The subject of the A/C Movement and what its real influence was on the Golden Age or perhaps all golf architecture or even all art forms and aesthetics, for that matter, seems to have suddenly come upon us like a swarm of locust. I'm afraid I'm partially or maybe even wholly responsible or to blame for that.
However, I think the entire subject, and certainly that time, is one of the most fascinating ones we could ever discuss and understand well on this website. The reason being this was the age when golf and golf architecture really was coming to life and coming of age for the first time all over the world as it finally migrated out of its centuries old home in Scotland! How could that not be perhaps one of the most fascinating subjects of all.
In a little while I think I'll write a thread that will be called "Does Tom MacWood have some agenda, and what is it?"
I've been watching the things Tom MacWood has been saying on this website on a whole host of diverse subjects to do with golf course architecture for years now----from this crucial sea-change time in the heathlands to the Golden Age, through the depression and into the era of the Modern Age, as it simultaneously redesigned much of what came before it, and into our relatively recent restoration era and apparently into the "Golden Age" inspired renaissance new construction era of the likes of Hanse, De Vries, Doak and Coore & Crenshaw and some others today.
Does Tom MacWood have some overall agenda, and what would it be?
I think he does and I think I know exactly what that agenda is. The key to understanding Tom MacWood's apparent agenda is to not just understand Horace Hutchinson but to really understand William Morris who probably never had a thing to do with either golf or golf architecture!! (although I'm sure Tom MacWood will inform us of that.
). The ironic thing is if it's what I think it may be it truly is an interesting agenda, and perhaps even one of excellent purpose that is admirable in basic goal--at least to many of us on this website. It's probably one many on this website would agree with provided that agenda was imbued with some good old-fashioned reality in this day and age---which frankly Tom MacWoods’s modus in many ways is not!
But in his purpose of furthering his over-all agenda Tom MacWood, in my opinion, and apparently in the opinions of others, gets into either glorifying or even revising and distorting the realities of historical events far too often and far too much, but probably simply to further his agenda. I can't really say I blame him if he really is interesting in furthering his over-all agenda but ultimately it's not right, its not honest and it's not historically accurate in the evolution of golf architecture---certainly not to anything near the extents he claims on too many points and things. There more interesting question is whether or not he’s aware of this?
I don't think that's necessary for him to do---matter of fact I think it will ultimately be a disservice to something like the philosophy of the A/C Movement, at least in the way I've come to understand it, which is the way Tom MacWood outlined and explained it before he attempted to make its strong connection to golf course architecture.
The reason I say this, is who can deny that the things we're seeing today, particularly in this "renaissance" in architecture of the likes of Hanse, De Vries, Doak and C&C and perhaps others to shortly follow is one of the most complete reversions back to naturalism in architecture, to the two forms of minimalism in architecture (more on that later) and most interesting to the return of true "hand-crafting" and individualism in many of the details of golf architecture.
One only needs to follow around with the likes of Hanse, Doak or Bill Coore or any of their associates on a site from beginning to end of project to see this is the truth. If one just watches the likes of a Bill Kittleman or a Jeff Bradley for half an hour one can see this is true in spades.
As for restoration architecture that too will probably continue to be more sophisticated in a pure sense as its cycle continues---a cycle that's happened for the first time in golf architecture's history in my opinion--eg that being comprehensive restoration of old architecture.
Tom MacWood didn't need to glorify some time or era, and he certainly doesn't need to revise or deny the real facts of any time or era. Golf and golf architecture has been out of its infancy where it was in places other than the linksland around 1900 for over 100 years now. It's gone through all kinds of crazy cycles and iterations and for the first time it seems to be turning back honestly and truthfully to some of the things from which it came in the first place---the truly natural linksland model through the first man-made natural-appearing model of the heathlands and the Golden age. It's been through all kinds of aimless iterations of heavy machinery and even computer-generated creation and at least a significant slice of it is now back to some of the things it had before any of that.
Horace Hutchinson, if he could come back today, probably would see little difference between Hidden Creek and Park's Sunningdale, or Doak's Pacific Dunes and some ancient linksland course, other than obviously the greater perfection of the grass and playing conditions.
What happened in the heathlands 105 years ago was bound to happen somewhere, someday in any case, after golf and architecture went through its baby steps in foreign lands that never knew it before. Park Jr delivered that “sea-change” in the Heathlands and we don't need some undercurrent global artistic aesthetic movement to explain it. And it's happening today as these few guys look back at and through heathland architecture to the linksland model of naturalism and the look of it in the art. Did Doak or Hanse or Coore or Crenshaw understand or become totally influenced by the “arts and crafts" movement before Tom MacWood tried to make everyone aware of the fact it was of such massive influence on the Golden Age that that time should be relabeled “Arts and Crafts” golf architecture? I seriously doubt that. I think they just began to look 75 years back to the Golden Age, and to the heathlands beyond it and the linkslands beyond that.
The one who probably needs to be studied more is Park Jr, and the place that needs to be given more credit in this evolution is the heathlands---the intial place in this world of great man-made architecture.
Park needs to be looked at more carefully both in those years leading up to Sunningdale and Huntercombe as well as at that specific time he did those courses. But if anyone wants to see where Tom MacWood’s real interest and probably his entire agenda emanates from, I believe one should probably look very carefully at particularly William Morris, again, a man who likely never had a thing to do with golf or golf architecture and perhaps wasn’t even much aware of its existence.
No one needs to glorify or revise the facts that led to healthland architecture or Golden Age architecture, or, for that matter, the reasons for what’s happening today. It was bound to happen with or without the likes of people like Tom MacWood, but the really interesting thing is a good deal of his over-all agenda may finally be coming true. Or, I certainly hope it is!