must view golf course architecture and the alleged influence of the A&C movement on golf course architecture in the context of golf in America prior to the "Golden Age".

MacKenzie's perspectives could be viewed as unique.
His backround and interest in military camoflage would seem to set him apart.

I don't see the manifestation of Victorian Industrialism in golf course architecture/design, during that period.

Could you offer ten courses that exemplify your contention.

The courses in the UK that were used as templates or stylistic examples were never refered to, in their design, construction or playing phases as, golf courses from the A&C school.

"Industrial features" ?

Are the sleepers at Prestwick "Industrial Features" ?

You're confusing what architecture is.

It's form and function, structure and appearance, service and art.  Because GCGC had structures, aka sleepers and the like, doesn't mean that it was "industrialized".  That's your exaggeration of the nature and categorization of the feature and it's form, it's function is clear.

Pete Dye and others have used those features, centuries after Prestwick and other PRE-VICTORIAN clubs began using them.  Are we to ignore the structured features of sod walled bunkers, bunkers that preceeded the Victorian Age.

Just because a structure or feature is man made doesn't mean that it's the product of Victorian Industrialism, as you and Tom would have us believe.

Returning to those features, those structures is by no means an endorsement or acknowledgement of the existance of an Arts & Craft movement pre, during or post the Victorian era.

Regarding CBM, it's certainly not emphasized nor the focus of his architecture.  I suspect that function took precendence.

[SPDB]

When did we make the jump to America? Pat if you acknowledge that the development of golf course architecture in America was partly, if not wholly, the result of trips to the UK made by early practitioners doesn't it make sense to look at the development of the art in the UK before looking at its development in America?

You're free to embrace the theory.
I don't.
But, that doesn't meant we can't have interesting conversations and debates about it.

I agree with this last part.

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

Whatever the "Golden Age" was, it definitely was not "primarily an American Experience".  

Not sure exactly when sod wall bunkers became the norm on links.  But from photos it looks to be certainly well into the C20th.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

Where else did the "Golden Age" (1911-1937) take place on the scale anywhere approaching that which occured in America.


SPDB,

"The Golden Age" is defined as that period from 1911 to 1937, in AMERICA ?

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

In GB&I, Australia, Continental Europe, Japan, South Africa.  The majority of the best golf was built in those years, in all those countries, by the greatest architects.  Shackelford's book is focused on the USA, but he explains that caveat.  His book would be more accurately titled "Golden Age of Golf Design in America".
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

Who were the architects in those countries ?

And, are you going to compare the explosion in golf course design and construction, the volume, in any of those countries to anything close to what took place in America ?

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

Proportionally yes, the "Golden Age" was when golf courses exploded, in number, within those countries.  The great architects were: Park, Colt, Alison, Mackenzie, Simpson, Fowler, Braid, Campbell...

Plus, most of the ancient great links went through substantial changes, in the golden age, through the work of these guys.

[T_MacWood]

We've got one person who says the golden age was primarily an American experience.

We have another who has his doubts there was a golden age and discounts the A&C movement.

We have another who says Arts and Crafts 'style' was a completely new and original style.

And another who is completely dependent upon what he reads in C&W and anything outside that book can not be true.

This has been a good thread, but there is a limit to what one can do...these subjects require the interested parties to do some independent research and reading. If I did not spark an desire to do so...I have definitely failed.

[DMoriarty]

Since the "Golden Age" was primarily an American experience, one must view golf course architecture and the alleged influence of the A&C movement on golf course architecture in the context of golf in America prior to the "Golden Age".

As you yourself readily note, most of these designers were from GB, and those that weren't traveled there extensively.  Plus, the movement away from the Victorian/ Industrial aesthetic began in GB (with both golf and AC) then continued in the US.  So, your reason for ignoring the influence of the British course is unsupportable.   [/b]

MacKenzie's perspectives could be viewed as unique.
His backround and interest in military camoflage would seem to set him apart.

What does his background and interest in camoflage have to do with his remembrances on what happened in GB near the turn of the century.  While he wrote the book long after, he is recalling the state of golf course architecture before the war. Plus, what about Leach's American Golfer article remembering Willie Park, Jr.?   Did he have a military background as well?  What about Simpson? What about Cornish and Whitten for that matter?   Are they all wrong about the architecture of this mid to late Victorian period?[/b]

I don't see the manifestation of Victorian Industrialism in golf course architecture/design, during that period.

Could you offer ten courses that exemplify your contention.

No I cant.  As I have said from the beginning, I am not an expert of this stuff at all.   All I know is what I have read.   But then that is the case for all of us with regard to golf around 1900.   But my personal knowledge is irrelevant.  The descriptions in question are not mine, but rather MacKenzie's, Leach's, Hutchinson's, Simpson's, and even Cornish and Whitten's.  I take their word for it.

Do you have better information which refutes them.  If so I'd love to hear it?[/b]

The courses in the UK that were used as templates or stylistic examples were never refered to, in their design, construction or playing phases as, golf courses from the A&C school.

 The templates/stylistic examples were the handful of links courses which existed before the industrial revolution.   They would never have been referred to as from the "A&C school" because they werent.  These are the to which the A&C designers harkened back.  [/b]

"Industrial features" ?

Patrick, you are the one who injected GCGC, not me.  In my opinion it does not belong in this discussion at all, at least not at this point.  That being said, "industrial" was the wrong word.  What I should have said is that there were features which resembled the features described as "Victorian Age Golf Architecture."  For example the cross bunker on No. 15.  And the front bunker on old No. 12.  And the use of the neighborhood street grid throughout.   And the use of railroad ties.[/b]

Just because a structure or feature is man made doesn't mean that it's the product of Victorian Industrialism, as you and Tom would have us believe.

I wouldn't have you believe that at all.  I am merely telling you what I have read.  So far noone has offered any documentation to refute what I have read.  Plus,  I am not talking about man-made vs. natural at all.  Rather, I am talking about the aesthetic of man-made features, and whether or not they are incorporated into their surrounds.[/b]

Returning to those features, those structures is by no means an endorsement or acknowledgement of the existance of an Arts & Craft movement pre, during or post the Victorian era.
Not even sure to what you are referring . . . [/b]

Regarding CBM, it's certainly not emphasized nor the focus of his architecture.  I suspect that function took precendence.
I'd love to have this discussion, but let's hold off.  There is enough to discuss already, don't you think? [/b]

Bottom line for me Patrick-- I dont know whether it is appropriate or accurate to classify the early inland architecture in GB as Victorian or Industrial.   But I do know that all the sources I have seen either explicitly call it Victorian, or describe features and an approach which would seem to be entirely consistent with such a classification.

[ForkaB]

....and we have one person who says "Do we have a patern (sic) here?"

No.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said:

"TE
Your answer, if I remember correctly, was the heathland site. Your theory being the unique heathland site jarred Willie's memory of the links unlike the parkland. But your answer does not account for the pre-Sunnigndale heather courses--including Willie's Nottinghamshire. Why did he spend more time in creating a more naturalistic inland course at Sunningdale and Hutnercombe...when in the past he had followed the Victorian model?"

Tom MacW:

I did not say that the unique heathland site jarred Willie Park's memory. Those words and that thought are uniquely yours.

Why did Park spend so much more time on Sunningdale and Huntercombe? That's a very good question. I don't know the answer--do you? What I am saying is the fact that Park DID SPEND MORE TIME on Sunningdale and Huntercombe is a very important reason why those courses turned out the way they did compared to what he did before in England, in the heathlands or anywhere else.

Perhaps as golf began to come of age outside the linksland the realization that that which had come previously (a period of perhaps less than 20 years) just wasn't good enough or interesting enough and at that point Park and his principles decided to take far more time to construct, and Sunningdale and Huntercombe was the result of that.

I suppose you will probably try to tell me that the PRIMARY reason they decided to TAKE FAR MORE TIME necessary to construct that type of quality architecture at Sunningdale and Huntercombe influenced by the more natural linksland model of which Park was familiar was all due to the A/C Movement!  

In my opinion, the time just came when someone took the time necessary to construct quality architecture. Simple as that. Were Leeds's years of construction at Myopia, Macdonald's years of construction at NGLA, Crump's at PV or Wilson's at Merion East all primarily the result of the influence of the "arts and crafts" movement? I don't think so---it just happened because golf was coming of age outside the linksland and golf architecture was coming of age outside the linksland and the heathlands.

If the A/C movement was the primary influence for all this, again, I just can't imagine why they all conveniently failed to mention that and chose to assign the influences on what they were doing to something else  (the linksland and heathlands).  

Maybe you can develop another of your conspiracy theories to explain this mystery or phenomenon. Belay that---I think that's probably precisely what you're attempting to do right now!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Since the "Golden Age" was primarily an American experience, one must view golf course architecture and the alleged influence of the A&C movement on golf course architecture in the context of golf in America prior to the "Golden Age".

As you yourself readily note, most of these designers were from GB, and those that weren't traveled there extensively.  Plus, the movement away from the Victorian/ Industrial aesthetic began in GB (with both golf and AC) then continued in the US.  So, your reason for ignoring the influence of the British course is unsupportable.   [/b]
You're confused.
Where did I say that the "Golden Age" designers ignored the influence of UK Courses ?[/color]

MacKenzie's perspectives could be viewed as unique.
His backround and interest in military camoflage would seem to set him apart.

What does his background and interest in camoflage have to do with his remembrances on what happened in GB near the turn of the century.  While he wrote the book long after, he is recalling the state of golf course architecture before the war. Plus, what about Leach's American Golfer article remembering Willie Park, Jr.?   Did he have a military background as well?  What about Simpson? What about Cornish and Whitten for that matter?   Are they all wrong about the architecture of this mid to late Victorian period?[/b]

It wouldn't be the first time that C&W erred.

I'm referencing the golf courses produced in the "Golden Age" in America and you're retrogressing to Great Britain in the 1800's.  Let's not lose focus.  I see little evidence that the golf courses produced during the "Golden Age" were a refutation of Victorian Industrialism.  I think you've picked up TEPaul's gauntlet and are blindly defending Tom MacWood's position, without focusing on the golf courses designed and built during the "Golden Age"[/color]

I don't see the manifestation of Victorian Industrialism in golf course architecture/design, during that period.

Could you offer ten courses that exemplify your contention.

No I cant.  

As I have said from the beginning, I am not an expert of this stuff at all.   All I know is what I have read.   But then that is the case for all of us with regard to golf around 1900.   But my personal knowledge is irrelevant.  The descriptions in question are not mine, but rather MacKenzie's, Leach's, Hutchinson's, Simpson's, and even Cornish and Whitten's.  I take their word for it.

Was that the consensus regarding the work of Old Tom Morris during the Victorian Age, on courses such as Muirfield, Prestwick, Royal Dornoch, Royal County Down and his redesigns of TOC, Carnoustie and Mchrihanish, all landmark golf courses in Scotland ?

Didn't Tom Morris tutor Donald Ross ?
Didn't CBM, Dr Mac and AWT visit and consult with him.

Did Tom Morris's designs represent Victorian Industrialism ?
Was Victorian Industrialism manifested in his designs, and those of his pupils and the people he influenced ?

With respect to the authors you cite,
I don't believe they were writing about "Golden Age" golf courses, and since only a dozen or so courses existed in America around the turn of the century, it's too small of a sampling from which to draw any prudent conclusions..

Do you have better information which refutes them.  If so I'd love to hear it?

Again, you're confused over the topic of their writings.

Did ANY of the "Golden Age" architects reference their work as a product of the A&C movement.[/color]

The courses in the UK that were used as templates or stylistic examples were never refered to, in their design, construction or playing phases as, golf courses from the A&C school.

 The templates/stylistic examples were the handful of links courses which existed before the industrial revolution.   They would never have been referred to as from the "A&C school" because they werent.  These are the to which the A&C designers harkened back.  [/b]
Who are these A&C designers you allude to ?
What are their names ?[/color]

"Industrial features" ?

Patrick, you are the one who injected GCGC, not me.  In my opinion it does not belong in this discussion at all, at least not at this point.  

That being said, "industrial" was the wrong word.  What I should have said is that there were features which resembled the features described as "Victorian Age Golf Architecture."  

For example the cross bunker on No. 15.  And the front bunker on old No. 12.  And the use of the neighborhood street grid throughout.   And the use of railroad ties.[/b]
These are features used at Prestwick and TOC, how can you identify and attribute them to Victorian Age design principles ?
In your zeal to defend your position, you've corrupted your argument.[/color]

Just because a structure or feature is man made doesn't mean that it's the product of Victorian Industrialism, as you and Tom would have us believe.

I wouldn't have you believe that at all.  I am merely telling you what I have read.  So far noone has offered any documentation to refute what I have read.  Plus,  I am not talking about man-made vs. natural at all.  Rather, I am talking about the aesthetic of man-made features, and whether or not they are incorporated into their surrounds.[/b]

Could you provide ten examples of man made features that AREN'T incorporated into their surrounds ? [/color]

Returning to those features, those structures is by no means an endorsement or acknowledgement of the existance of an Arts & Craft movement pre, during or post the Victorian era.
Not even sure to what you are referring . . . [/b]

Regarding CBM, it's certainly not emphasized nor the focus of his architecture.  I suspect that function took precendence.
I'd love to have this discussion, but let's hold off.  There is enough to discuss already, don't you think? [/b]

Bottom line for me Patrick-- I dont know whether it is appropriate or accurate to classify the early inland architecture in GB as Victorian or Industrial.   But I do know that all the sources I have seen either explicitly call it Victorian, or describe features and an approach which would seem to be entirely consistent with such a classification.
Dave, I previously cited the work of Old Tom Morris, but, my discussion was focused upon the works that occured during the "Golden Age" in America, you keep reverting back to 1831 and subsequent years in GB.  They are two seperate areas or issues.[/color]

[T_MacWood]

TE
Sunningdale and Huntercombe were built simultaneously. Sunningdale broke ground first and took the longest--approximately one year and nine months. The site was chosen and purchased by TA Roberts, who then engaged Park to design and build the course for the agreed sum of £3800...a lot of money at the time.

Hugh MacLean supervised the contruction of both courses....he'd hop on bike and then catch a train and hop on another bike. Sunningdale was by far the more difficult of the two site...more over grown, a little more rugged and sandy. Huntercombe was built on commons where centuries old turf already existed. No such luck at Sunningdale. Huntercombe took about seven months to build.

In addition to the fact that both were breakthroughs in a more naturalistic inland course, they shared another common characteristic...their scale. Both courses were built on a very large scale...not unlike the great links courses.

The two courses recieved quite a bit of publicity...with Huntercome getting the most. After a tour in the early 1900's Travis said it was finest layout in Britain

Huntercombe was financed by Willie Park II, it was his baby. And as we now know, the project was largely responsible for his financial ruin. One of Huntercombe's first members was George Riddell, the publisher of Country Life. When the club was struggling, he and some others tried to bail her out.

"Perhaps as golf began to come of age outside the linksland the realization that that which had come previously (a period of perhaps less than 20 years) just wasn't good enough or interesting enough and at that point Park and his principles decided to take far more time to construct, and Sunningdale and Huntercombe was the result of that."

Very sound reasoning. You'll find there was a growing discontent with the Victorian courses. There was also a new forum to express this discontent--magazines like Golf Illustrated and Country Life.

A major turning point occured with a series of articles (seven all together) written by Horace Hutchinson in 1898 (in Country Life). Each article was devoted to a famous links course--in it HH profiled their architectural merits. The last installment was titled 'VII: Inland Greens'. In this article (for the first time that I am aware of) he looked critically at the sorry state of Victorian design. One of the photographs that accompanied the article was of Richmond--designed by WP II. HH went on use the photographs to describe this type of courses' weaknesses.

"....for it seems that in only a few instances have out links gardeners had the gift of the artistic eye, or even of the unspoilt natural eye, for Nature abhors a straight line almost as much as a vacuum."

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Primarily an American movement? Have you been following this thread? We have been discussing the beginning of the golden age in the early 20th C. Britain and the influence of A&C movement upon it.

“I don't see the manifestation of Victorian Industrialism in golf course architecture/design, during that period. Could you offer ten courses that exemplify your contention.”

Woking, Broadstone, Meyrick Park, Mid-Surrey, Richmond, Cassioburry Park, Blackheath, Stanmore, Tooting Bec and Coldham Common are examples of the Victorian era style. Also see Hunter’s ‘The Links’ and his comments about ‘poor Tom Dunn’ for further clarification.

“Did ANY of the "Golden Age" architects reference their work as a product of the A&C movement.”

Re-read the early part of this thread...we covered this.

“The courses in the UK that were used as templates or stylistic examples were never refered to, in their design, construction or playing phases as, golf courses from the A&C school.”

See my last answer.

"Who are these A&C designers you allude to ?
What are their names ?"

The first architects to breakaway from the Victorian inland mold and create more naturalistic inland designs in accord with A&C movement were Park, Fowler, Colt, Abercromy, MacKenzie and Simpson...see my A&C essay. Many of the same guys referred to in the ‘The Links’ as practioners of the ‘new art’.

“Just because a structure or feature is man made doesn't mean that it's the product of Victorian Industrialism, as you and Tom would have us believe.”

I didn’t make up the term...see MacKenzie, Alison, Colt, Simpson and Campbell's comments. Travis called it the ‘Willie Dunn System’. Others called it the dark ages.

“Could you provide ten examples of man made features that AREN'T incorporated into their surrounds ?”

Yes. Read Hunter’s ‘The Links’ he describes many of the ‘poor Tom Dunn’ features: “…the zabebas, ramparts, ridges and cones…” You are the first person who has suggested cop bunkers might be incorporated into their surrounds. Have you seen a cop bunker?

“Dave, I previously cited the work of Old Tom Morris, but, my discussion was focused upon the works that occured during the "Golden Age" in America, you keep reverting back to 1831 and subsequent years in GB.  They are two seperate areas or issues.”

Perhaps you should start another thread on that topic.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Your theory is tantamount to insisting that the explosion of software programers in the 60', 70's and 80's was a result of the refutation of Organized Crime's involvement with the Labor Movement in America.

Before the turn of the century there weren't a dozen golf courses in America.  That number rapidly increased to approximately 6,000 in short order.

Necessity and perhaps CBM were the mothers of invention.
Not the A&C movement.  If anything, CBM, SR and CB, if not proponents, were sympathetic to geometric or manufactured designs.  The engineering of golf courses during their reign is well documented and a far cry from an A&C movement.
NGLA, Yale and Lido would seem to support industrial or engineered golf courses.  

There also seems to be no room in your premise for function, as if it's an accidental by-product, or abandoned step child of A&C.

Golf in America followed the population, at work and on holiday.  Architects built golf courses, not in the most ideal locations, but where they could marry accessability of the population with availability of the land.  Inwood, The Creek, GCGC, Winged Foot and NGLA weren't in remote upstate New York, they were where the money and people abounded.

While you may cite certain facts, the connections and conclusions you draw aren't to be accepted as ultimate truths.

In your Treatise on the A&C movement you ask us to indulge you by accepting your conclusions before you begin your premise, something I can't do.

Citing AN author doesn't irrefutably validate a point.
Whether it be Simpson, Doak or Leach, their word on a given topic isn't THE definitive word on that topic, just their perspective, absent all of the others, disenting or neutral.

Your presentation is similar in structure to a case put forth by the prosecution, in that you only provide those sources which are favorable to your premise, rather than all sources.
That's why the defense gets to tell their side and a jury or judge decides the issue.  Not always correctly I might add.

While I believe that you spend enormous amounts of time researching, it's been my observation, that you reach your conclusion first, and then do the selective research to support it, rather then undertaking research first, without predisposition, and drawing your conclusion from that data, subsequent to its compilation.

I think your work on the A&C movement is commendable, but, I don't accept the cause and effect theory that it's solely or primarily responsible for the design and building of golf courses in America during the "Golden Age".

P.S.  TEPaul initiated this thread.  I'll let him decide if he
       wants me to initiate another thread or remain on this
       one.
       .

[DMoriarty]

Patrick, While the conversation is quite colorful, it is going nowhere at present.  You seem to be trying to transport our conversation to the finish line before we have even taken our first step.  To review:

Except for this tangent of yours, this discussion has been about gca generally, and specifically about what happened in inland GB in before and around the turn of the century.   Unless and until we establish the movement existed in GB it is premature to try to determine whether, when, how, and where the AC migrated to the US.

Somehow I doubt you have conceded the argument with regard to GB, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.  

Back to where you veered off course .. .

I quoted one very prominent designer (MacKenzie) who described golf design in the "Victorian Age," in very specific and less than flattering terms.  I also quoted a prominent writer (Leach)in a prominent magazine (American Golfer.)  I also referred to the views of others (Simpson, C&W, Hutchinson.)  Their specific descriptions of this period of architecture are all consistent.  

Thus far, you have failed to adequately address their descriptions.  Instead you simply deny that such architecture existed.  You also dismiss C&W for no reason at all, and offer an absolutely untenable dismissal of MacKenzie.  

To repeat my bottom line--  I dont know whether it is appropriate or accurate to classify the early inland architecture in GB as Victorian or Industrial.   But I do know that all the sources I have seen either explicitly call it Victorian, or describe features and an approach which would seem to be entirely consistent with such a classification.

Thus far you have not offered any facts or documents which even begin to bring the accuracy of these sources into question.  

Neither has Tom Paul.  Neither has Rich.  No one has.  Until we settle this business about the Victorian Era, there is no use continuing.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Regarding your post #120, it seems as if we agree that the inspiration and the architectural influence for Sunningdale (credited with Park's Huntercombe as the first real break-through course of naturalist merit inland and outside the linklands) was in fact the linksland and its architecture. Again, that was the architectural influence. The influence on the architecture of Sunningdale was not some general "movement" primarily in building architecture and art and craft (having perhaps at the time having come to be known as the A/C Movement).

Who was the architect of Sunningdale? Who designed the course? Who was responsible for the way it was constructed and completed? It was Willie Park Jr. Maybe Hutchinson did write of discontent with rudimentary inland courses previous to that, and maybe he did point to the linksland. Do you think Hutchinson was the reason Park was hired? Even if he was, again, who designed the golf course? Linksman Willie Park Jr did and obviously Parks knowledge of his homeland naturalist architecture was responsible for Sunningdale and Huntercombe and was the primary influence on that architecture. I certainly hope you aren't going to tell me now that it was really Horace Hutchinson who was the golf architecture who designed and built Sunningdale or told Willie Park Jr how to do it.

The primary influence for the architecture of Sunningdale and Huntercombe (considered the first breakthrough inland golf courses (heathlands) in the linksland mold was Parks, the linksland architect and not Hutchinson or the arts and crafts movement.

This is the way golf architecture's history and literature has always reported it and that history and literature is accurate and correct! There is no reason whatsover to change the story of that influence and that history now.