Did the Arts and Crafts Movement really influence GCA?

[T_MacWood]

TE
"Yes I do often bring up the subject of historic revisionism or I guess I should say "revisionism of history" and I'll continue to do that on this website. I sure do think it's a bad idea---frankly a really terrible idea---always have thought that and I hope I always will. That type of thing simply distorts the realities of history and I see nothing good about that at all."

TE
Golf architeture is relatively new field and the history of golf architecture is an even newer field. As we continue to discover new material and look at the art from different perspectives (like my A&C essay) the history will continue to be revised. That is for certain.

I sometimes get the impression you believe C&W will be the last word on golf architecture history...you are comfortable with its story of GA it tells and uncomfortable with any alternative stories...why is that?

As you begin looking at these things (like early British golf design) independently, I'm confident you will change your tune.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Adam
Its obvious you put a lot of thought into this, which I appreciate.

•••Thank you, Tom. I appreciate your participation in this discussion.


1) The Arts and Crafts movement was surely in full swing during the Golden Age of GCA - so it was surely a contributor to the spirit of the age, but it is difficult to say wether it was a CENTRAL DRIVING FORCE, because there were many contributors to the spirit of the age - among them was a move toward nature for the sake of health and well-being, and the rise of the Public Park. Neither of these things are widely associated with the A&C movement, but could certainly be seen as part of the spirit of the age - and therefore, could have played major roles in the popularity boom of golf.

>>>Was the move "toward nature for the sake of health and well-being, and the rise of the Public Park" an aesthetic movement.

••• Perhaps not, but the A&C began as a social movement as well. Both contributed to the spirit of the age.

 They may have contributed to the popularity of the game, but they don't explain why the Victorian style became popular or why the Victorian style was ultimately rejected at the beginning the golden age (1900).

••• When you say "Victorian style" here, are you referring to golf course design? If so, of course they don't. In my opinion, the spread of this "style" may well have been simply "poor" design, which I have explained elsewhere.

2) I question the validity of using the term "Victorian Age" in relation to golf course architecture for several reasons.

>>>Victorian golf architecture was used by Alison, Colt, MacKenzie, among others, to describe the style of design popular in the 1890's.

••• Were all of these references made after the period you are referring to as "The Golden Age? If so, then we can eliminate the direct competition theory - unless such courses where still being built by competitors during the time of writing. You may know these dates.

If you haven't read these books, look at Shackeford's Golden Age for a diagram of one of these formulaic hole. It is Walter Travis's diagram, he called it the Dunn System, others called the Dark Ages. They are all the same thing.

>>>What are some of the better Victorian inland designs? Who were some of the better architects in the 1890's?

••• I don't know, but I have asked this earlier and still have no answer. We should endeavor to discover an answer.

>>>How would MacKenzie and the others benefit from writing about and criticizng Victorian architecture in the 1920's?

••• This goes back to my last point (two above)

3) Some of golf's Golden Age development was in direct contrast to the true motivations of the A&C.

>>>How were Huntercombe, Sunningdale, Walton Heath, Worplesdon, Stoke Poges and Swinley Forest in direct contrast with the aesthetic promoted by the A&C movement?

••• Did any of them use materials which were not found on the site? Did any employ machines? If not, then maybe they weren't but these courses do not, in and of themselves encompass all of the courses which your essay leads us to believe are "Arts and Crafts" golf.

• The A&C favored handicrafts, GCA used machines whenever they could.

>>>If you study the A&C you will find this contradiction often (among other condridictions)....many rejected this part of the movement, including Frank Llloyd Wright, who enbraced the machine.

••• Frank Lloyd Wright's major influence grew into a subset called The Prairie School. Most of his influence came much later and was primarily in the U.S. You have said your focus is on early British developments. Is this correct? Also,this example adds to what I've said about "the spirit of the age" and what Tom Paul is referring to as your "umbrella theory". Are we looking for specifics or just making general observations? If we're being very general, then I've already conceded agreement on such an obvious claim. But that wouldn't be enough to warrant writing your essay.

>>>Another paradox the crafts produced by A&C movement were supposed to be enjoyed by the masses...unfortuantely the rich were often the only ones who could afford them. To concentrate only upon one aspect of the A&C Movement, at the exclusion of the other important principles, is a mistake IMO.

••• This is true, but once the signs of influence get too fragmented or indirect, or vague, or able to be explained by too many other potential influences, the whole argument gets rather thin. This is the fundamental problem with this relationship. A&C is so ill-defined. We pretty much have to look at the state of it prior to the golden age and base our connections there in order to nail it down. You most certainly know those dates better than I.

• The A&C favored the use of local materials and an honesty in production which utilized the materials at hand. GCA almost invariably used SAND - regardless of wether or not the site contained it. This point alone seems to suggest the core importance of the early links over A&C ideals. The fact is that GCA has always been making one artificial reproduction of the links or another all these years. Some are more abstracted than others - but it remains the clear and visible driving force.

>>>The early golden age architects also favored sand and sandy sites, they favored utilizing interesting natural features and endeavoring to make their man-made features appear as natural as possible...with the ancient links as their model. How does this differ from the architect Edward Prior attempting to meld his design with the site...with the naturally evolved venacular style as his model? Or Gertrude Jekyll designing a garden with traditional/native plants and blending it with the site...with the old fashioned cottage garden as her model?


••• Good points certainly. To me, the difference lies in the fact that Prior was imitating an older tradition in favor of one that had replaced completely and had become well-entrenched and accepted, As was Ms. Jekyll. This brings us back to my contentions about "The Victorian Age".

You have explained that it didn't have a solid name, wasn't really identified until after it was gone, was short-lived, and had no real voice or proponents. It just had opportunists running around laying out one-a-day. And were of little note to anyone of any great importance in this rapidly developing new sport craze.

This is the difference.

Where the other A&C activities you mentioned were reviving a lost tradition of the past, the LINKS tradition had never gone away. Far from it. It had always been healthy and continued right on through. TOC was there and well-revered all along, as were other links courses.

Golf course architecture was on the rapid rise during the hay day of the Arts and Crafts, surely - but the growth of inland golf was too young to have a revival - it was just getting started.

The proliferation of written materials at the time, combined with the spirit of the age (A&C, Back to nature, interest in health, etc.) all contributed to links-style gca "winning out" over other styles. It also may well have contributed to the connection between various players in the Golden Age, who fed off each other and produced some great work.

But again, you would know more about that.

Questions:

If you are suggesting the A&C was a core driving factor behind the Golden age of GCA,

a) What dates are you calling the golden age? (I know it varies)
b) What period of A&C are you referring to?
c) What region are you referring to - you seem to be focused on Britain.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

I think you've made some very fine points and asked some fine questions. In the last few paragraphs of post #173 I'd like to see Tom MacWood begin to dial down on what he often refers to as "contradictions" and "paradoxes" within the A/C movement. Looking at things that way is just further evidence that what he most always tries to do is find similarities between inherently differing things (art forms, professions etc) by incresingly generalizing (his novel "umbrella" theory) about something such as the A/C movement or the extent of its philosophy, theme or essences. Generalizing to that extent eventually becomes very much less than interesting or instructive. One need not always try to find "similarities" by comparing differing things to the point of total generalization---one very much needs to "contrast" things too to find the unique "differences" and "distinctions between them which are frankly much more interesting, in my opinion.

I'd advise Tom Mac to stop generalizing to such an extent that he begins to call things in what he thinks is some general or global aesthetic or even "movement" (the A/C movement?) "contradictions" and "paradoxes" when more properly if he would only learn how to more intelligently "contrast" various things (the A/C Movement and the Golden Age of golf architecture) he would come to see that there are actually inherent and important "DISTINCTIONS" and "DIFFERENCES" between them.

Only then can he probably come to realize that something like this A/C movement probably never did have a PRIMARY influence on the Golden Age of golf archtiecture, although it certainly may have had some stronger influences on other areas of design and art forms (builiding architecture, furniture, and other art and craft).

Of course it's not lost on most of us that something else or some other things completely distinct for the A/C movement were really the primary influences on the Golden Age of golf architecture which can also prove the point that the primary influence on the Golden Age of golf architecture probably wasn't or just wasn't the A/C movement.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Golf architeture is relatively new field and the history of golf architecture is an even newer field. As we continue to discover new material and look at the art from different perspectives (like my A&C essay) the history will continue to be revised. That is for certain."

Tom;

That may be your opinion but it's not mine about something such as the Golden Age of golf course architecture. In my opinion the history of that time has been told and told very well by numerous writers and historians, and almost every single one of them far more competent and honest about the realities of it and the influences on it than you are or are being now. Many of these men are those involved in those very times something that I believe gives them far better incite into the realities of it than you will or could ever have. Isn't it interesting how there seems to be a general consensus about what it was and what the influences on it were? You are simply trying to revise those known realities and I just don't want to see anyone do that who passes himself off as an historian, writer, essayist or whatever on this subject.

"I sometimes get the impression you believe C&W will be the last word on golf architecture history...you are comfortable with its story of GA it tells and uncomfortable with any alternative stories...why is that?"

Well, Tom, I more than sometimes get the feeling you are a man with such an incredibly one dimensional mind (or one who doesn't read these posts very carefully) that after about three days of asking you to stop it you either are unaware or refuse to stop for some personal reason this constant remark of yours that all I refer to or have read is Cornish & Whitten. I guarantee I've read more than just that. You should begin to read more of Max Behr a man you claim to be one of the strongest proponents of the A/C movement. Perhaps you should read again what he had to say about why the golf architecture that preceded the naturalistic architecture of the heathlands and then the Golden Age was the way it was and why.

And because of that ridiculous and boringly constant remark of yours about me and C&W I see no real reason at this point to continue this discussion with you. You're no better at discussing it on here than you are with the conclusions and suggestion you made in your essay I've taken issue with which of course was the whole point of starting this thread. You're worse actually.

"As you begin looking at these things (like early British golf design) independently, I'm confident you will change your tune."

I'm extremely confident I won't and I'm quite confident a number of others who've been following this thread never will either.

Independently? What does that mean in your mind? Does that mean going back over the documentary material that many of the historians of golf architecture all read or perhaps even wrote. Does that mean writing one's own essays about what it all means to them. I'd advise you Tom, to concentrate more on just reading what those writers such as Macdonald, Hunter, MacKenzie, Tillinghast, Thomas, Behr et al wrote about their times instead of thinking that this thing you call "independent research" can give you a clearer idea of what it all means than they can if you read them.

You're either denying or contradicting some very strong writers and I frankly find that laughable. What are you doing that for? Probably just to see if you can find some non-questioning people to believe you. It looks like you've found some on here but not a lot thankfully. And for those who don't buy your theories and conclusions and suggestions the best you can do is imply they're ignorant. You'll never become an historian, chronicler or essayist of any merit that way.  

[TEPaul]

I think I'll check out now and let Adam Foster Collins carry on this discussion for some of the things I believe in on this issue. I think he's one of the very few really clear minds on this thread or maybe on this website.

[TEPaul]

Dave Moriarty asked:

"TomP, how do you reconcile the MacKenzie book and the Leach article with your position?    Are you aware of any documents, photographs, or articles which refute their descriptions?"

Dave:

Would you mind telling me what you referring to in that MacKenzie book and Leach article? And what do you mean by "my position"? Is it the postion I've maintained on this thread that I don't think the A/C movement warrants being described as the primary influence on the Golden Age of golf architecture and my position that I don't think Hutchinson should be called the father of the art of golf architecture? Or something else I said on here?  

[DMoriarty]

Would you mind telling me what you referring to in that MacKenzie book and Leach article? And what do you mean by "my position"? Is it the postion I've maintained on this thread that I don't think the A/C movement warrants being described as the primary influence on the Golden Age of golf architecture and my position that I don't think Hutchinson should be called the father of the art of golf architecture? Or something else I said on here?  

I am referring to the excerpts I have quoted in twice in this thread and once in the other, where MacKenzie and Leach describe "Victorian" golf design and its rejection by designers returning to a more natural aesthetic.  

Your position has been that it is innaccurate to refer to a Victorian golf design and that it is innaccurate to say that golf designers ever rejected a Victorian/ Industiral approach to golf design.  

[TEPaul]

"Your position has been that it is innaccurate to refer to a Victorian golf design and that it is innaccurate to say that golf designers ever rejected a Victorian/ Industiral approach to golf design."

DaveM:

Did I say that? I don't remember. I guess I say too much sometimes. I can't see why I'd say that though, as I don't really think it. I may've said that the terms "Victorian", "Industrial" "Dark Ages" or whatever else they may have called it back then or later are probably just terms that may've not been particular descriptive of the architecture of those times---a time that probably spanned about 20-30 years before some far more interesting and sophisticated architecture began to appear and come on stream here and there. Maybe Those terms were just a reference to the time or the span of time they were referring to----sort of like we refer to the "Golden Age". Tom MacWood is right that term is not very descriptive of the architecture of that time other than to probably define a time when many considered architecture to have been at a high point or on its way to a high point.

But that time of early nland architecture (when golf first began to migratate away from the linksland) was apparently just a time and a quality of golf architecture (more specifically a lack of quality) that was the result of quick and inexpensive lay-out courses that were very rudimentary---eg probably not that much different from how the Model T Ford wasn't as sophisticated as what followed it on down the road of automobile development. To get a glimpse of why that was so in that early time I think you should read carefully that quote of Max Behr's I put on your thread about Victorian architecture or that time we refer to no matter what it's called. I think Behr described those times and the architecture and the reasons for them as well or better than anyone.

[DMoriarty]

Adam, thanks for ordering your points and bringing some much needed clarity to this discussion.  

1) The Arts and Crafts movement was surely in full swing during the Golden Age of GCA - so it was surely a contributor to the spirit of the age, but it is difficult to say wether it was a CENTRAL DRIVING FORCE, because there were many contributors to the spirit of the age - among them was a move toward nature for the sake of health and well-being, and the rise of the Public Park. Neither of these things are widely associated with the A&C movement, but could certainly be seen as part of the spirit of the age - and therefore, could have played major roles in the popularity boom of golf.

Adam, you are correct that it is difficult to say whether it was a central driving force, especially because the "Arts and Crafts Movement" was multi-faceted and so ill-ill defined.  

For example, many Arts and Crafts historians would argue that the "health and well-being" of the broader classes was an integral component of the Arts and Crafts Movement.  The same could be argued regarding interaction with nature and government sponsored parks of all sorts.  For example, the lodges and structures at our earliest national parks are considered "Arts and Crafts" designs-- some even define a "National Park vernacular."

For a rather emotional "Arts and Crafts" statement on the importance of Parks, here is a link to an article in Arroyo Craftsman, a Pasadena periodical, from 1912, entitled "Parks for the People:  California's Wisdom in Turning Her Ancient Forests into Modern Playgrounds."

http://www.arroyoseco.org/ArroyoCraftsman.htm

Another article concerning Pasadena, this time in a 1924 addition of another Arts and Crafts Era Pasadena magazineCalifornia Southland.  It is an editorial by the head of the Pasadena City Planning Commission.  

http://www.arroyoseco.org/calsouth1924.htm

 Note the concern about the blocked vistas and upsetting the "natural flow of the land."  Also note the master plan to restore the Arroyo into a "natural park" which includes the development of, among other things, a golf course.  
Arts and Crafts influence on our National ) I question the validity of using the term "Victorian Age" in relation to golf course architecture for several reasons.

So perhaps the Arts and Crafts Movement overlaps with much of what you describe as "the spirit of the age."  Another way of looking at it would be that the Arts and Crafts Movement was one aspect of the aesthetic expression of "the spirit of the age."

• By this time, the term "Victorian" was already somewhat of a derogatory term, used to discount or criticize creative work. (Yes, largely because of the A&C movement, but also because of the general interest in moving back to nature - which went beyond A&C)

-- A&C was primarily concerned with the industrialization which took place during the Victorian Era.

-- Again, while "moving back to nature" may have gone beyond A&C,  moving back to a natural aesthetic was a core component of A&C.   How far beyond A&C did the interest in moving back to nature go?   Answering this question probably requires defining the absolute outer bounds of the A&C movement, and this is difficult to do.

• The formal arrangement of the courses of people such as Dunn, does not make something "Victorian". It could simply be bad. Golf course architecture was not sufficiently developed to have much of a "method" by this point, so it was just starting as a profession.

--The formal arrangement by itself does not make the architecture "Victorian," but the formal arrangement of the features is certainly consistent with a Victorian Industrial aesthetic and method.  

-- While "method" of golf course architecture may not have been developed, golf was already an ancient game played on ancient ground, and the aesthetic of the links courses is as old as the courses themselves.  And technology existed to at least make some attempt at representing or reproducing at least some of the aesthetic.  Yet apparently no attempt was made to so do.  Why didnt they at least try?  One explanation is that their behavior was another sign of the times:  Replication of the same features on every hole;  mathematical precision; symmetry; the products were wholly lacking of individual character; little attempt to blend the natural and the man-made; . . . all characteristics of Victorian Industrialism.

-- And really there was no "profession" at all.  These guys were professional golfers, not artists or architects.  I think it was MacKenzie who noted that golf architecture was born when this type of architecture died.  The designer's became "artists."   This is one of the goals of the A&C movement.  Victorian industrialization had turned craftsman and builders into mindless machines, and the A&C movement set out to reverse this trend by reestablishing craftsmen and builders as artists who shaped their work with their individuality and creativity.  

What is called by some "Victorian" was actually occurring simultaneously to more traditional development, which suggests to me that "The Dark Ages" may have been little more than a relatively short-lived run of crappy architecture - and not any well-established "age" of any kind.

You lost me here a bit.  Not sure you are referring to just golf design, but I assume you are.   What "traditional development" was going on during this period?   As I understand it, there is often a large amount of overlap between movements in art.  But to what overlap are you referring.  

• Architects of the time were competing. Therefore the use of the term "Victorian" by men such as MacKenzie could simply have been an effort to discount competitors, and work he didn't approve of. The use of the word does not make and 'age' or an 'era'.

Maybe, but I doubt it for a few reasons.  First, MacKenzie was writing in the 1930's, long after the supposed "Dark Ages" ended, so it wasnt like he was dissing his immediate competitors.  Leach was not an architect but a journalist and writer, and was also writing a few decades after, at the death of WP, Jr.  Secondly and more importantly, there is near complete agreement among the commentators of the time and later (even C&W) that there was a distinct style of design during the supposed Dark Ages.  No matter how they labeled it, MacKenzie, Leach, Hutchinson, Simpson, Behr, C&W,Hunder and others describe a similar characteristics consistent with a distinct style of design.   If they all saw fit to address and describe this distinct style of design, I am not sure why so many of us are comfortable dismissing so readily.    

 • The growing popularity of golf and the establishment of increasingly standardized golf equipment meant that there was more and more of a "mathematical, formulaic" basis which architects had to careful not to get trapped by. (This club hits this far on average, so we'll always put a hazard there). This simple pitfall still traps architects today, so we can't discount it in the early stages of GCA. The fact that some of the courses created in the early growth of the game inland had "formal" or "formulaic" layouts could just as easily be attributed to low levels of creativity in the face of a strong mathematical framework as it could be attributed to "The Victorian Age".

Adam, I hate to sound like a broken record, but when you describe "low levels of creativity in the face of a strong mathematical framework" you could be an A&Cer describing the evil consequences of the industrialization of the Victorian Age.  Same thing with mass production.

3) Some of golf's Golden Age development was in direct contrast to the true motivations of the A&C.

• The A&C favored handicrafts, GCA used machines whenever they could.

There were schools of A&C that disfavored the use of any tools whatsoever, but there were also those that favored the upmost use of technology.

• The A&C favored the use of local materials and an honesty in production which utilized the materials at hand. GCA almost invariably used SAND - regardless of wether or not the site contained it. This point alone seems to suggest the core importance of the early links over A&C ideals. The fact is that GCA has always been making one artificial reproduction of the links or another all these years. Some are more abstracted than others - but it remains the clear and visible driving force.

I think you misundstand the "A&C ideal."   If there was an A&C ideal in gca, it would be to return the aesthetic of the early, pre-industrial, links as a guiding light.  Part of this would be to incorporate the extisting landscape and local vernacular into the course, but part may also have been to carry forward portions of the pre-industrial exemplars.

I think we might want to look at COMMUNICATION in our search for the driving forces behind the golden age. How many of the GOlden Age architects were sharing ideas at this time? How many travelled in the same circles? Could the publication of such magazines as Country Life been more important to the development of the Golden Age because it served to "CONNECT" - rather than to push the ideals of a single movement?

Wasnt Country Life a magazine that celebrated Arts and Crafts?   (Not a rhetorical question.)  

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty & Tom MacWood,

You're both alleging that an A&C movement existed in GCA, but have offered no proof.

Can you cite who first coined the phrase, "Arts & Craft Movement in Golf Course Architecture" ?

Since Tom MacWood indicated his Arts & Craft movement began in 1900, it would be impossible for anyone to apply that label prior to 1900.

So, I'ld like to know when the period in golf course architecture, begining in 1900, was first identified as the Arts & Craft era/movement, and by whom ?

Thanks

[Adam_F_Collins]

DMoriarty

I appreciate your efforts and those of Tom MacWood. The problem for me lies in the fact that the Arts and Crafts Movement is so ill-defined.

It seems as if there is SOME aspect or sub-movement or part of the A&C that addresses just about EVERYTHING from 1880 - 1930. To me, that's just too general. At that level, I'm quite sure that the Arts and Crafts movement had its effect on golf course development. But it's not specific enough to say that it was any kind of central or driving force behind the formal development of the playing fields of the game.

I think the discussion here is a good beginning toward gaining a more complete understanding of the development of GCA - but there's work yet to do.

To call the Golden Age "Arts and Crafts" golf ignores a links tradition which preceded the A&C movement, and the fact that this links tradition carried on, right through the A&C period and has stayed with us through to the present day.

I haven't yet seen enough to convince me otherwise. What is called "Victorian" golf course design was a short-lived period of ill-conceived golf course design which occurred (understandably) during a sudden boom in the popularity of the game in regions beyond the linksland beginnings. However, during this period, the links tradition remained right along side it - and it was quickly realized by the golfing masses that it was the best way to enjoy the game.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
I don't hink I'll be removing 'significant'.

“The public demanded these columns, pilasters, cornices and mouldings, so these architects provided them. But toward the end of the nineteenth century an increasing number of people became aware of the absurdity of this fashion. In England in particular, critics and artists were unhappy about the general decline in craftsmanship caused by the Industrial Revolution, and hated the very sight of these cheap tawdry machine-made imitations of ornament which once had meaning and nobility of its own. Men like John Ruskin and William Morris dreamt of a thorough reform of the arts and crafts, and the replacement of cheap mass production by conscientious and meaningful handiwork. The influence of their criticism was very widespread even though the humble handicrafts which they advocated proved, under modern conditions, to the greatest of luxuries.”

~‘The Story of Art’, EH Gombrich 1995

“So it is that the two decades 1890 to 1910 mark the high tide of the Arts and Crafts Movement, one which equally spread to the regions. In 1890 the Birmingham Guild of Handicraft were created, Finally the Movement’s message was taken into the art educational system. In 1896 the Central School  of A&C opened, providing what was the most progressive education and training in design in Europe. At the Royal College of Art, WR Lethaby was appointed first Professor of Design, thus reinforcing the notion that handicraft was its basis.

The Movement effected what was a revolution in living style by whole swathe of the educated middle classes. The revolution had already begun under the impulse of aestheticism in the 1870’s. The home was now the apotheosized as the house beautiful, a temple to art.”

~’The Spirit of Britain: A Narrative History of the Arts’, Roy Strong, 1999

Widely influential late-C19 English movement that attempted to re-establish the skills of craftsmanship threatened by mass-production and industrialization…The chief legacy of the movement to architecture was the appreciation of vernacular buildings leading to elements derived from them being widely used in the Domestic Revival…Finally, the movement was in the vanguard of recording, studying, and preserving old buildings, and argued for careful conservation of ancient fabric rather than wholesale or drastic ‘restorations’. Morris himself founded the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) which has been an influential agent ever since.”

~’Oxford Dictionary of Architecture', 1999

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Your citations have absolutely NOTHING to do with GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE, that's where you make your fatal leap of faith.

[ForkaB]

As you wish, Tom.  "Significant" is a relative word, and we differ on its meaning in this context.

PS--in the British meaning of the phrase, "middle class" means a very narrow "swathe"--pretty much coterminous with the subscription list of "Country Life" probably.  This very small class of people had and have multiple interests and philosophies, of which I'm sure A&C has, at some times, been a part.  However, even if I am correct with that speculation, this does not at all constitute "significance"--at least as I know the meaning of the word.

I'll agree to disagree, although I suspect that you will not........

[T_MacWood]

>>>Was the move "toward nature for the sake of health and well-being, and the rise of the Public Park" an aesthetic movement.

••• Perhaps not, but the A&C began as a social movement as well. Both contributed to the spirit of the age.

The Arts & Craft movement was first and foremost an aesthetic movement. Where can we see the movment "toward nature for the sake of health and well-being, and the rise of the Public Park"? Was it prevalent around London? Can we find traces of it in Sunningdale, Huntercombe and Walton Heath?

••• When you say "Victorian style" here, are you referring to golf course design? If so, of course they don't. In my opinion, the spread of this "style" may well have been simply "poor" design, which I have explained elsewhere.

It was synonimous with poor design in golf architecture, and elsewhere.

>>>Victorian golf architecture was used by Alison, Colt, MacKenzie, among others, to describe the style of design popular in the 1890's.

••• Were all of these references made after the period you are referring to as "The Golden Age? If so, then we can eliminate the direct competition theory - unless such courses where still being built by competitors during the time of writing. You may know these dates.

Colt and Alison in 1920. This is an example of why it is wise to research a subject prior to presenting a thesis

>>>What are some of the better Victorian inland designs? Who were some of the better architects in the 1890's?

••• I don't know, but I have asked this earlier and still have no answer. We should endeavor to discover an answer.
There is good reason you are unable to get an answer for your question. Why do you think Park's designs were celebrated?

>>>How were Huntercombe, Sunningdale, Walton Heath, Worplesdon, Stoke Poges and Swinley Forest in direct contrast with the aesthetic promoted by the A&C movement?

••• Did any of them use materials which were not found on the site? Did any employ machines? If not, then maybe they weren't but these courses do not, in and of themselves encompass all of the courses which your essay leads us to believe are "Arts and Crafts" golf.

Walton Heath did. So did many of the works of Wright and the Gamble Brothers, not to mention Stickley furniture and Morris wallpaper. Are they A&C? What source have you derived your A&C knowledge from?

>>>If you study the A&C you will find this contradiction often (among other condridictions)....many rejected this part of the movement, including Frank Llloyd Wright, who enbraced the machine.

••• Frank Lloyd Wright's major influence grew into a subset called The Prairie School. Most of his influence came much later and was primarily in the U.S. You have said your focus is on early British developments. Is this correct? Also,this example adds to what I've said about "the spirit of the age" and what Tom Paul is referring to as your "umbrella theory". Are we looking for specifics or just making general observations? If we're being very general, then I've already conceded agreement on such an obvious claim. But that wouldn't be enough to warrant writing your essay.

FLW's first Prarie design was in 1893, it came much later than what? Voysey and Mackintosh also embraced the machine. I get the impression you do not have a very good understanding the A&C Movement.

>>>Another paradox the crafts produced by A&C movement were supposed to be enjoyed by the masses...unfortuantely the rich were often the only ones who could afford them. To concentrate only upon one aspect of the A&C Movement, at the exclusion of the other important principles, is a mistake IMO.

••• This is true, but once the signs of influence get too fragmented or indirect, or vague, or able to be explained by too many other potential influences, the whole argument gets rather thin. This is the fundamental problem with this relationship. A&C is so ill-defined. We pretty much have to look at the state of it prior to the golden age and base our connections there in order to nail it down. You most certainly know those dates better than I.

Again you don't appear to have a good understanding of Movement. No doubt it was complex and requires more than a passing study. Again it would be wise to study your subject prior presenting a conclusion.

>>>The early golden age architects also favored sand and sandy sites, they favored utilizing interesting natural features and endeavoring to make their man-made features appear as natural as possible...with the ancient links as their model. How does this differ from the architect Edward Prior attempting to meld his design with the site...with the naturally evolved venacular style as his model? Or Gertrude Jekyll designing a garden with traditional/native plants and blending it with the site...with the old fashioned cottage garden as her model?


••• Good points certainly. To me, the difference lies in the fact that Prior was imitating an older tradition in favor of one that had replaced completely and had become well-entrenched and accepted, As was Ms. Jekyll. This brings us back to my contentions about "The Victorian Age".

What does age have to do with it? When were the first links used for golf?

You have explained that it didn't have a solid name, wasn't really identified until after it was gone, was short-lived, and had no real voice or proponents. It just had opportunists running around laying out one-a-day. And were of little note to anyone of any great importance in this rapidly developing new sport craze.

This is the difference.

Where the other A&C activities you mentioned were reviving a lost tradition of the past, the LINKS tradition had never gone away. Far from it. It had always been healthy and continued right on through. TOC was there and well-revered all along, as were other links courses.

The Victorian architects were well aware of the LINKS tradition yet chose to build formulaic unnatural golf courses. There was a revelation in 1900 and there are easily identified reasons for the revelation...and it wasn't the public park craze.

Golf course architecture was on the rapid rise during the hay day of the Arts and Crafts, surely - but the growth of inland golf was too young to have a revival - it was just getting started.

The proliferation of written materials at the time, combined with the spirit of the age (A&C, Back to nature, interest in health, etc.) all contributed to links-style gca "winning out" over other styles. It also may well have contributed to the connection between various players in the Golden Age, who fed off each other and produced some great work.

But again, you would know more about that.

[T_MacWood]

"You're both alleging that an A&C movement existed in GCA, but have offered no proof."

Pat
What kind of proof are you looking for...I wrote a fifty page essay in an attempt to prove the case?

Regarding my post to Rich, you are obviously not following this thread.

When you read: "The Movement effected what was a revolution in living style by whole swathe of the educated middle classes." You don't immediately relate it to golf architecture in suburban London?

Do you believe inland golf architecture developed in a vacuum, unaffacted by everyday influences?

[DMoriarty]

DMoriarty & Tom MacWood,

You're both alleging that an A&C movement existed in GCA, but have offered no proof.

I am not alleging anything.  I am just trying to engage in dialogue about the issue.  I am not even sure whether or not I agree that it makes total sense to include gca in the A&C movement, which is why I am trying to discuss it further.

As for "proof,"  it depends on your standard I guess.  Plenty of facts and commentary have been offered, but you refuse to accept any of it.  Yet you dont offer anything by way of refutation, either.  You just say "I am not convinced."  

Can you cite who first coined the phrase, "Arts & Craft Movement in Golf Course Architecture" ?

No, I cant.  But then I am not so sure that self-identification is a necessary prerequisite for inclusion in a movement.   The term "Arts and Crafts" wasnt coined until 1887, so by your line of thought  anything that happened before then couldn't have been part of the Arts and Crafts Movement.   There goes much of the Movement's most famous work!

[DMoriarty]

It seems as if there is SOME aspect or sub-movement or part of the A&C that addresses just about EVERYTHING from 1880 - 1930. To me, that's just too general. At that level, I'm quite sure that the Arts and Crafts movement had its effect on golf course development. But it's not specific enough to say that it was any kind of central or driving force behind the formal development of the playing fields of the game.

Yes it was general, and yes it did address just about everything in the latter part of the 19th century.  On one level it was a rejection of a way of life, and an attempt to replace it with another. That is potentially very far reaching, although AC's bark turned out to be much bigger than its bite.

To call the Golden Age "Arts and Crafts" golf ignores a links tradition which preceded the A&C movement, and the fact that this links tradition carried on, right through the A&C period and has stayed with us through to the present day.

No one is ignoring the links tradition.   In fact the pre-industrial links tradition is a necessary precursor to inclusion of golf design in the AC movement.   The theory is that when golf designers rejected Victorian industrialism, they returned to the pre-industrial links, and the links aesthetic became the primary guide.

Is it possible that you are ignoring and minimizing the fact that around the turn of the century golf design took a definite turn away from this links tradition?   Where is the links aesthetic in geometric greens and uniform cop bunkers and traps?  

I haven't yet seen enough to convince me otherwise. What is called "Victorian" golf course design was a short-lived period of ill-conceived golf course design which occurred (understandably) during a sudden boom in the popularity of the game in regions beyond the linksland beginnings.

What makes you think that this was a short-lived period?   And if was such a temporary blip, why did the commentators concern themselves with it?  

However, during this period, the links tradition remained right along side it - and it was quickly realized by the golfing masses that it was the best way to enjoy the game.

I am not sure what you mean when you say that the links tradition remained right along side it . . . were there many courses built during this period which are consistent with the links aesthetic?  Which ones?    

What makes you think that the golfing masses quickly realized that the links were better?  

With all due respect, much of what you are offering here is complete speculation on your part with no apparent basis in fact.   Can you support any of these positions?   I understand that this may be the conventional wisdom, but I am not sure the historical record supports it.  

[DMoriarty]

"Your position has been that it is innaccurate to refer to a Victorian golf design and that it is innaccurate to say that golf designers ever rejected a Victorian/ Industiral approach to golf design."

DaveM:

Did I say that? I don't remember. I guess I say too much sometimes. I can't see why I'd say that though, as I don't really think it. I may've said that the terms "Victorian", "Industrial" "Dark Ages" or whatever else they may have called it back then or later are probably just terms that may've not been particular descriptive of the architecture of those times---a time that probably spanned about 20-30 years before some far more interesting and sophisticated architecture began to appear and come on stream here and there. Maybe Those terms were just a reference to the time or the span of time they were referring to----sort of like we refer to the "Golden Age". Tom MacWood is right that term is not very descriptive of the architecture of that time other than to probably define a time when many considered architecture to have been at a high point or on its way to a high point.

But that time of early nland architecture (when golf first began to migratate away from the linksland) was apparently just a time and a quality of golf architecture (more specifically a lack of quality) that was the result of quick and inexpensive lay-out courses that were very rudimentary---eg probably not that much different from how the Model T Ford wasn't as sophisticated as what followed it on down the road of automobile development. To get a glimpse of why that was so in that early time I think you should read carefully that quote of Max Behr's I put on your thread about Victorian architecture or that time we refer to no matter what it's called. I think Behr described those times and the architecture and the reasons for them as well or better than anyone.

Tom,  I've read your Behr quote and other Behr as well and think that his words are entirely consistent with TomM's theory.  

[T_MacWood]

The key figure is Horace Hutchinson. His mentor, teacher and life long friend was Cormell Price, an associate of Morris and others in the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood--inspired by Ruskin. Through Price Hutchinson met Morris and admired him.

In essay he wrote on Morris Hutchinson wrote, 'If you look here, there, and everywhere you will hardly rest your eye on an object created since the day of Morris, which is at all worth resting it upon, that does not owe something, and very often the most important thing about it, to his genius. I say this, with full realization that it is saying a great deal. I do not believe that it is saying too much . . . But, apart from this or that form and colour that Morris has given for eyes to dwell on round about us, it is a bigger gift than this, a gift not of details but a general point of view . . . the appreciation that there is actually beauty which can make a difference in our lives. It is an appreciation which we know quite well to have been hid from the eyes of very many of our forefathers.'

The universal impact of the A&C on everyday life at the time is apparent in Hutchinson essay. Hutchinson was also the first to write about the subject of golf design. He also published the first book on golf design in 1906. In Country Life (a widely read publication) he criticized the Victorian style of golf design and encouraged the links model. In Country Life he championed the new work of Park, Fowler, Colt and Abercromby and promted debate and dialogue on the subject of golf architecture.

And if Hutchinson's backgound with Price wasn't enough, working at CL he was surrounded by A&C thought and work. The magazine promoted many of the A&C architects, especially Lutyens. The magazine employed Jekyll. In fact Hutchinson's home at Ashdown Forest was desinged by a Lutyens desciple and had a garden designed by Jekyll.

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood does not have a theory regarding the influence of the Arts and Crafts Movement on golf course architecture.  It is rather an hypothesis.  In my view he has not proven this hypothesis--not from my expertise, I lack it, but by logical analysis.  It remains unsupported speculation.  

If past is prologue, I expect him to tell me how ignorant I am of the subject, how I need to research the subject (with the unreachable star being the extent of his research), consider the merits of all his essays and throw some non-related examples of A/C influence in other areas.  None of this makes what he says true.

In his mind I made the egregious mistake of saying the A/C movement was in a new direction.  Well, I thought bringing together artistic and craft practices of formerly disconnected cultures in the distant past within a socialistic framework is a new direction with older underpinnings.  I may be wrong about that.

Why doesn't Tom present his 5-part essay to an approapriate academician and lets see what he/she says?  Give it the peer (I use the term loosely here) review required of research and see if it stands the test.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Good idea. Would you be looking for a person with a background in both the arts and golf architecture?

Rand Jerris's background/degree is Art History...does he have the sufficient knowledge of golf architecture history in your opinion? He does in my opinion. He has already read it.

I thought there was about fifty pages of support for my theory, hypothesis, conjecture or whtever you want to call it. What kind of support do you require?

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

I disagree that the proof is in there; 50 pages or not.  The kind of proof I require is such that it relates the A/C Movement directly to a change in golf architecture.  There must be evidence of a cause and effect.  Further, there should be proof that Hutchinson also had a substantial impact on the evolution of golf architecture.  That is unless you now discount this aspect of your conclusions.  

I would like a knowledgeable independent to provide the necessary review.  There was some excellent (and not so excellent) analysis on here and I think we'd all be better served to have a proper academic review.  Rand Jerris would be fine, I certainly do respect his knowledge and regard for golf architecture.  We are working together on an interesting project and he is extremely thoughtful and knowledgeable.  Next time I see him I will ask him his thoughts on your hypothesis.  Perhaps you would consider asking him to write a review of the material for the website.  

I would also send it to a complete independent.  The academic does not have to be an expert on golf architecture history although it would help.  I suspect that an able art historian and researcher would see your research process and resulting conclusions and judge accordingly the merits of the work.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said:

"The universal impact of the A&C on everyday life at the time is apparent in Hutchinson essay. Hutchinson was also the first to write about the subject of golf design. He also published the first book on golf design in 1906. In Country Life (a widely read publication) he criticized the Victorian style of golf design and encouraged the links model. In Country Life he championed the new work of Park, Fowler, Colt and Abercromby and promted debate and dialogue on the subject of golf architecture."

Tom:

No doubt that's all very true. Hutchinson definitely had a powerful voice in golf architecture from his pulpit as the golf writer of Country Life magazine but the question here is---did he actually both inspire and instruct the likes of Park, Fowler, Colt and Abercromby to do what they did with their break-through designs in the heathlands which golf architecure's literatary histories tell us was the beginning of re-creation of the linksland architectural model outside the linksland? Here we are talking about a new day in both the aesthetics of golf architecture in inland golf and also the all important construct of how golf should ideally be played---eg the ultra symmetrical penal school of play or the more thoughtful strategic school of play of the best linksland courses. In other words, was it Hutchinson who re-invented those two things in the heathlands or did the likes of Park, Colt, Fowler, Abercromby simply bring it back into existence as the linksland model was first applied in the heathsland?

In other words, who should we really credit as the primary influence of this type of architecture that led to the "Golden Age" of golf design, the "message" or the "messenger"?

If it was the likes of Park, Colt, Fowler and Abercromby who created it by identifying the most conducive sites for this type of architecture and then additionally designing and constructing that linksland aesthetic and playability in the heathlands they are the ones who should be credited as the primary influences of later architecture in my mind and apparently in the minds of those who have always written about this evolution and the primary influences on it.

Was it Hutchinson who told them how to do this or was he just the one who wrote best and most comprehensively about the fact that they did do what they did? I think the writers of the evolutions and primary influences in golf architecture have given those early architects of the heathland, particularly Park, credit as primary influences for doing it first because they are the ones who actually designed and built those courses. Unless Hutchinson was primarily responsible for showing them how to do it, I consider what they did as the message and Hutchinson as the one who was the messenger of that heathland architectural message.

Did the atmosphere of the A/C movement of that time inspire them to bring that more complete natural and strategic golf architecture model from the best linksland courses to the English heathlands after an approximately 30 year hiatus (the Dark Ages of golf architecture in England) or had the time just come as golf itself became more prevalent and popular outside the linksland?

[T_MacWood]

Wayne

"The kind of proof I require is such that it relates the A/C Movement directly to a change in golf architecture."

Hutchinson was a key figure in the reformation of golf architecture. He was an admirer of Morris and the A&C movement. Hutchinson had a direct impact upon golf architecture, the ideas he promoted were consistant with the ideas of the A&C movement.  

"Further, there should be proof that Hutchinson also had a substantial impact on the evolution of golf architecture.  That is unless you now discount this aspect of your conclusions."

IMO being the first to write about golf design and publishing the first book on the subject are substantial. Add to it his landmark writing on the subject in Country Life, which includes his critisim of the Victorian designs and encouragment of the links model. Not to mention his relationship with Macdonald, Darwin and the heathland architects.

Who was more influential in those early days than Hutchinson?

In your opinion was there a Philadelphia School of golf architecture?