Did the Arts and Crafts Movement really influence GCA?

[Adam_F_Collins]

Are we arguing wether A&C had an influence - of ANY kind? Or something more substantial.

If we are simply arguing wether or not the A&C movement had "an effect" then that could mean something as simple as it was "the spirit of the times" among many of the wealthy and influential people of the day.

If that's all we're arguing - then it was - because the ideals of the A&C movement were too common not to be a part of people's thinking.

On the other hand, if we're arguing about wether or not the A&C was the cause or primary catalyst for the Golden Age of golf Course Architecture, then we have a different situation to deal with.

So where are we?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said;

"I don't really believe you are in a position to judge any historical inaccuracies based upon your limited knowledge of the subject--especially early British golf architecture history, where you rely a great deal upon what you read in C&W. I think you would also admit your knowledge of the A&C Movement is somewhat limited as well."



That is just typical Tom MacWood! If someone doesn't agree with his opinions his usual response is to ultimately tell them they don't know much of anything. It's ironic too, as it seems Tom MacWood has formed his opinions by rummaging through magazine and newspaper articles and photographs, some books on subjects other than golf architecture and he has formed his opinions and his conclusions. My own family, going back about 2-4 generations from me lived in and with that entire world on which he is now reporting. Even some of their houses are some of the best American examples of the influence of the A/C movement on American building architecture. And the golf clubs they were associated with are many of those great ones of that Golden Age. It's no secret my entire family going back generations have all been massive Anglophiles. I grew up with this stuff, and so did they. I don't really know whether I'm proud of that or not but I sure have always lived with it. And he's telling me all I know of or ever refer to in this context is Cornish and Whitten? His response that way to me just makes me laugh! It really is ironic.  

I respect very much his ability to find and produce interesting research material but more than once or twice I find I have very little respect for the way he comes to deduce assumptions and conclusions about what that material really means or meant.

I believe I, and particularly a number of others on this thread have offered good counterpoints to Tom MacWood's assumptions and conclusions regarding the influence, and particularly the extent of it of the so-called "Arts and Crafts" Movement on the golf architectural era and evolution we sometimes refer to as the "Golden Age". And that's all I intended to do with this thread.

Tom MacWood is perfectly right that the term "The Golden Age of Golf Design" or "Golden Age golf architecture" is not descriptive as to the influences on that era or its actual practitioners. It's a term that really defines the basic dates of an era in golf architecture that many considered a high point. "Golden Age" is a term used to define the high point in many other things as well.

I have no doubt that the philosophy known as the "arts and crafts" movement did have some influence on some things to do with golf and its architecture of that time, as it did other art forms and social thinking of that time.

But my real point, and ccounterpoint to him, is that it did not have even close to remotely the amount or degree of influence he assigins to it and certainly not to warrant relabeling the era know as the "Golden Age of golf architecture "arts and crafts" golf architecture. And also despite his observational and writing contributions to golf and architecture of that time Horace Hutchinson in no way merits ever being referred to as the "Father" of golf course architecture.

Tom MacWood ended his five part essay on the "Arts and Crafts" movement with those two conclusions and suggestions and I very much disagree with that. Doing either would be nigh onto some serious historic revisionism of the evolution of golf architecture in that period----a history that has been told and retold by some pretty competent observers and writers as to what the real influences were on golf course architecture of that period.

[TEPaul]

Also, Tom MacW, you should know that although it's something I don't refer to that much, I believe, as I'm sure many others do as well, that Part One of Cornish and Whitten's book "The Architects of Golf" that offers an adequately comprehensive chronicle of the entire history and evolution of golf course architecture and the primary influences on it is about ten times more historically accurate than you ever have been or I believe are ever likely to be. It surely doesn't offer about ten pages of background information on all the particulars of the A/C Movement itself and the people involved in it like Pugin, Rushkin and Morris primarily because to explain the primary influences on the so called Golden Age of golf architecture it doesn't need to.

It's supreme irony to me, therefore, that you say you got the idea to write about the "arts and crafts" movement and its influence on golf while having lunch at Chillies (or wherever it was) with Ron Whitten.

It would seem pretty logical to me to assume that Ron Whitten would probably agree that whatever you do---be sure to keep your day job.

[TEPaul]

"It's easy to get a bit lost here, and before I wade back into the fray, I'd like to be clear on where everyone stands."

Adam:

Where I think I stand now on this thread is I think I'm done. It was only my intention with this thread to offer a counterpoint to Tom MacWood's conclusions and his suggestions on the degree of influence on golf architecture during the so-called Golden Age to the "arts and crafts" movement and to Hutchinson. I think I've done that now, and I think you have too, as have a number of others with some very thoughtful posts.

I think Tom MacWood and I have had a good discussion on this subject on this thread and I don't see the need to go over the same old questions and answers again and I'm sure Tom doesn't either. As for David Moriarty's posts on here to me I don't really see the need to answer them---they don't really interest me, I don't think much of them and I think this website has probably had enough of our exchanges in the last six months or year or so.

You said:

"Are we arguing wether A&C had an influence - of ANY kind? Or something more substantial?"

I was not arguing that the A/C movement had no influence, I was only arguing that the A/C movement had nowhere near the influence on the Golden Age of golf architecture that Tom MacWood assigned to it, nor the importance of Horace Hutchinson in that evolution (Tom MacW said he thought he should be viewed as the "Father" of golf course architecture ) in his five part essay in the "In My Opinion" section of this website. If you haven't read his five part essay, you should read it and very carefully. The detail of historical information on the practioners and advocates of the A/C movement is really awesome but I just feel his conclusions and suggestions at the end are anything but that.

[T_MacWood]

“It's ironic too, as it seems Tom MacWood has formed his opinions by rummaging through magazine and newspaper articles and photographs, some books on subjects other than golf architecture and he has formed his opinions and his conclusions.”

That’s usually how one does historical research. I know you have an aversion to old magazines, newspapers and books, but since neither one of us was around in 1900 it is probably a necessary activity.

“My own family, going back about 2-4 generations from me lived in and with that entire world on which he is now reporting. Even some of their houses are some of the best American examples of the influence of the A/C movement on American building architecture. And the golf clubs they were associated with are many of those great ones of that Golden Age. It's no secret my entire family going back generations have all been massive Anglophiles. I grew up with this stuff, and so did they.”

Do you think their background has given you a special insight into the A&C Movement? Your comments in the past lead me (and others) to believe you do not have a very good understanding of the movement…beyond (it appears) what you have read in my essay. But then again there are people who stay in a Holiday Inn Express who are able to perform surgery. Again books might be a necessary evil to understand the roots, philosophies and products of the movement

“Tom MacWood ended his five part essay on the "Arts and Crafts" movement with those two conclusions and suggestions and I very much disagree with that.”

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion. Have you read ‘Golf Greens and Greenkeeping’ or ‘Fifty Years of Golf’ by Hutchinson?

Have you read any of Park's books, articles or his biography?

“Also, Tom MacW, you should know that although it's something I don't refer to that much, I believe, as I'm sure many others do as well, that Part One of Cornish and Whitten's book "The Architects of Golf" that offers an adequately comprehensive chronicle of the entire history and evolution of golf course architecture and the primary influences on it is about ten times more historically accurate than you ever have been or I believe are ever likely to be.”

It is an excellent chronology of the entire history of golf architecture…it was a book that inspired me to dig deeper. Because it covers the entire history of GA, there was no way for them to get into the social and artistic influences. You could easily devote an entire book to the decade around the turn of century. I always recommend to those with an interest in the subject supplement that book with some other books…its glossary is a very guide.

“It's supreme irony to me, therefore, that you say you got the idea to write about the "arts and crafts" movement and its influence on golf while having lunch at Chillies (or wherever it was) with Ron Whitten.

It would seem pretty logical to me to assume that Ron Whitten would probably agree that whatever you do---be sure to keep your day job.”

That may well be true, and I am keeping my day job. I love to research, I love to write and share what I’ve learned…and I ain’t going to stop anytime soon.

What is ironic about deciding to write the A&C essay in Chillies…you got something against Chillies? And don’t forget Jeff Brauer, he’s half to blame. You don’t think Ron Whitten can appreciate a new and interesting way of looking at the early years of the golden age?

[ForkaB]

For the sake of clarity - could each of the sides just give a quick, one or two sentence summary of their positions?

Tom Macwood,  DMoriarty and friends______________________

TEPaul, Rich and friends__________________________________

It's easy to get a bit lost here, and before I wade back into the fray, I'd like to be clear on where everyone stands.

Adam

My position is that whatever influence there might have been was peripheral and weak, based on what Tom MacWood has written.  It is an intriguing speculation, but one for which no case has really been made.

BTW--I don't have any friends, at least on GCA.

[TEPaul]

Adam Foster Collins's post #77 is a good one at this point, particularly the second to last and last sentence. I pretty much agree with Rich Goodales post #82.

Unfortunately Tom MacWood is responding by telling Rich he is anti-architecture which isn't a very appropriate response to the questions of the A/C Movement's real influences on golf architecture of the Golden Age, and he's telling me again he reads so many more books magazines and newspapers than any of us do that we don't know anythng about the history and evolution of golf course architecture---another pretty inappropriate ressponse to questions about the A/C Movement's real influence on the Golden Age of golf course architecture.

[TEPaul]

This is what Tom MacWood wrote at the end of his five part essay on the "Arts and Crafts" Movement.

"I wrote this piece for two reasons. First, I needed to satisfy my own curiosity. Why did this era begin, what circumstances brought about this revolution? What did these men of such diverse professional backgrounds and design styles have in common, if they had anything in common? The second reason was to compare and contrast the past with the present--not only from stylistic standpoint, but also from a philosophical standpoint."

I hope he has satisfied his curiosity. He pretty much satisfied mine about why the era began and what circumstances brought about this revolution. The extent of the influence he assigned to those of the A/C Movement on those of the Golden Age of golf course architecture did not satisfy me at all, however.

My opinion at this point is it is entirely inaccurate to suggest the era of the Golden Age of golf course architecture should be renamed, relabeled or retermed "arts and crafts" architecture. His suggestion that Horace Hutchinson, a very well respected man in golf architecture circles but nonetheless basically a golf writer and not a golf architect  should be called the "Father" of golf course architecture is basically also wholly historically inaccurate and frankly a bit of a joke, in my opinion.

The A/C Movement seems to have been a very broad based movement on a number of art forms, particularly building architecture and the vestiges of its influence in that context is very much still with us in many regions. On golf course architecture it's influence seems to have been there somewhat but certainly not enough to assign the label "arts and Crafts" to one of the most phenomenal evolutionary eras in the history of golf architecture. The real influences on that era are known and have been for a long time. Those books, magazines and newspaper articles I have read Tom MacWood.

But perhaps with the basic machine age in golf course architecture and maintenance we have gone through for the last 50-75 years the influences of the A/C movement and it's philosophy of individual hand-crafting in certain areas of the art of golf course architecture and maintenance will return again. It would seem it already has to some degree in the form of the creations of present architects such as Doak, Hanse, De Vries and Coore & Crenshaw and some others.

[T_MacWood]

"Here's what changed, what caused the change and what changed the direction of golf course architecture for the first time outside the linksland:

'...Here were the "heathlands", with well drained, rock free, sandy soil in gently undulating terrain. This was true golf country, and its discovery was a major step (read influence) in the development of golf course architecture.'

Enter that "fool" from the linksland---Willie Park Jr---perhaps the first and primary influence on golf course archtiecture outside the linkland!....They were all inspired and influenced by the sandy undulating land and golf architecure of the linksland and then the heathlands---just as golf architecture's literature has always said."

TE
Since you refuse to answer my question about what you’ve read of Park or Hutchinson, lets get back to the one thing you have read—C&W. This is the only outside information you’ve brought to the table to make your case, this quote. From this quote you have concluded that the revolution wasn't so much an architectural attitude change, but as a result of a change of site conditions (heathland) that re-kindled their appreciation of links golf.  

How come heather courses like Meyrick Park, Woking and Broadstone, that predate Sunningdale and Huntercombe, didn't turn out so good?

And how come Willie Park-Jr design at Richmond is in the Victorian style...did he have a mental block with parkland sites?

On your two main issues…if you can come up with a better name, go ahead. My purpose in writing the essay was not to rename the period, but to explain the A&C movement and the impact it had upon all design at that time…including golf architecture at a key juncture.

If your name is good…I say we go with it. It would probably be more inline with the umbrella nature of the movement: consolidating sub-categories, Prairie, Craftsman, Mission, Natural gardening, etc.

When and if I rewrite the essay in the future, I’ll probably rewrite the part about Hutchinson being the Father of modern GA.  I don’t particularly like calling anyone the Father of anything…it really doesn’t explain much. IMO it doesn’t explain clearly the significant impact Hutchinson had in those early years. I’m not sure what I’ll call him (if anything), but I kind of like ‘the guide’…because it better describes his guiding impact upon so many.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Since you refuse to answer my question about what you’ve read of Park or Hutchinson, lets get back to the one thing you have read—"

Tom:

Sorry about that. No, I have not read Hutchinson's or Willie Park's books. Do they say something interesting or relevent about the influence of the "arts and crafts" movement on golf course architecture in the "Golden Age" of golf course architecture? Does it sound to you like either one of them is suggesting or might've ever suggested that the Golden Age of golf architecture should've been relabeled "arts and crafts" architecture or that Horace Hutchinson should be referred to some day as the "Father" of golf course architecture?

If there's an iota of something like that in either of those books I'd be more than happy to get both books immediately and read them as soon as possible.

How about the books of MacKenzie, Hunter, Thomas, Macdonald, Ross, the articles of Tillinghast, Travis, Behr, Flynn et al etc, etc, etc? Why don't they suffice in your opinion?  

What you are, Tom, is about the biggest and most obvious intellectual snob on this entire subject of golf course architecture I believe I've ever seen. Your modus and most all your responses are to tell anyone who questions you that if they haven't read everything you have there's no way at all they can know anything. It's so obvious in the things you say on here, particularly lately, it's laughable.

Obviously you don't like to be questioned on the things you suggest and conclude but you can't really defend them either because they aren't very defensible and you probably know that.

There've been some really good golf and golf architectural historians in the literature of golf and architecture (C&W is just a single one in the many I have read and so I wish you'd stop saying that's the only thing I ever refer to because it just ain't so, although it probably sounds good to you! )---you probably want to be one of them someday and so you try to come up with this stuff which seemingly tries to refute or redefine that which already has been accurately defined.

Maybe you will be a notable golf architecture historian someday but, in my opinion, to do that you've got a ton of work to do on the way you draw assumptions and make conclusions as well as some of the things you suggest.

Don't take it so personally---anyone who tries to redefine the history of golf course architecture the way you seem to try to do sometimes will always have to answer questions like these on here on those conclusions and suggetions and it's no different with you. Get used to it---but much more importantly try to get better at it. And, an excellent place to start would be if you'd learn to give answers to questions people put to you instead of always responding with a question.

[T_MacWood]

"It is an intriguing speculation, but one for which no case has really been made."

Rich
You acknowledge the influnce of the A&C movement on society during that period.

You now acknowledge the existance of the golden age of golf architecture and that it began during this same period.

But you feel golf architecture was immune from this societal influence. Why didn't the A&C movement influence golf architecture as it influenced other design fields?

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

It is probably more a question of degrees.  Some think the degree significant, others think the degree is far less.  It is obvious from these posts who is in which camp.  None-the-less, the discussion has been interesting.

[Paul_Turner]

For the sake of clarity - could each of the sides just give a quick, one or two sentence summary of their positions?

Tom Macwood,  DMoriarty and friends______________________

TEPaul, Rich and friends__________________________________

It's easy to get a bit lost here, and before I wade back into the fray, I'd like to be clear on where everyone stands.

Adam

You have it right.  There's a lot of personal stuff here.

[T_MacWood]

"Sorry about that. No, I have not read Hutchinson's or Willie Park's books. Do they say something interesting or relevent about the influence of the "arts and crafts" movement on golf course architecture in the "Golden Age" of golf course architecture? Does it sound to you like either one of them is suggesting or might've ever suggested that the Golden Age of golf architecture should've been relabeled "arts and crafts" architecture or that Horace Hutchinson should be referred to some day as the "Father" of golf course architecture?"

Don't you think reading some of Hutchinson and Park would lend support to the conclusions you've drawn about them?

"How about the books of MacKenzie, Hunter, Thomas, Macdonald, Ross, the articles of Tillinghast, Travis, Behr, Flynn et al etc, etc, etc? Why don't they suffice in your opinion?"

Did any of these gentlemen discuss the influence of Sunningdale, Huntercome and Willie Park II?

[Adam_F_Collins]

I KNEW I was pushing it - asking for a "one or two sentence summary"...

 

[Eric Pevoto]

How does the increased use of machinery in course construction during the golden age jibe with A/C principles?  

Also, where would the "scientific architecture" that Flynn, Tillinghast spoke/wrote of fit into the mix?

[T_MacWood]

Paul
I agree. The personal stuff is worthless.

I'm deleting all my personal comments from this thread. And I hope we can get back to the subject...a good start would be TE's answer to my questions about those pre-Sunningdale courses and Park's Victorian work.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Yes - the personal stuff, while colourful really only serves to take up space and make it more difficult to follow the "threads of logic".

But I do think that this is an excellent subject to debate, as Tom MacWood's article has long been of some influence to the climate of this site and does challenge history to a certain extent.

Such challenges should not be taken lightly - and I do admit that I have taken it so in the past. When I read his article the first time, I was convinced and impressed - and took it as truth.

But the strong objections from TEPaul and others got me back to thinking - and I think that's good - and something which too many of us don't do enough of.

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.

So discussions like this are very important - particularly in this specific case, because golf course architecture is such a very small area of interest, and the group on this site represents one of the most active on-going discussions of the subject, among many of its most influential players.

So please, gentlemen - please restate your positions in a very short paragraph.

Please - so that we might continue to engage in meaningful debate.

[TEPaul]

Paul Turner said;

"Adam
You have it right.  There's a lot of personal stuff here."

Paul:

You're right but thankfully there's a lot less than there used to be on other threads in the past--particularly between Tom MacWood and me.

I'm trying not to be personal here, but he takes most anything I say on here that's not in agreement with him personally somehow. He wrote that "arts and crafts" five part essay, I'm just trying to respond to it, and the fact that I'm not in total agreement seems to really upset him where he thinks this must be personal.  It isn't.

I told him I think the parts about the history of the A/C movement are really good but his conclusions and suggestions in the last part about the influence the A/C movement had on the era of Golden Age architecture---so much influence that the entire era should be called "arts and crafts" architecture (and Hutchinson should be called the "Father" of golf course architecture) is just not remotely historically accurate or historically supportable, in my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of others. Wouldn't you think that then could somehow lead to an intelligent discussion on the subject?

His response to that, as you can see, is to tell me he's getting tired of my back-handed compliments and that he thinks I have no position to even ask these questions of him or offer my opinion on this issue because I haven't read all the books and magazines and newspaper articles he has.

How does one have an intelligent discussion with a guy like that if one doesn't agree with him then?

Tom MacWood;

How about you just give up this constant response in the form of questions of yours asking us why we think the A/C movement had NO effect on society or golf architecture? No one on this thread ever said anything like that anyway, so why to you keep saying that?

The golden Age should be renamed "arts and crafts" architecture----Hutchinson should be labeled the "Father" of golf course architecture?! Those are the issues I have with you on this thread because those are your unique suggestions---I certainly don't think anyone else in golf's architectural history has even remotely suggested such a thing. That's historically unsupportable, in my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of a number of others.

Great linksland architecture that primarily influenced heathland architecture that primarily influenced early American architecture plus a number of other more specific architectural influences such as MacKenzie's unique applications are the things that primarily influenced the era of the so-called "Golden Age", not a couple of guys like Rushkin, Pugin or Morris (who probably never even played golf much less thought about golf architecture) due to some tenuous influence they may've had on Country Life magazine, Hutchinson through Park Jr and others like Colt and the Heathland crowd.

Frankly, if you want to identify and write about an architectural influence that probably really was as primarily important as linksland architecture you should consider writing about the real influence of heathland architecture. That may've had a far greater influence on inland and man-made golf architecture that followed it into the Golden Age than any of us have ever really known or appreciated.

The A/C movement's influence as the primary one on golf architecture of that era just ain't cutting it historically or other-wise. You and Moriarty seem to be parrying now by  basically saying that it was so broadly prevalent in so many things it had to be the primary influence on golf architecture too.

That is a really poor deduction or reason to make one in my opinion.

No one has said A/C had no influence at all--only that it had nothing like the influence you're assigning to it.

[T_MacWood]

TE
We agree, the great linksland architecture was the primary influence and model for the heathland architects. But the question remains what sparked the return to the naturalistic model and the rejection of the geometric formulaic Victorian model...what happened in the late 1890's?

[TEPaul]

Can we just dump these retorts about "personal stuff"? It seems like that always becomes the last defense of those who really don't want to answer some non-personal questions. This is a really good subject---it's important--let's get back to it, and stop talking about "personal stuff".

If I tell Tom MacWood I wish he'd think a bit more about a few of the conclusions and suggestions he made in that five part essay, that's not personal stuff at all----that's only asking him to try to deal more intelligently with the subject and our questions about it and his conclusions and suggestion.

After-all, it was Tom MacWood who wrote the article and he should be the best person to answer anyone's questions about it and the subject, suggestions and conclusions in it.

[T_MacWood]

Adam
Instead of a paragraph, I’ll condense my fairly long essay into an outline.

I. Dark Ages: Early golf development in the UK and the sad state of golf course design

II. Victorian aesthetics: Exploring this period’s aesthetic taste and tying those tastes to the Dark Ages of golf design. A look at Victorian society since GA did not develop in a vacuum.

III. Reformers: The history of the men who started the A&C Movement, their aesthetic ideas and philosphies, including the rejection of Victorian tastes, industrialism, etc.

IV. Arts and Crafts Movement: A brief history of movement and how it impacted all aspects of design

V. Country Life: A brief look at British social trends. The migration to the countryside. The embracing of the A&C aesthetic and life style within the growing upper middle class. And lastly the significant role Country Life magazine had in spreading this ideal (including its impact on GA).

VI. The Guide: A thorough look at H. Hutchinson as a key figure in the development of golf and golf architecture. His A&C ties, his impact upon GA as the most important golf writer of that time (in Country Life and the first book on golf architecture). His connection to the heathland architects, Macdonald, Ross, etc.

VII. The Lamplighters: The heathland architects (Park, Colt and Fowler) revolutionizing the state of the GA…including some of their written thoughts on GA, which are consistent with A&C philosophy

VIII. Converging Arts in America: A brief look at the American A&C movement, how it flourished in pockets and its regional aesthetic aspect. Showing similarities with the development of GA in America.

IX. Arts and Crafts Golf: The words and thoughts of many of the most prominent figures in GA, and the similarity of those thoughts with the philosophies of the A&C movement.

[TEPaul]

“TE
We agree, the great linksland architecture was the primary influence and model for the heathland architects. But the question remains what sparked the return to the naturalistic model and the rejection of the geometric formulaic Victorian model...what happened in 1899?

Tom:

I already answered that question in post #69 but it didn’t take you long to respond that I had no real right to ask these kinds of things in your opinion because you think all I’ve ever read or refer to is C&W. That’s not true although I do believe, as you seem to as well that they did give a more than decent chronicle of the entire evolution of golf architecture including this era. That quote of mine in post #69 was from Part One of C&W so maybe you should be asking that question of yours above of both Geoffrey Cornish and Ron Whitten! Your response to Post #69 was (which I may have missed yesterday);

“TE
Is that right? It sounds like it wasn't so much an architectural attitude change in your view, but a change of site (heathland) that inspired the revolution. Interesting, how come heather courses like Meyrick Park, Woking and Broadstone, that predate Sunningdale and Huntercombe, didn't turn out so hot? And how come Willie Park-Jr design at Richmond is in the Victorian style...did he have a mental block with parkland sites?”

Tom:

Yes, that’s what it sounds like, doesn’t it? But these are some good questions of yours. These are the type of specific questions we should stick to now on this thread if we really want to investigate the questions about the influence of the A/C movement on golf architecture of this era instead of lapsing into posts about “personal stuff”.  So let’s look at those courses you mentioned above and try to see what may’ve been different about them compared to the significance of Park’s two courses Sunningdale and Huntercombe.

First of all I’ve never seen any of those courses you mentioned, not even Woking but there are probably some on here who have been to them and perhaps can speak intelligently and with some knowledge of their histories. Have you been to all those courses you mentioned above? And if you haven’t what makes you think you can speak about them with any intelligence or authority?

It looks like Tom Dunn was the original architect on those first three courses. Has anyone on here, or anyone anywhere really, including Part One of C&W ever said that Tom Dunn was a break-through architect who created something of first significance in England as Park Jr did at Sunningdale and Huntercombe? I don’t think so! Has anyone ever said Tom Dunn’s work was of the significant influence on future golf architecture that Park’s Sunningdale and Huntercombe were? I don’t think so.

But why would that be? They were both linksmen. Was Dunn less talented than Park? Perhaps? Or could it have been that Dunn simply didn’t spend anywhere near the time and effort on those three courses you mentioned that Park did on Sunningdale and Huntercombe? Did Park Jr spend the time and effort on Richmond he spent on Sunningdale? Did any of the architects who did work in England previous to Park’s Sunningdale or Huntercombe spend the kind of time and effort on their courses Park did at Sunningdale and Huntercombe?

These are all relevant questions. These are the questions that we should be asking and answering as we look at your conclusions and suggestions about the importance you assign to the A/C movement’s influence on this era.

But Dunn and Park were linksland men, grounded in linksland architecture, not some arts and crafts movement. So why do you mention those courses and Dunn and Park? Presumably to see if C&W were right about the heathlands, and soil conditions in the heathlands that were the first found similar to the linksland but outside the linksland. Following the quote I made in post #69 from C&W they talk about the amount of time Park Jr spent on Sunningdale and Huntercombe and the importance of that too in the significance of those two courses and their important influence on inland and man-made architecture to come.

But this doesn’t have much to do with the A/C movement or its influence on this era, Tom----and that’s one of my points. It does have a lot to do with the linksland influence and the heathlands themselves as well as particular architects and how and how much time they took in those heathlands----and that is also my point.

[T_MacWood]

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.

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

[ForkaB]

"It is an intriguing speculation, but one for which no case has really been made."

Rich
You acknowledge the influnce of the A&C movement on society during that period.

You now acknowledge the existance of the golden age of golf architecture and that it began during this same period.

But you feel golf architecture was immune from this societal influence. Why didn't the A&C movement influence golf architecture as it influenced other design fields?

Tom

If I ever said of implied that A&C was more than a fringe movement vis a vis society, I mispoke or have been misunderstood.  It existed but was marginal in terms of societal influence, IMO.

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.

Happy to clear things up for you!

And Adam C.

I stuck to 2 sentences in my reply.  Please e-mail me my gold star.