Odious Comparisons

[Tim Liddy]

"Everyone engaged in creative work is subject to persecution by the odious comparison.  Odious comparisons dog the footsteps of all creation wherever the potetic principle is involved because the inferior mind learns only by comparisons; comparisons, usually equivocl, made by selfish interest each for the other.  But the superior mind learns by analyses: the study of Nature."

Frank Lloyd Wright

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

Sounds right as rain to me.

Tim,

Any relation to Gordon?

[RJ_Daley]

Tim, I'll agree with most of that.  Equivocal data used to make comparisons sounds sort of like political spinning, and learning by strictly comparison methods of equivocal data sort of falls in line with state propoganda.  But, lets not forget that there are many who believe that if you looked up the word odious in the dictionary, you'd find FLWs portrait there to illustrate the concept.  Don't get me wrong, I am not that extreme in my views, but I don't put old Franky on too lofty of a pedestal either... I give him due credit for the above generally well stated lament of a creative person who was quite a bit in the middle of all things controversial in his profession and the society of his times.  

I was just thinking of these things on my walk today.  Listening to the news of possible cloning of a human being as announced by the "Orelians" [sp?] :-/  Ironically, I think it was Bertrand Russell, whom I get the impression might have been a bit of a soul mate with FLW and a bit odious himself who said something to the effect that 'change in the human condition is merely the result of technological advances, but inorder to have progress, we must also have the application of ethics'.  As I understand it, FLW wasn't one to adhere to a high standard of ethics in his business practices. But, I could be very wrong...  Odious comparisons by a professional of another through means of equivical data is unethical, I think.

I assume, perhaps wrongly, you are feeling slighted or vulnerable to equivocal comparisons of your work to others work to have posted these thoughts.  Would you like to be specific as to what has bothered you in this regard?  Perhaps some sympathetic understanding by what I think are GCA supporters that have found much to like in your work will cheer you up.  Or do you just want us to analyse more objectively through observation rather than trite comparison as a rule of thumb around the old discussion group?

[Tim Liddy]

Please relax.  I think it is a great quote and just wanted to share it to stimulate discussion, especially about the endless comparisons on this great site.  As far as my treatment on this web site-it is better than I deserve and always very fair.

Back to Frank-I think you are tying to change the debate into ethics and frank's personality, when it is trying to be about comparing different golf features and venues. I think, many times these comparisions denude the unique artistic qualities of so many great golf courses.

[RJ_Daley]

Tim, it is a great quote to start a discussion.  There are endless discussions on this site that involve comparisons.  But, are they equivical comparisons (meaning deliberatley ambiguous and misleading) by those with selfish interests?  Like many hard working architect/designers you aren't discussed enough on this site.  I don't know if the treatment you get here is better than you deserve.  I wish I had experienced your work up to now.  I only can go by pictures so far.  (But they look good )

As far as FLW goes, whose quote you used to stimulate some discussion, I may have stretched it to introduce ideas of ethics and personality.  But, there hasn't been a debate, yet.  At least it escapes me so far if we are supposed to be debating anything, herein.  Unless you are referring to other threads that tend to start out with some interesting observations for a few pages and then descend into the theater of the absurd, or the moot court.  

To look at the potential debate of what you have posted, I'll take the other side, and say it is fair to draw comparisons, as long as they are not equivical and selfishly motivated, in order to learn more about GCA and various creative people's approach to expressing their ideas.  If we don't draw comparisons, how can we possibly learn or discuss.  If a superior mind learns through analysis, without comparison to others work in the manufactured and natural world as a foundation of that learning process, how do we know what context to interpret nature, or what is natural?  Maybe even being a little mean spirited in drawing comparisons is acceptable if it is critical without being equivical and born of selfish interest, rather than the interest of advancing the discussion.  I think a superior mind knows that the study of nature only goes so far and that sometimes it isn't desirable to just have water run down hill.  

[TEPaul]

Tim:

When Frank Lloyd Wright spoke about those who odiously compare he must have been thinking about Patrick Mucci!

[A_Clay_Man]

Funny how we different humans interpret the same thing differently. I focused in on one of the last words spoken, Nature. Knowing of his "organic design" bias I infered that "the superior man" was him and anyone who tried to criticize his work would fail if they, or anyone listening to said critic, understood nature.

And i think that this may be a cornerstone in the bias I percieve this site advocates, "natural settings".

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You're confused, he said odious, not melodious    

Were FLW's designs in harmony with nature ?

Have Coore & Crenshaw taken up interior design ?

What does, "in like Flynn" really mean ?

[guest]

Can someone do something about this smart ass mucci?  
He is constantly spewing forth garbage.....a shame....for as far as I can tell this site is about quality. Just reading the course profiles sets the bar quite high....thoughtful analysis....an appreciation for past and present.....well roundedness....high intellect. Well done.

 From this topic, the ornamental bunker topic and just about every thread I've read.....that rhymes .... it is obvious he cares naught for golf architecture. He seems to believe he has some superior knowledge and understanding, but it is clear he knows less than nothing about the finer points of golf architecture....or just about any other subject sorry to say. The result is the subject matter is dragged down to the least common denominator....mr. mucci. Pity.

 Is he just trying to be funny ?....difficult ?...or does he have some kind of superiority complex ? It makes it difficult for me....and perhaps others....to learn from those who have a deep understanding and appreciation when he is constantly vomiting over the bandwidth.  :-/

 If he is just a funny guy......ignore my rant. Perhaps I don't get his humour.    A wonderful site!!!!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Guest,

If you will review this thread, you will note that I stayed out of it until some deranged person mentioned my name and dragged me into it.  I simply chose to defend myself in kind.
Since you're obviously not that bright, read.... humor.

But, at least the person who mentioned my name, who dragged me into this, had the balls and integrity to post under his own name.

Since you have chosen to make a personal attack, hidden behind anonymity, one can only surmise that you're a coward, lacking both balls and integrity, afraid to put your name behind your remarks.  How pathetic !  


P.S.  Look at the replies and views numbers

[guest]

mr.mucci
 I apologize if I offended you....I was out of line.  

 Let me give you some friendly advice.....please read through the course profiles....the author's thorough grasp of the finer points of GC architecture is quite impressive....something we all should aspire to. I tire of the verbal jousting....you have a knack of turning an interesting discusion into a stamina contest.  

 Can you...or anyone...recommend any books on the subject....I have read many of Darwin's as well as the World Atlas of Golf, The Architects of Golf and Golf's Magnificent Challenge.  

 I don't understand the significance of the replies and views numbers....is that how we measure a successful....thought provoking topic?    Have you known anyone to gawk at an automobile crash?

Yours sincerely,
Coward

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dear Coward,

Perhaps you should have singled out TEPaul who brought my name into this thread, against my will.

I'm aware of Tim Liddy's credentials.

Viewing an auto wreck is one thing, participating in it another.

There is a thread on books to read, either under libraries or a similar title.  Unfortunately, the search function doesn't work to well, so you're going to have to manually scan through the pages.  I'd start at # 30 and work toward # 1.  If it's not there, go back to # 50 to # 31 and so on.  There are an abundance of wonderful books that can be very helpful in the ongoing learning process.

I can't speak for others, but I've learned far more from different or dissenting opinions, then I have from supporting opinions.

I may take a position as a devil's advocate to encourage discussion, which is what the replies # is all about.
You will notice that some threads have 0 replies, informing you that viewers didn't find the thread worthy of discussion.

TEPaul and I are paid to "beat the bushes" in an attempt to promote discussion.  Unfortunately, I'm only paid by the response, he got involved with GCA much earlier, and got a sweeter deal, one that pays him by the word.

Welcome to the site, and good luck.

P.S.  You'll find that your credibility is enhanced and that you put yourself on an equal footing with other recognized posters when you post under your real name.  There is nothing to be so ashamed about that you don't identify yourself, despite what Chipoat says.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

The answers to your off the wall questions.

1. Yes
2. No (with the exception of very gnarly grass on the INTERIOR of some blind bunkering).
3. A golf architect (with a first name of William) who has extremely rich clients.

[Tim Liddy]

This thread has become very odious. Lets start another topic.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Liddy,

Let's try to resurrect it.

Comparisons create relativity.
They can assist in establishing a standard.

The critical issue is, when does the comparison become odious ?  And, for what reason ?

Can an intelligent, passionate debate on the relative merits of Shinnecock versus NGLA become odious ?
Can an intelligent, passionate debate on the relative merits of mounding and their usage on one or several golf courses become odious ?

Do extreme comparisons serve an illustrative purpose ?

Does everyone possess the unique mind of the creator, necessitating, lowest common denominator comparisons ?

Not an easy topic.

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci said:

"Comparisons create relativity.
They can assist in establishing a standard."

Pat:

I'm not certain what kind of discussion on architecture Tim Lddy is looking to have here but possibly he means a discussion of architecture without always comparing that architecture to something else. Perhaps he's looking to have a discussion of architecture only on its own merits--sans comparison!

It also looks like Frank Lloyd Wright may have been saying somewhat the same thing--sort of that constant comparision is the technique of little minds (maybe odious little minds). Look at Frank Lloyd Wright's last sentence--"But the superior mind learns by analyses. The study of nature."

It looks like Frank Lloyd Wright is advocacting analyzing nature! Nature surely is different, unique, nothing particular "standard" or requiring "standardization" by some relative measure (comparision).

It's no secret that you seem interested in "standards" and apparently in golf architecture. Sometimes you even mention to people that they should not create "double standards" in analyzing architecture. Doesn't that imply that you're looking for a single standard, and perhaps in architectural analysis (please forget for the time being references to Rees, Fazio, C&C etc that you consider double standards towards some of them)?

Tim Liddy:

I'm assuming that you mean it might be useful to discuss or analyze architecture on its own merits devoid of any attempt to compare it to other architecture. Is that what you're looking to do with this thread? Pat's talking about "relativity" which seem to indicate some type of comparison, perhaps even to create some "standard" as he said in his last post.

I'm serious this time Pat. Try not to joke around on your response. Tim wants to have a serious discussion here. If need be I'll delete my first post about FLW thinking about you. Be serious now!

[ward peyronnin]

Perhaps FLW odious compaRISONS  are those made without being prefaced by analysis. Comparisons are similar to reviewing the results of empirical exercises such as scientific experiments to see if the theory is proven by the actual. Some succeed and others are disasters but they provide information that must be factored into the overall analyses.

Unfortunately FLW tho widely admired did not possess a necessarily admirable ego and  perhaps this sentiment , while certainly justifiable, is an expression of that as much as an absolute principle.

By the way Tim I am enjoying your Cambridge Course only wish they could get the turf equation right. I think Tony will be  able to tho.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

That's why I stated that many may not possess the unique, creative mind and abilities of the architect.

That the talent of the creative mind may be on a plane beyond comprehension by most who view the work.

Do others have the ability to perform the analysis, or is that process reserved for only those unique few who possess similar minds and talents ?

Is that serious enough ?  

[TEPaul]

Pat;

You asked;

"Do others have the ability to perform the analysis, or is that process reserved for only those unique few who possess similar minds and talents?"

Yes, that's serious enough.

If the answer is that process is reserved for only those unique few then maybe FLW thought comparisons were odious because those doing the comparing didn't have much understanding of the product they were looking at or even what they were comparing it to.

It looks more to me though, that he may have been saying look to nature for analysis, and forego the comparisions to other architecture.

I'm interested also in your remark;

"Comparisons create relativity.
They can assist in establishing a standard."

Do you think a 'standard' is necessary in golf architecture, or even useful?

[Polyester Salesman]

What Frank meant by that is he wanted his work compared to nature not to other architecture. TEPaul, you are WRIGHT on the money. It is not the concept of comparison that is bad, it is the odious comparison that is bad. (Frank may have been the pot calling the kettle odious by the way every now and then as RJ points out.)

Adam hit upon a good point too regarding the bias of this site.

My thought, Architecture, both golf and building, is about more than just nature. If it weren't, we would play golf while walking through an untouched meadow and we would live like cavepeople. It is good to tap into the natural setting for both architectures at times, and it is good to study how humans tie these architectures back to nature, but it is not the whole story. I have seen humans play superb golf and become the ball wearing the most unnatural plaid clothing. Most unnatural--but still effective at working a spere in an uneven universe.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm sooo glad Tepaul picked up on Pat's standard line. It rang like heresy to me. Hell, even in mini golf you don't want every hole to have a windmill, do you?

The only standard Nature taught FLW was that there was no standard, except for randomness. Just MO

[Polyester Salesman]

I meant to write "working a SPHERE in an uneven universe", in case that wasn't clear, and in case anyone cared.

[ForkaB]

The only odious comparison I can think of is between FLW's ability to express himself architecturally and verbally.  We are all the better for the fact that he chose to build things rather than write about them.

I really don't see how one can do "analyses"--particularly of "Nature"--without "comparison," nor do I see any equivalence between comparison and "persecution," except in the mind of the paranoiac or egomaniac.

I think that Tom Paul asked a very good question:  "Do you think a 'standard' is necessary in golf architecture, or even useful?"  I would add "....or even possible?"  Last night I saw a bit of "Annie Hall" and Woody Allen, in trying to seduce Diane Keaton, says something to the effect of--"Why don't you try to be a professional photographer?  It's a new art form--only 80 years old or so--and nobody knows what the standards are.  You can just make them up as you go!"  I thought it was relevant to this discussion.......

[Steve Lang]

Rich

You question how one can do "analyses"--particularly of "Nature"--without "comparison,"  and noted Tom Paul's  question:  "Do you think a 'standard' is necessary in golf architecture, or even useful?"  and then offered to add "....or even possible?"  

There are certainly those who prefer to conduct quantitative analyses and create derivative judgements.  Like a 6800 yard course cannot be as difficult as 7300 yard course.  We should object to such as much as we should object to purely qualitative judgements such as trees have no place on a golf course.

In my environmental analytical work, there are a multitude of "standards" and they make the world go round by offering a point of reference for comparisons,.. then there are the purely scientific criteria upon which they're based.  By analogy, I find that on the GCA DG, sometimes the equivalent of criteria get mushed into defacto standards and the odious begins.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & A Clayman,

What is it, in the process of analysis, that transitions your mind from bad to good architecture or vice versus.

Do you not have an internal "standard" that determines which is which.  Or, is there no such thing as good or bad architecture, and benchmarks ?

Does "relativity" create "standards" ?

Polyman,

I don't know that my first thoughts upon seeing one of FLW's works was: "nature or anything natural"  His desire to have his work viewed in that context may or may not have been realistic.