I'm bringing this over here, because it isn't getting addressed in the Victorian thread -
It is a response to Tom MacWood's questions. The paragraphs begun with ">>" are my responses
Adam
How do you separate any design from the artistic and aesthetic of the time?
>> I don't. At the time, we have the Victorian, Arts and Crafts as well as Classical influences and most certainly others. I'm not separating anything. Beyond that, I'm asking that we also remember that we can't separate mankind in any era from his basic human tendencies.
"Have we considered wether or not it is possible that some of those quoted - such as Dr. MacKenzie - who referred to "Victorian" golf design, might have done so simply for the sake of their own marketing?"
Yes
>>I assume you're speaking for yourself - And what did you come up with? Was it in your essay?
"Could the popularity of the natural environment for health and well-being, and interest in nature as "good and right" have influenced some of the designers of the time to use the term "Victorian" as a way of creating bad press?"
I don't understand your question.
>>I modified this a bit a minute after I sent it to end with the words "...for their competitors." I wonder if it may have been the best interest of their own aspirations to refer to competitors using a term that was falling out of fashion.
"Did Dunn ever refer to his work as Victorian?"
I've never read anything TD wrote...I doubt it.
>> This goes back to what I asked in the other thread about proponents of the "Victorian" in golf course architecture. That part of my question was never really answered. I think it should be given some consideration, because I think it reveals more of what I'm trying to get at here and that is that I don't believe their was any real "Victorian Age" to speak of in golf. I realize that it was referred to, I realize that there was a formal symmetry, and I realize that there may have been a good number of poorly laid out, flat, boring, symmetrical courses with stupid bumps for hazards.
But I think the only real "movement" here was the "Golf Movement". Golf was moving inland as it was becoming popular. Yes, I agree that the Arts & Crafts were part of the spirit of the times, and in that way played a role. But Art's & Crafts is difficult to define in terms of influence as there were many things going on at the time which involved a movement toward nature - and they weren't all to fall under the heading of Arts & Crafts. As I mentioned, the development of the Public Park was part of this.
Also, A&C began as a social movement and was very much concerned with things that we do not see attention paid to in Golf. For instance - the importance of handicraft and an aversion to machine production. Golf embraced the machine in many ways.
There was an A&C focus on truth in natural materials which were local to the area - but golf nearly always has included SAND. Often when it is not a natural part of the landscape - that is because it's form was dictated not by the ideals of A&C, but by the links. right from the beginning, golf architects sought to 'fake' nature - and that was counter to the honesty in production and material which the true Arts & Crafts proponents sought to celebrate.
Art's & Crafts, growth of the machine, the renewed interest in nature and outdoor activity for health, the growth of golf and the population explosion in the U.S. all happened at the same time - so they most certainly all contributed to the reality of that day. But as far as golf courses are concerned, I don't think the ties are clear enough to conclude that the Arts & Crafts movement was a major driving force behind it's formal development.
"And what about clients? Could it be that some clients pressed for some of these formal arrangements?"
It's possible. It is also possible that the designs of Colt, MacKenzie and Simpson should be credited to their clients.
>>Of course it is, and it's been discussed here before. I started one such thread myself. My question is wether we've considered it in relation to THIS thread and our understanding of Victorian Age golf course design. So what has your research told you about the clients of these type of courses and what they wanted?
"Beyond that, there is the basic mathematical aspect of golf - the differnt clubs, with different lofts, travelling different distances. These numerical foundations lend themselves easily to formulaic arrangements - many of which modern architects still fight today -
(and it ain't because of any Victorian aesthetic.)"
Explain what impact it had upon ancient links, Victorian and golden age architecute.
>>Hmm, that's an easy one. A request like that seems to be a bit of a tall order here...more of a rhetorical one than anything. But I am really interested in this discussion and not out to fight or cause any personal injury, so I'll entertain it.
I would imagine that the mathematical foundation of golf grew WITH the early links more than dictated it. St' Andrews does not seem to be so rigidly based on formula - to it's credit - and that may be partly why.
Later, when one could safely say that "of the 10's of thousands of golfers out there, the average one will hit this club this far" the formulas most certainly began to take their toll. The root of my suggestion here is that this could surely have led an early builder of golf courses to believe (and say) that "Laying out a golf course is as easy as 1-2-3"
"Formulaic arrangement is most likely one of the most basic pitfalls of golf course architecture and always has been. But I think that has a lot to do with the nature of the game itself - with its numeric foundations - combined with the fact that in any business, there's a good 3/4 in the field that might be better doing something else - because they're just not that good at what they do."
Would you descirbe the natural evolved links as formulaic?
>>I'm going to skip this one as it's kind of a repeat.