[T_MacWood]

So as not to sidedtrack the other thread:

I'm also sure golf architects (and other artists) are products of their own environments. I'm pretty sure most all people are products of their own enviroments too, Tom. Is this something that is just occuring to you?

Paul Cowley's posts in the last page or so should be very instructive to you in this area and in this vein. After-all these areas are his profession and for quite a few years, and in my experience he's very good at them and very thoughtful about how they interact....Judging from some of your essays such as the primary influence you at first assigned of the A/C Movement on GCA, that seems to be your tendency.

Some of us have merely been trying to point that out to you. It's not that we don't care about these subjects or that we aren't interested in them.  

TE
You and Paul are entitled to your opinion, there are a number of others--Ran, Geoff Shackelford, Rand Jerris, David Moriarty, and myself to name a few--who do not share your opinion. To each his own. I would disagree with David that yours is the GCA party line, I suspect the majority on GCA are neutral or don't really care one way or the other. And afterall Ran Morrissett does not agree with your partyline.

I'm still try to figure out what exactly can be gleaned from Paul's unsupported and vague opinion.

It is one thing to say it is a given that everyone is a product of their enviroment....it is another thing to actually uncover what those influences were.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I'll leave you with some of your own thoughts on the subject during the period between my essay being posted and about the time it was learned I was going to write an essay on Crump.

"Tom MacW:
I very much agree with your idea expressed in your excellent “Arts and Crafts Movement” series of including the less “idealized” aspects of Nature into golf architecture is certainly a step in the right direction in the future. And, personally, at least, I’d prefer to see some architects get completely away from the concept and principle of “framing” in golf architecture. I think that’s an aspect of “art principles” and some landscape architecture practitioners that taken the art of golf architecture too far down a single concept road---eg to show or lead the golfer down a somewhat obvious road with well known keys and little trip or journey signs.

Tom MacW:
I read it [Architectural Side of Golf] cover to cover but that was a couple of years ago. I don't have the book but Gil Hanse has an unusually beautiful copy and he lives within a couple of miles of me so I borrowed his. Where can I get a copy now for my own?

"They definitely looked at golf architecture from an artstic perspective. Wethered was literary and art scholar. Simpson was artist and an art authority. Their opinion that the ideal (of any art form) must be imperfect was influenced by Ruskin, and relating it to golf design, by their experience on the ancient links (St. Andrews in particular)."

I think the fact that art and art in golf design should in some ways be imperfect or have imperfections is a wonderful thought---and one I also always associate with your articles on the Arts and Crafts Movement on this website.

Tom MacW:
I hope you notice the parallels in this question between the basic subject of your interesting series of articles on the dynamics of the perfections of "classic" architecture (building architecture) and the desires and implications of the "Arts and Crafts" Movement!

For anyone who hasn't seen them it's well worth reading Tom MacWood's five part essay on the "Arts and Crafts" Movement found within the "In My Opinion" section of this website.

Adam
Another and very interesting way to look at this question although perhaps not as specific is to read carefully some of the cross-overs between golf architecture and building architecture in Tom MacWood's really fine five part essay on that really interesting time of the "Arts and Crafts Movement" found in the "In My Opinion" section of GOLFCLUBATLAS.

Tom MacW:
I've always viewed you as an excellent researcher, in the sense that you seem capable of coming up with really valuable material. Sometimes the way you seem to analyze it though, really does make me scratch my head. You confuse me even further by writing articles like the five "Arts and Crafts" pieces which are definitely about the best in the history of this webasite but then the sort of lazy logic you've been using on this thread makes me wonder how you managed to put together those "Arts and Crafts" pieces as well as you did.

MikeS:
 As you know I think the American culture is prone to this type of thing in broad cycles. We sometimes go forward so fast there comes a time we stop for breath but when we get going again, often it's not forward that we look into new unexplored worlds but back to a time before the one we've come through.

What's happening now in golf architecture after the so-called Modern Age in architecture may not be much different in a cyclical sense from the reaction to the industrial revolution at the end of the 19th century with something that Tom MacWood depicted so well---the Arts and Crafts Movement. In a real way that was a cycling back to the feeling of an age of innocence and the feeling of reconstituted humanity!

GeorgeP & SPDB:
I love to see these references to other areas of architecture--even Howard Roark. Tom MacWood should certainly weigh in here on his thoughts as his five part essay on the "Arts and Crafts Movement" in the "In My Opinion" section of this website is unquestionably one of the most fascinating and valuable contributions ever made here.

Tom MacW;
You REmake a very good point there about the older meaning of the word "classic" in architecture--a point you properly made in your excellent "Arts and Crafts" pieces (which are in the "In My Opinion" section--and which everyone interested in this thread should read).

William Wang,
 "Hudson River Valley" school is a part of the entire work of what I referred to above as "American Sublime" 1820-1880. It too was certainly a reaction to the midstages of the effects of American "Manifest Destiny".

The entire evolution of landscaping in golf architecture is a very interesting one indeed, and Tom MacWood has some very good thoughts on that, touched on in his excellent five part article, the "Arts and Crafts Movement", on this website.

I'm fairly certain that Tom MacW feels that the art and philosophy of landscape architecture sometimes "sanitizes" Nature and sort of cleans up some of its rougher edges too much in the name of what that "art" thinks of as ideal forms.

Patrick
Before that happened the likes of particularly Alister MacKenzie, probably Thomas, Maxwell, Flynn, Tillinghast etc, but far more the futuristic thinkers like Hunter and most of all Max Behr, dreamed of the time in the future, despite the natural work they had done, when golf architecture (when the impliments and techniques would finally allow it) would go all the way into naturalism and almost entirely hide the hand of man altogether in architecture, which amazingly they believed might even include tees, fairways and greens, the necessary requirements of golf that are inherently not particularly natural, at least to some areas and sites!

These are the kinds of things that the likes of Geoff Shackelford understands so well, in my opinion--certainly along with people with the sense of this like TommyN.

And there is additional fascination in much of what has been uncovered by Tom MacWood in his articles on the "Arts and Crafts Movement" and its inspiration and effects on golf architecture! It's interesting because the "arts and crafts movement" was essentially a reaction to the building architecture of that time that departed from the look and feel of nature too!

[T_MacWood]

I couldn't get it all one post, continued:

Tommy
It may be a small point to some but certainly not to Geoff Shackelford and Hanse & Co. but just look at the wild natural vegetation that "transitions" #11 tee from the fairway body of the hole! It's just beautiful in it ruggedness and also (Tom MacWood) that's the kind of "site natural" rugged blending you might be thinking about with "art's and Crafts" etc.

Mark
But then when it came to explaining those accentuated points that needed to be created, his last two-line paragraph was right back to the subject of copying things in nature again. Except this time possibly the kind of things in nature that might look like the sum and substance of all that Tom MacWood has been talking about all this time! Things that some might not think are beautiful or proper because they might be sharp, irregular or random but what this architect says are still nature (which Tom MacW obviously agrees with) and which are many of the same things that were well explained as almost the theme of his "Arts and Crafts Movement" essays!

Patrick
And furthermore, recognizing that this is not a particularly simple subject or one that is easy to explain, it actually gets a bit more complex, although no less valid.

Tom MacWood, whose points on this subject may be slightly different, or maybe, let's say, quite a bit more expansive than the ones I've made, are no less valid and no less interesting to the subject of golf architecture and the subject of naturalness as a part of it.

His points, I believe, are that an architect should also pick out and use with his architecture those features that are natural and indigenous to any site that may not be what some consider to be the most attractive somehow.

The natural features he refers to that may be spread across any site, may appear broken, gnarly and irregular or random. They should be used, in his opinion, because they are, in fact, what nature gave the land, and the architect, and he should use them! That he should not try to wipe them away and create something that is just a manmade fantasy garden of perfect balance, perfectly flowing lines and such since this is just not the way nature really is. And since a golfer has always wanted to play golf in nature, or at least he thinks he does, that he should try and construct something that may be necessary and was not there, that looks something like nature!

Tom MacWood deals with all this at length and from a very well documented historical perspective, "The Arts and Crafts Movement" and how it effected many things, included both building and golf architecture, and other things!

His point is, I believe, that a golf course, or even a building or a town should not really appear to be completely man-made, that it should all meld with nature, at least in it's lines and use of what is natural.

In this way, the movement he refers to was a reaction not to something the "Arts and Crafts" practioners felt would be coming some day but to something they had been through. And that actually was "classic architecture" itself, that was an attempt at man-made perfection in many of its lines and elements of that art form and era!

The "Arts and Crafts Movement" was a reaction to the era of "Victorianism" that was a heightened time of man-made forms of perfect lines and perfect balance that combined with the onset of the Industrial Revolution and even evolved into an atmosphere that denigrated man himself in both the context of work and craft and certainly in the part, the necessary part, that nature played in his world and in his existence.

I suppose, and Tom MacWood will correct me if my suppostion is wrong, that much of this was a reaction by some to man's apparent evolving attitude that he had become dominant above all else, including nature! In this context, Rich Goodale's feelings may be different--no less valid, but certainly different! Rich Goodale may feel that man should dominate all else, including nature--that man is so perfect that he has transcended all else and has a perfect right to act like it!

Tom MacW:
I buy your thoughts about flaws and such (the scars, wrinkles whatever of land and architecture) and you explained it perfectly in the "Arts and Crafts Movement" essays!

But I was thinking if you're analogizing architecture to a beautiful women and one without flaws that would be boring, I don't know if I can accept that!

Del:
Right in the middle of your last paragraph you mention that there are strange looking shapes created by nature that don't appear to be natural at all--at least to you! From your description some of them actually might be some of the things I saw when last at Portrush.

Hmmm! That's very interesting! They are shapes created by nature but they don't appear natural to you? What am I missing here? Maybe you mean that you don't like them on a golf course for some reason!

I think we are sort of back to Tom MacWood's original point here and one that is beautifully incorporated through his wonderful five essays on the basic intent of the "Arts and Crafts" movement!

His point and most of some of ours too has been completely missed in this regard, it would seem. I know I'm too damn tired to go over it again and I would suspect that Tom MacW is too. It hardly seems to matter anymore. Today's world and its golf arcthitecture will just have to be what it will be, I guess!

Gib
I love the ethos of this culture and other cultures too. For art and the subject we talk about on here it doesn't get much more interesting to me than Tom MacWood's "Arts and Crafts Movement" essays. My interest some day is going to be to analyze the subliminal drive of "Manifest Destiny" and its effect on golf course architecture!

To All
So anyway, this might sound self-evident that there are a number of different interests on here but they all go into making this website very unique and potentially an enormously valuable resource, in my opinion. To me, if Golfclubatlas was nothing else, Tom MacWood's five part essay on the influence of the Arts and Crafts Movement on golf architecture would have been enough--and I can't imagine the research that must have gone into those essays."

[TEPaul]

Wow, look at that. Tom MacWood just presented about a two page laundry list of tributes to himself and his A/C Movement essay!!  

Tom, you really do just amaze me. Your quest to have your revisionist stretch of the influence you're trying to assign to the A/C Movement on golf course architecture I guess just has no bounds.

I think your article on the A/C Movement was wonderful---it was extremely comprehensive (perhaps too much so) and informative on the A/C Movement, its beginnings, its primary advocates and proponents and its extent in various art forms (lifestyle, decorative arts, interior and exterior design and building architecure, as Paul Cowley mentioned above) that lasted for quite a time.

I had nor have any problem at all with with your portrayal of the A/C movement itself. As some of my early posts mentioned I think it was excellent in how it described and explained the A/C Movement itself. But after considering where your assumptions and conclusions led as to how that movement influencing golf course architecture and particularly the extent of the influence you're trying to assign to it is just not historically accurate of supportable no matter how you choose to cut it or cast it or who you want to tell me supports those assumptions and conclusions of yours (which I certainly have my doubts about ).

I know Ran and GeoffShac and some of the others probably better than you do and I would most certainly disagree with you and discount the extent of support you're assigning to them for your conclusions regarding the degree of the A/C movement's influence on GCA (or the Golden Age) in that five part essay.

Anyone is entitled to their opinions of course---you are to yours and I am to mine and certainly Paul Cowley is to his who very likely has a background and understanding of all these art forms probably five times better than all of us combined who are not in the business. It's too bad you don't know him better. Getting to know him and his open-minded, sometimes freethinking outlook on this entire subject we deal with on here is perhaps the best thing that's happened to me on this site. Like GeoffShac I just think he's a talent in this field with a lot of truly fascinating clarity of thought and the ability to discriminate well in factual matters. And like a lot of the guys in the business in one capicity or another they often just shake their heads when they read some of this phlosophical and theoretical stuff some of us spout on here and argue over the miniscule details of historically and otherwise for pages and pages on end.

Paul Cowley said on that other thread today (to Moriarty);

"DM....I have spent 20 plus years designing structures large and small in the A and C, Mission and similar related design modes and since I have been PAID to do so, I have had to do alot of pre-requisite research and until I started to frequent this site, I don't recall any direct referenced connection between the AandC movement and GCA, especially on this side of the pond.....LArch is usually treated more as an addendum to the main thrust of the movement.
...do I have any support for this ?...my word I guess, in lieu of this thread stretching endlessy in some connectivity excercise of questionable value."

I think that remark and particularly the last line is about as succinct and accurate as anyone can get on this subject of landscape architecture and golf course architecture you seem to be fixating on now and perhaps getting ready to stretch the connectivity of to some point of questionable value, as he said. You should listen to him and consider better what he's saying. You really would learn something you might come to appreciate.

As for saying David Moriarty supports your opinions----my God man why would you claim the support of a guy like that? As far as I can see all he does on here is constantly argue with everyone as well as constantly make it obvious how insecure he really is. He now acts as if I don't even exist---he wouldn't think of answering a question of mine if I asked him one or acknowledging a thing I say which frankly I think is hilarious. He's like the pouty little kindergartener who says "It's my baseball and no one can play with me". The guy's a total waste of time on here, in my book. But he too sure is entitled to his own opinions no matter how ridiculous others may think they are.  

[T_MacWood]

But after considering where your assumptions and conclusions led as to how that movement influencing golf course architecture and particularly the extent of the influence you're trying to assign to it is just not historically accurate of supportable no matter how you choose to cut it or cast it or who you want to tell me supports those assumptions and conclusions of yours (which I certainly have my doubts about ).

I know Ran and GeoffShac and some of the others probably better than you do and I would most certainly disagree with you and discount the extent of support you're assigning to them for your conclusions regarding the degree of the A/C movement's influence on GCA (or the Golden Age) in that five part essay.

TE
'But after considering....' Whatever you say. I think your extensive words on the subject speak for themselves. For a couple of years there you were the head my A&C fan club.  

I have no idea who knows who better, and really don't care, but I do know what their thoughts are on the subject. They aren't as mentally paralyzed as you, consumed by the degree in which you believe the essay gives credit to the A&C movement. The point of the essay was to show that the A&C movement had impact upon turn of the century golf architecture. And IMO and the opinion of Ran, Geoff, Rand, David and others the essay succeeds.

Paul must have been well ahead of his time, or at least decade ahead of his time building A&C inspired homes. Good luck finding anything written on the topic of A&C architecture prior to the early- to mid-90's. I think he would be the first to admit golf architecture history is not really his strength, and based upon his characterization of the A&C movement affecting golf design as a 'connectivity excercise of questionable value' I have to conclude he really doesn't have a good understanding of the movement and its universal impact upon social and aesthetic thought in those days....despite the fact that he attempted to profit from it for '20 plus years'.

[Bob_Huntley]

With all this talk of the Arts and Crafts Movement, did Charles Rennie Mackintosh or Charles Voysey, even play the game, let alone have any input into it?

Bob

[TEPaul]

"TE
'But after considering....' Whatever you say. I think your extensive words on the subject speak for themselves. For a couple of years there you were the head my A&C fan club.  

Tom:

Me the head of your fan club for a couple of years?? Yikes, you must have had one helluva shitty fan club in that case.  

When you wrote that five part essay on the A&C Movement and then used the last Part to try to assign as much influence from the A&C Movement on Golf Architecture as you did, were you trying to promote discussion and contrasting opinions from others or was this just another attempt on your part to act as if you'd discovered some primary influence on golf course architecture that no one else in golf architecture's rich and voluminous literature had ever before noticed or had been aware of?

For me your essay prompted the willingness to look into your conclusion and contention for myself and a number of others on here did the same. One of them mentioned to me your essay was all fire and smoke and no substance but only when it came to your final conclusion----eg that Horace Hutchinson should be considered the "Father" of all golf architecture (you thankfully reduced that pedestal to "Guide" when I called you on it) and you concluded that "The Golden Age of Golf Architecture" should more accurately be labeled "Arts and Crafts Architecture". So I read your essay again a few more times and then looked through most all the literature on GCA of that time I'm aware of that refers to the influences on the architecture of the age.

I did enjoy your depiction of the history of the A&C Movement very much but I do not believe your conclusion of its influence on GCA comes remotely close to any kind of primary influence.

I based my belief on the fact that golf course architecture, particularly the "Golden Age" and those who were its primary practioners wrote extensively and comprehensively about what influenced them and in all that rich literature there was not a single mention of the A&C Movement or its influence on GCA.

Any deductive mind would logically ask why that was and it doesn't take a genius to conclude that it was never mentioned because it simply isn't true that it was a primary influence. I'm not saying and never have said it had zero influence on GCA or that the golf architectural practioners of the Golden Age era were not aware of it or had never even heard of it I'm only saying it was nowhere near the influence you're trying to assign to it.

You are most certainly entitled to hold any opinion you want to Tom, but aren't you even a little bit curious why I have the entire weight of the literature of the history and evolution of golf course architecture and the influences on it behind what I'm saying to you?

Sometimes you seem to resort to asking where I find the support for my position on this---where am I finding my position written, in other words? D. Moriarty is even better and more facile than you are in continously asking a question like this.

What an odd thing to ask. Sort of like asking someone to produce physical evidence that something that never existed did exist before going on to prove it never existed. What can I point to that proves that the A/C Movement was NOT a primary influence on GCA and the Golden Age when apparently none of those who knew that era best and wrote the most intelligently about it never thought it was in the first place? And obviously the reason they never thought it was a primary influence is simply because it wasn't.

Again, it's not necessarily that they'd never heard of it just that they never felt it was some primary influence, as you concluded. In the past you'e responded to that with the statement that the A&C Movement was so subliminally pervasive or some other crap that during the time of the Golden Age those that knew GCA best may not have even been aware of it or what really was primarily influencing them.

As I think any logical mind should be able to see by this point this line of reasoning on your part is just bound to go nowhere because it's all constructed on a totally false premise.

You even resorted to trying to suggest that in some way it was the A/C movement that actually promoted "naturalism" in the arts in the first place, and I hardly think anyone really needs to respond to that kind of implication or suggestion.

Bob Huntley:

Didn't you know that the Victorian "Cross Dressers" Movement led by the inimitable Oscar Wilde was a significant influence on the "Golden Age" of golf architecture? Yep, and OW referred to what that influence was constantly in his plays and poems although in a somewhat coded manner (a bit like the writing of Behr) for obvious reasons such as the fear of incurring the wrath of the Marquess of Queensberry.

Would you like to guess what the most notable examples of the "C/D" Movement's influence on the Golden Age of golf architecture was?

[Tony_Muldoon]

It is one thing to say it is a given that everyone is a product of their environment....it is another thing to actually uncover what those influences were.

Tom Mac I've watched all this debate with great interest but have not wanted to contribute until now - because I didn't want to get dragged into supporting one side or the other.  I now realise that's about as big a criticism as I can make of GCA.com.  There doesn't have to be sides and I'd like to make some suggestions of where I’d be interested in seeing the debate move onto.

You were very brave to admit that some of your original language and some claims may have been too strong in support of the original argument (is that a fair summation of your later thoughts?).  However I'm totally in agreement with your statement above and firmly believe that throughout history we have always been influenced by and a product of our times to a far greater extent than we can see at the time.  The early days of golf course Architecture and The Arts and Crafts Movement were largely contemporaneous. Surely what is being debated is this a coincidence?

I think it’s clear no one is going to find the kind of documented links that TE Paul keeps calling for (albeit in a humorous (sarcastic?) way), but there are other links that I’d like to see considered and would investigate if I could make the time.  Its approx 25 years since I read News From Nowhere but I’d like to know more about what the philosophers behind the A&C movement thought about leisure time and nature.  

I remember Morris arguing for more craft based and rewarding working practices, but I have no idea if he envisaged the leisure time to enjoy ourselves and how we should spend it? It would seem to me (false memory syndrome?) that he would  have encouraged people to spend more time in the outdoors in a ‘natural’ setting. I’m sure he never wrote that square greens were wrong and didn’t take an away from the machine led terrors of modern life; but what did he write about leisure time and nature?  Did he have views on the English landscape movement?

It has often been pointed out that it is ironic that Morris was a kind of Utopian Socialist who had most influence on the growing middle class, but this is the class that Country Life sold to.  Is this something you think is worth looking into?

[TEPaul]

Tony:

From me on the "Landscape architecture and golf" thread;

"Is it any wonder then why Tom MacWood, and perhaps even D Moriarty constantly seem to stretch these discussions endlessly in some connectivity exercise between various art forms? That’s precisely what William Morris and his A/C Movement wanted to do, dreamed of doing, attempted to do, in fact. As Tom MacWood himself said it was Morris’s goal to UNITE ALL THE ARTS. It is also, as Tom MacWood admits, a movement and a goal that failed---that petered out, in fact.

Should that goal be rejuvenated in some way today? To me that’s a far more interesting question to discuss than if in fact Larch or the A/C Movement was or wasn’t a primary influence on GCA. There seems little question that Larch, or even just “ART” principles have become fairly central to GCA in the modern age of GCA. Some, like apparently Bob Crosby and myself, think that may not be a particularly healthy thing for GCA and its future and I'm sure we'd both be more than happy to explain why we feel that way."

Tony, I would love to discuss the philosophy of Morris and the A/C Movement on many things in life, even in the future of golf course architecture. I would love to discuss LArch's place and its future in GCA. That's where I think the real interest in this kind of discussion lies or should lie.

Just because I don't believe that the A/C Movement was a primary influence on GCA does not mean I'm not interested in the A/C Movement and its philosophies and goals.

Matter of fact, I've told Tom MacWood before and I'll tell him again (he may've even quoted this from me above as evidence that I once supported him or something) that I really do believe that the main reason he (Tom MacWood) comes in on the side of naturalism in GCA, comes in on the side of regionalism and regional and local craftsmanship in GCA (such as Hatch for Ross in the Midwest and McGovern for Ross in the East), comes in on the side of purist preservation of some classic GCA is simply because these things are part of the philosophy of Morris and the A/C Movement, and he both admires and strongly believes in both of them.

I even feel very confident that one of the reasons Tom MacWood often tries to "stretch the connectivity between art forms sometimes to a point of almost questionable value" (as Paul Cowley said) is simply because Morris and the A/C Movement's goal apparently was to UNITE ALL ART FORMS and Tom MacWood has great admiration for many of the philosophies and goals of the A/C Movement in these ways.

I have no problem with that at all, matter of fact, I've even told Tom MacWood I admire HIM for that, even if, it may be something I do not wholly agree with for a number of reasons I'd love to discuss with him, or anyone else for that matter.

The irony here has always been that when I tell him this is the way I believe he feels he seems to constantly think I'm criticizing him for something. I'm doing nothing of the kind, or at least I certainly don't mean to be criticizing him.

These things really do interest or even fascinate me. While I may not agree with him that the A/C movement was a primary influence on the Golden Age of architecture this does not mean I'm not interested in the A/C Movement and its philosophies and goals. When I explained to him I virtually grew up in that world and those houses and some of their accourtrements he tried to make light of that as if I was trying to tell him I might know more about something than he does.

Nothing of the kind. I want to discuss these things but to do so on here none of us need to be in constant agreement all the time along the way.

Why did the A/C Movement and it's philosophies and goals peter out as even Tom MacWood admits it did? These are such interesting questions. Would some of it's philosophies and goals work in the future? We can't change the past but we can the future.

Max Behr, who I admire so much as well as his philosophy of the need for naturalism in GCA and his reasons why were such beautiful and hopeful thoughts for the future of GCA coming out of the 1920s and 1930s and on. What happened? Why weren't they picked up and embraced more than they were?

I feel very strongly I know why they weren't and I'd love to discuss that on here but it's so hard to do on here. I feel I know why he wasn't listened to more but that was years ago and we can't change that now but we can consider it again for our future because we can change that if we understand  better what happened and why back then. Trying to slap some kind of glossy veneer of revisionism on what really happened back then just doesn't work for me because it's not accurate or honest, or truthful.

The same with the likes of Repton or Morris or Rushkin or Olmsted, or Hutchinson, Darwin, Mackenzie, Behr and the rest of those ultra naturalist philosophers back then.

I'd like to discuss why GCA went down somewhat of a different road than they hoped and dreamed it would, and I feel I have some very good ideas as to why that was.

That's what I'd like to discuss on here, I really would. It's great to truly understand the past mostly because you can better understand some of the things that went wrong and the reasons why. Revisionism doesn't help that. Armed with the truth of what went on back then we can all discuss better our future, GCA's future, that we can do something about.

[T_MacWood]

Bob
That is good question. As you know Mackintosh was a Scot, but somehow I doubt he played the game.

I'm sure not about Voysey either. I do know one of his most famous designs--The Homestead--is adjacent to the links at Frinton.

Are you trying make the point that Voysey and Mackintosh were not golfers so they couldn't have possibly had an influence on golf architecture?

I don't believe either William Morris or John Ruskin were glassmakers, but their ideas about aesthetics and design had effect on glassmakers.

[TEPaul]

"I don't believe either William Morris or John Ruskin were glassmakers, but their ideas about aesthetics and design had effect on glassmakers."

Tom;

That's nice to know but maybe you'd like to tell us how much of an effect you think their ideas had on glassmakers etc, etc, etc. I think it's pretty clear by now that on this issue of the A/C movement and GCA we're talking about relevance and certainly the degree of relevence. Don't take it personally, it's just a legitimate question.  

[T_MacWood]

"TE
'But after considering....' Whatever you say. I think your extensive words on the subject speak for themselves. For a couple of years there you were the head my A&C fan club.  

Tom:

Me the head of your fan club for a couple of years?? Yikes, you must have had one helluva shitty fan club in that case.  

Re-read all those posts you made...you were doing damn fine job.

When you wrote that five part essay on the A&C Movement and then used the last Part to try to assign as much influence from the A&C Movement on Golf Architecture as you did, were you trying to promote discussion and contrasting opinions from others or was this just another attempt on your part to act as if you'd discovered some primary influence on golf course architecture that no one else in golf architecture's rich and voluminous literature had ever before noticed or had been aware of?

I've spent a great deal of time researching the history of golf architecture....in particular early British golf architecture. I've also spent a good amount of time studying art and architecture. In that way I have a somewhat unique perspective. Golf architecture has not been traditionally considered an art form, I do. And like other art forms it was effected by aesthetic thought at the time.

I also don't believe golf architecture historian have attempted to look at GCA in social context....which what I tried to do.  

My feeling was (and is) the Golden Age is not a very good descritpion of what was going on at the time. And golf architecture has had a kind of inferiority complex when it comes to relating itself or comparing itself to other artistic expressions. My thought was why not kill two birds with one stone. A&C Golf portraits a more naturalistic, eclectic image and also places golf design in its rightful place among other art forms. I'm not looking to rename golf architecture, its no big deal to me, but surely there must be a better name than Golden Age. And whatever you call it, you could still place it under the A&C umbrella...a la Craftsman, Mission, Prarie, etc.

For me your essay prompted the willingness to look into your conclusion and contention for myself and a number of others on here did the same. One of them mentioned to me your essay was all fire and smoke and no substance but only when it came to your final conclusion----eg that Horace Hutchinson should be considered the "Father" of all golf architecture (you thankfully reduced that pedestal to "Guide" when I called you on it) and you concluded that "The Golden Age of Golf Architecture" should more accurately be labeled "Arts and Crafts Architecture". So I read your essay again a few more times and then looked through most all the literature on GCA of that time I'm aware of that refers to the influences on the architecture of the age.

I welcomed the scrunity then, I welcome the scrutiny today. I just thought it was interesting you became dubious when you learned I was writing an essay on Crump. It appeared to me you were attempting to discredit me in fear of what I might write about Crump. I also think part of the problem is the information did not match your understanding of early golf architecture. For example there hasn't been much written about Horace Hutchison.

I did enjoy your depiction of the history of the A&C Movement very much but I do not believe your conclusion of its influence on GCA comes remotely close to any kind of primary influence.

Where did I write that the A&C movement was the primary influence?

I based my belief on the fact that golf course architecture, particularly the "Golden Age" and those who were its primary practioners wrote extensively and comprehensively about what influenced them and in all that rich literature there was not a single mention of the A&C Movement or its influence on GCA.

We have gone over this before. You won't find anything about the A&C movement in William Morris's obitiuary either or any of other practioners. Like many art movements it was identified and named long after it was over.

Any deductive mind would logically ask why that was and it doesn't take a genius to conclude that it was never mentioned because it simply isn't true that it was a primary influence. I'm not saying and never have said it had zero influence on GCA or that the golf architectural practioners of the Golden Age era were not aware of it or had never even heard of it I'm only saying it was nowhere near the influence you're trying to assign to it.

See my previous comment.

You are most certainly entitled to hold any opinion you want to Tom, but aren't you even a little bit curious why I have the entire weight of the literature of the history and evolution of golf course architecture and the influences on it behind what I'm saying to you?

Am I curious why you don't find the term A&C in golf literature? No.

Sometimes you seem to resort to asking where I find the support for my position on this---where am I finding my position written, in other words? D. Moriarty is even better and more facile than you are in continously asking a question like this.

What an odd thing to ask. Sort of like asking someone to produce physical evidence that something that never existed did exist before going on to prove it never existed. What can I point to that proves that the A/C Movement was NOT a primary influence on GCA and the Golden Age when apparently none of those who knew that era best and wrote the most intelligently about it never thought it was in the first place? And obviously the reason they never thought it was a primary influence is simply because it wasn't.

You lost me.

Again, it's not necessarily that they'd never heard of it just that they never felt it was some primary influence, as you concluded. In the past you'e responded to that with the statement that the A&C Movement was so subliminally pervasive or some other crap that during the time of the Golden Age those that knew GCA best may not have even been aware of it or what really was primarily influencing them.

I don't believe that is crap to say the ideas of Ruskin and Morris dominated artistic thought and aesthetics in that period. 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.'

As I think any logical mind should be able to see by this point this line of reasoning on your part is just bound to go nowhere because it's all constructed on a totally false premise.

I think you are beginning to repeat yourself.

You even resorted to trying to suggest that in some way it was the A/C movement that actually promoted "naturalism" in the arts in the first place, and I hardly think anyone really needs to respond to that kind of implication or suggestion.

The A&C movement did promote naturalism. The use of natural materials simply worked. The melding of architecure with the natural site. It promoted the naturally evolved styles, forms and methods of a given art form and region.

[T_MacWood]

Tony
I don't believe the A&C movement had a direct influence upon leisure activites per say. It did promote the idea of the countryside being ideal ...the English countryside (as opposed to the ugliness of the city). The quirkiness of old villages (Cotswold comes to mind) and old farmhouses, country gardens, the arts and crafts of simple people. I do think the A&C had a direct influence on the exodus from the city and the creation of the suburbs outlying countryside....and as a result an indirect influence upon the outdoor leisure activies that came from that exodus.

[T_MacWood]

"I don't believe either William Morris or John Ruskin were glassmakers, but their ideas about aesthetics and design had effect on glassmakers."

Tom;

That's nice to know but maybe you'd like to tell us how much of an effect you think their ideas had on glassmakers etc, etc, etc. I think it's pretty clear by now that on this issue of the A/C movement and GCA we're talking about relevance and certainly the degree of relevence. Don't take it personally, it's just a legitimate question.  

The use of naturalistic motifs and shapes....not unlike Morris's tapistry designs. The use of traditional methods and techniques. Perhaps the most famous of the glassmakers, Louis Comfort Tiffany, established his glass and interior design company in 1879, influenced, he said, by William Morris.

[TEPaul]

You quote me:
“I did enjoy your depiction of the history of the A&C Movement very much but I do not believe your conclusion of its influence on GCA comes remotely close to any kind of primary influence.

You respond:

"Where did I write that the A&C movement was the primary influence?"

Here’s where you wrote it in your essay:

“I am not suggesting that the term ‘Golden Age’or ‘classical’ be rejected or erased from our golfing literature, they have served us well to this point, only that there will come a day when a more relevant term will be needed. AND CONSIDERING THE HISTORICIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE POWERFUL INFLUENCE THAT THIS ARTISTIC MOVEMENT HAD ON ALL ASPECTS OF LIFE INCLUDING GOLF-ARCHITECTURE, 'ARTS AND CRAFTS' WOULD NOT ONLY ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THIS GOLF DESIGN ERA, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW GOLF-ARCHITECTURE TO TAKE ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE AMONG THE OTHER ARTS."

And Here’s what you said about Horace Hutchinson deserving to be referred to as the “Father” of golf course architecture:

“When considering the great theorists who influenced the art of golf design, Horace Hutchinson normally gets no more than passing mention. He is not known for complex theories on strategy, his ideas were simple -- provide the golfer with choices. Above all he preached the importance of nature and variety, the same message sounded by Ruskin, Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement. Strategy, naturalness and variety were all alien to those early golf courses of the Victorian era and Hutchinson was responsible for rescuing the game from what might have been a fatal deterioration. You might ask why is he not better known, and the answer is partially due to timing, his impact was very early and after the Great War many of his simple views were considered antiquated and old-fashioned. His theories had been expressed just after the turn of the century and Hutchinson had long abandoned his platform by the 1920’s when many of the most prominent essays on design were being written. But his impact can not be overlooked; his simple theories still hold true. HORACE HUTCHINSON IS THE FATHER OF THE ART OF GOLF-ARCHITECTURE."

Has this discussion actually come to a point where I have to point out to you what you actually wrote in your own essay?? Apparently so!

[Bob_Huntley]

Bob
That is good question. As you know Mackintosh was a Scot, but somehow I doubt he played the game.

I'm sure not about Voysey either. I do know one of his most famous designs--The Homestead--is adjacent to the links at Frinton.

Are you trying make the point that Voysey and Mackintosh were not golfers so they couldn't have possibly had an influence on golf architecture?

I don't believe either William Morris or John Ruskin were glassmakers, but their ideas about aesthetics and design had effect on glassmakers.

Tom,

Not at all, I was posing the question. With regard to aesthetics and design I do feel that there is a difference between admiring a Murano glass and then having some import into the effect on a MacKenzie bunker. As wonderful an architect as was Lutyens, he needed, in most cases, a Gertrude Jekyll to enhance his designs.

[T_MacWood]

"AND CONSIDERING THE HISTORICIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE POWERFUL INFLUENCE THAT THIS ARTISTIC MOVEMENT HAD ON ALL ASPECTS OF LIFE INCLUDING GOLF-ARCHITECTURE, 'ARTS AND CRAFTS' WOULD NOT ONLY ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THIS GOLF DESIGN ERA, BUT IT WOULD ALLOW GOLF-ARCHITECTURE TO TAKE ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE AMONG THE OTHER ARTS."

Where does it state the A&C movement was the PRIMARY influence on GCA?

I believe I have stated more than once I now prefer The Guide (or even better The Man ) to The Father. I'm not sure you really have of a lot to hang your hat on if you keep beating that dead horse.

Bob
Do you find it difficult to believe that the theories of William Morris could have an import upon the diverse designs of Lutyens, Jekyll, Tiffany and MacKenzie?

[TEPaul]

"You even resorted to trying to suggest that in some way it was the A/C movement that actually promoted "naturalism" in the arts in the first place, and I hardly think anyone really needs to respond to that kind of implication or suggestion."

Your response:

"The A&C movement did promote naturalism. The use of natural materials simply worked. The melding of architecure with the natural site. It promoted the naturally evolved styles, forms and methods of a given art form and region."

You don't read real well do you Tom MacWood? I didn't say the A/C Movement didn't promote naturalism in the arts, I said you've resorted to trying to suggest that in some ways it was the A/C Movement that actually promoted natualism in the arts IN THE FIRST PLACE. Do you think the middle of the 19th century was the first time naturalism was promoted in the arts???

Don't bother to answer that, as you probably do.  

[T_MacWood]

"You even resorted to trying to suggest that in some way it was the A/C movement that actually promoted "naturalism" in the arts in the first place, and I hardly think anyone really needs to respond to that kind of implication or suggestion."

In the past I have accused you of not knowing much about early golf architecture and not knowing much about the arts, but I've not know you to be one who fabricates what someone has said. I guess there is first for everything. I'm sure it was a simple misunderstanding on your part.

[TEPaul]

"Where does it state the A&C movement was the PRIMARY influence on GCA?"

Tom Macwood, are you seriously asking me that? If you are just read again what you wrote yourself in your essay. And if you don't get it just keep reading what you wrote until you do get it.

If you can't understand that suggesting the era we call the "Golden Age of golf architecture" should be referred to as "Arts and Crafts architecture" is not suggesting that the A/C movement was a primary influence on the "Golden Age" of architecture then you're a whole lot more obtuse than I've heretofore suspected you are.

And that remark you made above about me changing my mind about this because of something you said about Crump is just beyond belief. I'll take that one up with you another time because you've already spewed enough stupidity for one day. I'm just so sorry I ever gave Paul Turner anything on PVGC. He definitely never should've given ANYTHING to you. He certainly didn't ask me, and he should have. And if I hadn't called you about your totally unprofessional shennanigins with that poor surpervisor in Merchantville God only knows what kind of ridiculous conspiracy theory you would have tried to write about regarding and your suggestion of a PVGC and Philadlephia campaign to minmize Colt. Thankfully you wrote a decent article on Crump's life and I credit myself for prevailing upon you to do that because I have a bunch of IMs and emails here to prove that is not what you were threatening to write. All things considered during that time it was a decent article but you might ask yourself why no one bothered for 90 years to call the state of NJ to uncover the circumstances of Crump's death when it would have been the simplest thing for any of us to do. Some things and some people should be left to rest in peace but obviously you don't appreciate that and the reasons why you don't appreciate are patently clear to me.  

[TEPaul]

"... but I've not know you to be one who fabricates what someone has said. I guess there is first for everything. I'm sure it was a simple misunderstanding on your part."

There's no misunderstanding and I'm not fabricating anything. Apparently you aren't even capable of understanding the very things you write yourself.

[T_MacWood]

TE
You have a vivid imagination. You do deserve credit for one thing...the death ceritificate. If you hadn't scared the hell out those poor boys at Merchantville, i never would have needed to dig up the DC.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I'm still with Tom Paul on this one. And I think it's important to voice the opposition. While Tom MacWood has certainly written an interesting article, there's just no mention of any major relation to the movement or to the philosophies of the major drivers of the A&C. I could believe it if we were talking about a bunch of illiterate miners or something, but we're talking about the same society, same countries, same cultures, same circles - yet there's no mention of a very popular and influential thread of philosophies...And those who were spreading the gospel of golf where certainly within the economic strata to have heard about it - and there were plenty of writers, so why wouldn't any of the influence ever be mentioned anywhere?

Because it wasn't "Arts and Crafts Golf".

"History is always changing, but few realize it." (That's a quote from Frank Herbert, Tommy N)

History is like a big attic full of stuff, and we look to it to find understanding. But one must be careful to remember that many who write about history have collected and compiled their work to further their own opinions and to make it known that they somehow 'discovered' something that no one else knew about. They attempt to stake a claim. I'm afraid that Tom MacWood seems to be doing just that, and unfortunately, many people have already come to believe that he has somehow revealed the 'true' history - where no one else has. Such claims should not be easily accepted without thoughtful challenge, and satisfactory response to that challenge.

I have seen him change his tune over the last year or two, from "Arts and Crafts Golf" to "Arts and Crafts having influenced golf...somehow" Yet he hasn't ever really mentioned that our heated debates have caused him to revise. He seems to act as if he's said the same thing all along.

It would be better to work together to discover "the truth" as best we can, and focus less on driving a position and working so hard to somehow MAKE it the truth.

That's just my opinion.

[DMoriarty]

I could believe it if we were talking about a bunch of illiterate miners or something, but we're talking about the same society, same countries, same cultures, same circles - yet there's no mention of a very popular and influential thread of philosophies

Tom MacWood has addressed this very point ably and repeatedly,  but this apparently has been lost in the volumonous vitriol of some of those who would rather he didnt pursue the issue.  

The Arts and Crafts Movement was not really a self-conscious, self-aware movement.  They did not nominate members, they did not sign up, they did not call roll.   For most of the movement, they did not even refer to what they were doing as "Arts and Crafts" nor identify themselves as part of a cohesive Movement.  So your requirement of self-awareness and self-identification pretty much wipes out not just golf course architecture, but pretty much every Arts and Crafts discipline as well.  Morris himself wouldnt even qualify.  

...And those who were spreading the gospel of golf where certainly within the economic strata to have heard about it - and there were plenty of writers, so why wouldn't any of the influence ever be mentioned anywhere?

Again, this completely misunderstands Arts and Crafts.  The arts and crafts movement involved: Rejecting the industrialization and mechanization of the late "Victorian" Period; and, a return to pre-industrial ideas and approaches to the respective disciplines.   In other words, one important factor that distinguished Arts and Crafts practicioners was that they looked to pre-industrial craftsmen and thinkers for their influence and inspiration.    

So when one looks for direct influences within various disciplines, one must look to thinkers that not only predated the AC Movement, but also predated the Industrial age.  And one must look within specific disciplines.  

Let me give you an example.  Gertrude Jekyll, was a landscape painter and later a landscape designer and was indisputably part of the arts and crafts movement.   If we were to look for her direct influences we wouldnt look to some AC potter or AC metal-worker, but rather to pre-industrial landscape gardeners.   As you can see in the following Jekyll passage, one such influence was Humphry Repton:

"The free school........teaches us to form and respect large quiet spaces of lawn, unbroken by flower-beds or any encumbrance; it teaches the simple grouping of noble types of hardy vegetation, whether their beauty be that of flower or foliage or general aspect. It insists on the importance of putting the right thing in the right place, a matter which involves both technical knowledge and artistic ability...... It teaches us to study the best means of treatment of different sites; to see how to join house to garden and garden to woodland. Repton says most truly: 'all rational improvement of grounds is necessarily founded of a due attention to the character and situation of the place to be improved; the former teaches us what is advisable, and the latter what is possible to be done'."

If we are to decide whether to consider GCA part of the movement, we must look for the same things:  Rejection of a Victorian or Industrial approach to the discipline, a return to pre-industrial aesthetics and ideas.

The first part is easy.  Despite naysayers on this site, there was a dark ages of golf course architecture in Europe and in the US (though they may have been at slightly different times) and that approach to golf course architecture was roundly rejected by the architects in question.  Just about all of them write about this period-- some even call it "Victorian--" and resoundly reject this approach.  

As for the second part, it is plausible that the designers returned to the great links courses and tried to emulate their aesthetic and incorporate their features and feel.  But these courses were largely attributed to "Mother Nature" so the influences part is a little more tricky.  Arguably, the other Morris, Old Tom, was a influence to which they returned, but their wasnt much there in terms of writings or well-developed philosophies to draw upon or mention.  

My contention is (and has been for quite some time) that they turned to the closest disciple they could find.  Landscape Design.  Like Jekyll, they looked to guys like Repton.   Behr quotes repton in 1915 and was still quoting Repton 10 yrs later.  If I recall, MacDonald also quotes him.  Ian's excerpt in the other thread shows that Colt was also aware and influenced by the landscape school of which Repton was a member.  

So they do give their influences, and they are the same influences of the AC landscape designers.  

[T_MacWood]

Adam F. Collins
You can call it whatever you want: Golden Age, Arts & Craft, Naturalistic, post-gutta, mechanical age, modern. The revolution in golf architect from the dark ages to the golden age was influenced by the A&C movement. Golf architecture was not immune from its influence.

We have only scraped the surface of golf architecture history. Very few have looked at it in a comprehensive way and as more do, it will continue to change and evolve. Its unfortunate that it makes you and other uncomfortable.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()