[TEPaul]

Adam:

That opinion of yours is pretty fine, in my book, and you explain it very well. It's thoughtful, level-headed and even-handed. A Max Behr would label it as "intelligent".  

Of course some history writers are advocates for one thing or another---we all know that. That's not necessarily a bad thing at all but I believe actual facts can too easily get exaggerated, distorted or revised in many way from the perspective of an advocacy history writer. When that happens I believe the truth of a time can get distorted too, and I, for one, don't like that. Personally I like the type of history writer who's as pure and unbiased a reporter of the actual facts of a time as he can possibly be, and often when one delves into another time long ago that's hard to do--it can be a lot of work for obvious reasons. The reason I like that type of history writer better is because I believe the perception of actual facts can get so easily distorted anyway simply by the passage of time and the very different sensibilites of future times and eras when they look back at a former time through the eyes of their own time, not the eyes of that former time. I'd prefer to try to present history from the perspective of the "eyes" of the time it actually happened. There's much to be learned from that perspective, in my opinion.

But in fairness to Tom MacWood, at some point along the way of these discussions and sometimes arguments about Crump or the extent of the A/C Movement's influence on GCA or the Golden Age, Tom MacWood mentioned, and perhaps quoted, noted historian David McCollough who said he likes to present history as perhaps a series of "What ifs"---eg what if this or that was slightly different then it really was and we all were taken down some other road into the future, perhaps a better road.

While I think that approach can be very interesting and very thought provoking, personally I'd like to see history not presented that way---at least not at first. I'd prefer to see it presented first as precisely what happened as best we can determine it. And then, after that maybe it's OK to get into advocacy or the what-ifs of that former time's future. Done in that manner I feel it's probably easier to affect the adage that if one really understands history he will not be doomed to repeat its mistakes.

[TEPaul]

"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."

Tom MacWood:

That's your opinion, and clearly not everyone agrees with you. I do not believe that golf architecture's history has not been looked at in a comprehensive way, I think it has been, and I think what we call the "Golden Age" was looked at comprehensively and thankfully contemporaneously. Some of the most in depth books ever written on golf architecture, where it came from, where it evolved towards by the end of the so-called "Golden Age" (1920s) and how it was looked at,  was written about and explained far more and far better in that time than in our own time or any other time.

It is not up to us to redefine or relabel what those architects and sometimes really thoughtful golf architecture philosophers thought about and wrote so well about---it is only up to us to read again what they wrote and read it more carefully this time. For you or anyone else to promote the idea that they did not know where their own architecture had come from before them or where it was in their time and what influenced it, to me is preposterous, and it's also arrogant.

You act as if you think you know better than a Tillinghast, a Mackenzie, a Hunter or a Behr what was going on in their time and from where their time came, and anyone should know that's not true. You can continue to flatter yourself in that vein on here but I'll never buy it and I hope others don't either.

But you're certainly entitled to your opinion and the rest of us are certainly entitled to critique the validity of your opinion or anyone else's. I believe your opinion on some of these things such as the extent of the influence of the A/C Movement on GCA and the Golden Age has been pretty well critiqued on here, as has mine.

[T_MacWood]

As they mentioned, they're all public servants for the town of Merchantville and they are there to answer questions from anyone that are asked of them. That's what they did. You're the one who told me the township secretary told you something that was illegal to tell you. One wonders why a township secretary would tell you something illegal over the phone when he's never even heard of you before? At the very least if you're trying to act the part of some reporter you're the one who has an ethical responsiblity to tell him what you're asking him questions for (such as an intention to write about Crump) BEFORE you ask him those questions. You did not do that and he was pretty angry to say the least that you didn't inform him first. As far as I can see you NEVER told him what you intended to do. To tell him or any of us you didn't know at the time you were going to write an article about Crump is just not good enough, Tom. You can't legitimately rely on a cop-out excuse like that. What did you call him for in the first place? He sure as hell never sought you out.  

TE
Your understanding of what took place is a little hazy...which often happens when emotions get the best of us.

I spoke to the gentlemen in Merchantville almost a full year before I wrote the Crump essay.

When I spoke to them I had no interest in writing anything about Crump or PV.

I am not a reporter. I told the gentlemen I was interesest in the history of golf architecture.

The information he shared with me, I only shared with two maybe three others....and then sat on the information for months with no plans to do anything with it.

I mentioned Crump's suicide in passing to you last December in a private e-mail.

You immediately got on GCA and the Internet, announcing it to the world...while at the same time questioning my honesty.

You then called me at home in an emotional fit, accusing me of being a fraud and demanding I tell you where I got the information...unfortunately I told you...I which point you called me a liar.

It was at this point that I decided to write the essay on Crump. Not on some conspiracy or who did what, but on Crump the man. (I told Ran and a few others of my precise plans)

Crump's suicide would be covered, but I had no plans of revealing my sources.

After you spoke to the folks in Mercantville, they first denied speaking to me, they denied they had record of his suicide and then they wanted to sue me. God knows what you told them.

At that point I decided, in order to clear my good name, I needed proof....I sought the death certificate.

Not long after this I sent you a private message and told you that the story of researching the essay and all I encountered might be more interesting then the Crump story.

I wrote the essay and posted it.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

Your stated intention to me was to write an article of the plight of what you called an "expert researcher/writer" (you) through his travails during his attempts to write about PVGC/Crump and Colt as he was beset upon by virtual maniacs who were out to destroy you for exposing some coverup or conspiracy involving Crump and PVGC. It seems that during our arguments or whatever you want to call them when I did accuse you of being a fraud and a liar you changed your mind and eventually wrote a decent article about Crump the man, which did mention and document his suicide that had been rumored for perhaps 90 years but never before investigated.

But unfortunately whether you spoke to the people in Merchantville a year or two years or two days before you wrote that article you failed to mention to them BEFORE you spoke to them that you might write about what they told you. You even told me that you were such a good researcher that you were able to get one of those gents in Merchantville to feel comfortable with you by first discussing with him how much you knew about building architecture and such---an area you said he too was interested in so that he eventually felt comfortable enough to divulge that he knew Crump committed suicide. You went on to say that you felt I could never get that kind of information out of any of them.    

Don't count on my opinion of how those gents in Merchantville feel about how you went about this, count on theirs. Maybe you believe it, but I'm afraid poor ethics doesn't exactly have a time limit or some statute of limitations!  

[T_MacWood]

But unfortunately whether you spoke to the people in Merchantville a year or two years or two days before you wrote that article you failed to mention to them BEFORE you spoke to them that you might write about what they told you.

I suppose I could tell everyone on the street that I run across that I might eventually write an essay on what they tell me. Certainly if I had planned on revealing their names or their town as the source after the fact, I would be obliged to ask their persmission. I never planned on revealing either, even after I decided to write the essay.

But thanks to you there was no need. In fact everyone should thank you for the essay being written.

Here is the exact message I sent you regarding the trevails angle:

"I come at this essay from the perspective of the researcher/writer. It is my story of the search for the truth...the truth being how Crump died. Not so much who designed what....everyone can draw their own conslusions.

Here is brief outline of how I see the essay:

Start by looking at the reasons I began the search 6 to 9 months ago. Followed by the search: searching through documents, and archives, and old newspapers, and phone calls, etc. My ultimate breakthough at Merchantville and the details of what was said by whom. Followed by: my thought that it was basically case closed.

The second stage: My innocent message to you, followed by threatening phone call, and threatening IMs. Followed by some sloppy follow up at Merchantville and an apparent change in tune by my sources. Followed by private and public accusations of fraud and lies. Followed by stage 2 of my search, even more intense than the first, and touching on a number of interesting research strategies and resources. Followed by the discovery of what I believe is an indisputable source. Followed by more threatening IMs and constant badgering on GCA. Ending with the essay. And perhaps an analysis of everyone's motivations/agendas...comparing and contrasting the fervor today with what happend in Crump's day. It should be eye opening.

But mostly it is the story of the highs and lows of a researcher and some of the things one incounters when searching for the truth. "

[TEPaul]

"Certainly if I had planned on revealing their names or their town as the source after the fact, I would be obliged to ask their persmission. I never planned on revealing either, even after I decided to write the essay."

After the fact of what? Of speaking to them in the first place? But you did reveal your sources---you revealed it to a number of people incuding me and Wayne. Did you call Merchantville and ask for their permission before you did that?. Not according to them you did not, and all of that surely did not make them happy. That township secretary very much wanted you to call him about that, he told me so, and I told you. Did you ever call him about that again? Shall I call him today and ask him?  

"But thanks to you there was no need. In fact everyone should thank you for the essay being written."

Well, isn't that nice? Isn't that just some odd twist then? In that case I'm glad to help. As I said before I think you wrote a fine article on Crump's life other than just the creator of Pine Valley. I'm glad in that case I prevailed on you to write that. It's a lot more interesting than an article about what an expert researcher/writer went through while trying to write an article on Crump as he was beset upon by a couple of maniacs out to destroy him and more interesting too than an article about how PVGC and perhaps even Philadelphia golf was out to maintain a cover-up and a conspiracy to glorify Crump and minimize Colt as both the Colt advocates on here, you and PaulT, had been implying on this site (even citing an article decades later by Pam Emory to try to prove that ).

By all means just let me know if I can help on any of your articles in the future.

[T_MacWood]

But you did reveal your sources---you revealed it to a number of people incuding me and Wayne. Did you call Merchantville and ask for their permission before you did that?. Not according to them you did not, and all of that surely did not make them happy. That township secretary very much wanted you to call him about that, he told me so, and I told you. Did you ever call him about that again? Shall I call him today and ask him?

TE
This was a mistake that won't happen again....sharing sensative infromation with you. No I didn't ask his permission, but then again I didn't think you would run straight to your keyboard.

Who knew you would go on the worldwide web and announce to the world what I told you in privacy. I don't recall giving you permission to do so. I guess you work under another standard. I'm not permitted to tell two or three in confidence what I know....but you can go on the public Internet and announce it to the world. Wow.

I don't blame that poor fellow for wanting to speak to me....God only knows what you said to him...he proably thought he was going to get into hot water. Go ahead call him...I'm sure he'd love to hear from you...get that alcer flairing up again.

[Paul_Turner]

"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.  

Tom

I'm sorry you feel that way and yes I should have probably asked you.  But the atmosphere was different then and info was  freely exchanged.  And I don't see that any harm has been done by sharing them further.

PS

Some of the post Cump docs I had previously found at the USGA (Smith/Carr report)

[TEPaul]

"Tom
I'm sorry you feel that way and yes I should have probably asked you.  But the atmosphere was different then and info was  freely exchanged.  And I don't see that any harm has been done by sharing them further."

Paul:

Don't worry about a thing. Don't even think about it. You're right the atmosphere was different back then and if I felt strongly about it back then I would've mentioned it to you when I gave that material to you but I didn't.

This has just gotten to be a thing between me and Tom MacWood. He keeps acting like I was some sort of criminal in this whole Crump article thing of his. He decided to write that article and apparently he thinks he swore a couple of people to secrecy about it. A couple of them told me about it and that upset Tom MacWood no end. I thought that a bit strange since he'd never have remotely known some of the details of the creation of PVGC if he didn't have that material I gave you that I got years ago from Gil Hanse who was given it many more years before while he was at Cornell by the President of PVGC at that time.

Recently, on this thread, Tom MacWood, obviously somewhat sarcastically said everyone should thank me for his article because of that mess with the township of Merchantville. But everyone probably should thank me for that article because if he hadn't had the material I gave you and you gave him he never could've known much about the details of the creation of  PVGC that he used in his article. Of course he'll probably tell me and everyone else that he could've gotten it somewhere else but of course he couldn't have. Not unless he came to me, Gil or PVGC. Or GeoffShac---I did give it to him too some years ago. I was always impressed how well Geoff even-handedly nailed the truth about the creation of PV in his "Golden Age of Golf Architecture" even without having that material at the time.

But don't worry about it---no problem at all.

"PS
Some of the post Cump docs I had previously found at the USGA (Smith/Carr report)"

Paul:

That's interesting. I didn't know that was there. To understand the details of the course following Crump's death though the Smith/Carr report on its own doesn't mean a lot. You have to have the committee report and a few other documents to actually see what was voted on, used, and then actually done. Interestingly, not everything that was voted on to do by the 1921 Committee ended up getting done. Maybe it was lack of money then, maybe some of the things weren't priority but the more likely scenario is probably enough time went by and they just forgot about some of the things they'd voted to do.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Good, I'm glad everything's cool.  I think the free exchange is the only way to get to the heart of the matter.

Regarding this subject.

I think the crux of the debate (to me at least) is why did the early architects build such ugly  "victorian" courses inland?   How pervasive were they?  And why didn't the architects copy/simulate the true links right from the start?

In Hutchinson's "British Golf Links"  the inland courses are a mix.  There are some courses with highly formalised hazards like:  Meyrick and Eltham.  Others much more natural, like: Coventry and Nottinghamshire  (although these may be not constructed at all...completely lay of the land).  Some are a combination of crude and natural like Scarborough.

Why didn't they simulate the links?  Was it cultural or was it practical/inexpensive .  I'm not sure, since the victorian features are crude but they can be extensive and not necessarily cheap (see Eltham).

if you don't have Hutchinson's book, it's a MUST have and is newly republished ($52 at Amazon)

[Adam_F_Collins]

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.

The changing history doesn't bother me, it's when it's changed in a way which is incorrect or misleading, without enough challenge.

The spirit of that age was a nostalgic desire to turn back to simpler times; to take note of what was being lost through industrailization. So there was a lot of a 'return to nature' going on in many ways - all of this trend is not necessarily encompassed within The Arts and Crafts movement.

The A&C may not have called itself that all along, and may not have had "membership" as Mr. Moriarty points out, but it did revolve around central figures and had a definite core of discourse which often paid a certain tribute to those figures (Morris and Ruskin especially).

Even as early as 1882, Oscar Wilde makes clear reference to them as core figures of a "Renaissance" in English Art. So why wouldn't the writers around golf make such references? Because the were not really a part of that movement. Certainly, they were influenced by the same interests which fueled the A&C, but they are not considered part of the movement itself because they were not really open proponents of it.

It is interesting to consider why - and that might be an excellent direction for further study. Off the top of my head, I would suggest that it is perhaps true that the very industrialists who were shaking the world into the industrial age - the very people who were making money off from the trends toward the mass-produced which Morris and the core of the A&C opposed - where most likely some of the same people who hired Golf Course Architects.

It may have been in the interests of the Golden Age Architects to avoid any specific reference to the proponents of the Arts and Crafts movement...

...You don't want to bite the hand that feeds.

[DMoriarty]

. . . The spirit of that age was a nostalgic desire to turn back to simpler times; to take note of what was being lost through industrailization. So there was a lot of a 'return to nature' going on in many ways - all of this trend is not necessarily encompassed within The Arts and Crafts movement.

The A&C may not have called itself that all along, and may not have had "membership" as Mr. Moriarty points out, but it did revolve around central figures and had a definite core of discourse which often paid a certain tribute to those figures (Morris and Ruskin especially).

Even as early as 1882, Oscar Wilde makes clear reference to them as core figures of a "Renaissance" in English Art. So why wouldn't the writers around golf make such references? Because the were not really a part of that movement. Certainly, they were influenced by the same interests which fueled the A&C, but they are not considered part of the movement itself because they were not really open proponents of it.

This is really getting close to a position based almost completely on semantics.  If the spirit is the same, and the influences are the same, and process (looking back to pre-industrial times) is the same, then we arent left with many differences are we?   What it comes down to for you is this then:  

". . . they are not considered part of the movement itself because they were not really open proponents of it."

If you require an affirmative statement from these golf architects that they were proponents of this specific movement, then you've defined for yourself a criterion that wont likely be met.  

As for me, I dont think one has to be an "open proponent" of a historical movement to be considered part of it.  After all, isn't it the spirit, influences, process, and reaction that really matters from a historical perspective.  Requiring historical actors to pledge allegiance to post mortem labels will only cloud history, not clarify it.

Perhaps we need two categories.  Arts and Crafts Practicioners and Arts and Crafts Proponents.  

Out of curiosity, just what were these other "'return to nature'" artistic movements going on in GB&I which were unrelated to the Arts and Crafts Movement of the time?  Aside from GCA, of course?

It is interesting to consider why - and that might be an excellent direction for further study. Off the top of my head, I would suggest that it is perhaps true that the very industrialists who were shaking the world into the industrial age - the very people who were making money off from the trends toward the mass-produced which Morris and the core of the A&C opposed - where most likely some of the same people who hired Golf Course Architects.

It may have been in the interests of the Golden Age Architects to avoid any specific reference to the proponents of the Arts and Crafts movement...

Weren't these same guys buying Lutyen's mansions and commishioning Jekyll's gardens?  It practice, the Arts and Crafts Movement was not much of a lower-class movement, at least as far as the consumers were concerned.

[T_MacWood]

The spirit of that age was a nostalgic desire to turn back to simpler times; to take note of what was being lost through industrailization. So there was a lot of a 'return to nature' going on in many ways - all of this trend is not necessarily encompassed within The Arts and Crafts movement.

It may have been in the interests of the Golden Age Architects to avoid any specific reference to the proponents of the Arts and Crafts movement...

...You don't want to bite the hand that feeds.

Adam Foster
I don't follow what you are saying. Are you saying that the golden age architects/figures did not mention the names of Ruskin, Morris, Lutyens, etc.? Are you sure about that?

Your first paragraph does not give me confidence you have a good understanding of the A&C movement.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Out of curiosity, just what were these other "'return to nature'" artistic movements going on in GB&I which were unrelated to the Arts and Crafts Movement of the time?  Aside from GCA, of course?

Um... the rise of the Public Park, the increasing interest in nature as 'healthy'...

Weren't these same guys buying Lutyen's mansions and commishioning Jekyll's gardens?  It practice, the Arts and Crafts Movement was not much of a lower-class movement, at least as far as the consumers were concerned.

Were they? That was what I asked. I said it might be interesting to consider - and would be an interesting direction for further study. I think its a good question, and I see that you do too. Excellent.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Adam Foster
I don't follow what you are saying. Are you saying that the golden age architects/figures did not mention the names of Ruskin, Morris, Lutyens, etc.? Are you sure about that?

I'm sorry, Tom. Have you shown us examples? I certainly could have missed them. If you have, they might be helpful to reprint here to keep people confused as I on track.

Your first paragraph does not give me confidence you have a good understanding of the A&C movement.

Ah yes, that again. I don't agree with you, so it must be my understanding of the A&C. Perhaps you could apply for a job at the university I've spent so many years at. The Nova Scotia College of Art and Design in Halifax. Six years there and another at the Portland School of Art in Portland, Maine. These institutions and their wide array of Phd's in Art and Art History have been teaching it all wrong. You should get in touch with them and sort it out. I'd hate to have too many more students put so much money and effort into such a faulty and confused education.

[TEPaul]

"I think the crux of the debate (to me at least) is why did the early architects build such ugly  "victorian" courses inland?  How pervasive were they?  And why didn't the architects copy/simulate the true links right from the start?
Why didn't they simulate the links?  Was it cultural or was it practical/inexpensive .  I'm not sure, since the victorian features are crude but they can be extensive and not necessarily cheap (see Eltham)."

Paul:

I think that's the crux of the debate too. Why did the early architects build such ugly "Victorian" courses inland?

In my opinion, the true and factual answer to that is very likely so much simpler than most on here are making it. To truly understand why those early courses that were golf's first migration outside the Scottish linksland one needs to keep reminding oneself at what point that was (the so-called "Dark Ages about 1875-1900) in the evolution of golf course architecture itself. At that point golf course architecture as we know it (golf architectural features designed and made by man) was only a few years old--not more than a few decades.

When one compares that fact to other art forms such as painting art, building art and architecture, even landscape architecture, all those art forms had already had evolutions within their art forms and disciplines that were hundreds and hundreds of years old, sometimes more than a thousand years old and hugely sophisticated for those times. Golf course architecture compared to them at that time was nothing more than perhaps a barely visible blip on the radar screen of life at that time.

Morris and his followers were reacting to something entirely different, basically many years of classical and formalized disciplines in so many art forms that had had huge doses of religiosity attached to some of them etc. Some of these art forms were expressions of man attempting to understand his place in this world. Was golf course architecture at that point remotely part of that? Hardly, as it had barely been born!

Sure golf had been played for a couple of hundred years in Scotland only and probably at less than a dozen or two golf courses. There was no golf architecture then. At the time Morris begun his revolution against classicism in building art and perhaps other art forms and against the dehumanization of the industrial revolution (around the middle of the 19th century) golf course architecture had barely been born and as such there was probably almost zero art attached to it anyway. Too many of us forget that. In my opinion, to understand golf architecture best you just have to keep in mind where it was at particular points in it's rather short history. We too easily forget that and try to lump it in with other things that were so much older and more sophisticated.

The very first examples of golf architecture when golf first migrated outside the linksland was unimaginably rudimentary for obvious reasons---eg most of the people using those early courses were probably just becoming familiar with the game itself.

Why were those early features so geometric and ugly? I think probably because no one gave them any thought anyway---and certainly not in any artistic way. I don't think there was an actual Victorian "style" of golf architecture per se, only the very first attempts at the expression of man-made architecture that happened to be during the reign of Victoria and during the Age known as "Victorian". The features in the first early attempts at golf architecture in America were even more rudimentary and geometric and we didn't live in Victorian England.

I think those ugly squared off generally sunken pits and geometric berms looked remarkably like the sporting fields of equestrianism and steeple chasing. Is it any wonder? That was a massively popular sport back then. Back then the horse and all that went with it was huge.

As Max Behr continually said geometric and squared features (artificiality) is simply the inherent "game mind" of man to precisely define his boundaries in his games.

I think that just as in America when Macdonald revolted against these geometric rudimentary first attempts at architecture outside the linksland for the first time a few others just before him in England (Park jr and some of the early heathland architects) probably just said; "Whoops, looks like we just took the game out of Scotland but we sure did forget to look at mimicing the way those almost wholly naturally created dune-laden courses back in Scotland are.

And so the very first attempts at making early man-made golf architecture a bit more natural looking began. At that point (around 1900) the entire history of golf course architecture was only a few decades old, and there wasn't even much of it. Other art forms, painting (Rushkin's milieu), landscape architecture (Lancelot Brown, Repton), building architecture etc were hundreds and thousands of years old and had all had rich and sophisticated histories.

Not so for golf course architecture as basically in comparison it had only recently been born, and was very much still in diapers. The likes of Repton, Pugin, Rushkin, Morris etc probably knew nothing at all of golf itself and probably had never even heard of golf course architecture. No wonder it was so rudimentary, geometric and ugly then. Those who first brought it out of the linksland only a few decades before obviously knew nothing of what it really was or could be. As Behr said when they first took the game out of the Scottish linksland (about the 1870s) it took them a while to realize they left its elusive spirit behind and that a lot of that was its almost wholly unadulterated NATURAL playing fields.

Does that sound logical, Paul?  

[TEPaul]

Quote from: Tom MacWood on Today at 12:54:58pm
Your first paragraph does not give me confidence you have a good understanding of the A&C movement.

From Adam Foster Collins:
 
"Ah yes, that again. I don't agree with you, so it must be my understanding of the A&C. Perhaps you could apply for a job at the university I've spent so many years at. The Nova Scotia College of Art and Design in Halifax. Six years there and another at the Portland School of Art in Portland, Maine. These institutions and their wide array of Phd's in Art and Art History have been teaching it all wrong. You should get in touch with them and sort it out. I'd hate to have too many more students put so much money and effort into such a faulty and confused education."

Adam:

Thank you and good going there with that last response. I just got a couple of calls from people saying if that doesn't stop Tom MacWood nothing will. That's always his last-ditch fallback response that no one questioning him understands the A/C Movement very well. It's like he thinks he's the only one who can or does understand it.

I'm glad we put him and his conclusions through this catechism. It should be more of what this website is about.

[T_MacWood]

A. Foster
Despite your impressive credentials I'm affraid I have not been impressed with your understanding of the Arts & Crafts movement. How would you characterise your knowledge of the movement?

You should probably re-read the essay, I think you missed some of it.

“If John Ruskin, always a jealous guardian of the beauties of nature, could have been taken to the site of a proposed golf course, especially an inland one, and again after the golf architect had brought his artistic skill to bear upon it, I venture to say he would been wonderfully impressed by the results.”   ~~JH. Taylor

“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.”   ~~Horace Hutchinson

“The point was emphasised by Ruskin many years ago that the demand for perfection was invariably a ‘sign of a misunderstanding of the ends of art’….he even went as far as to lay down the seeming paradox that ‘a work of man cannot be good unless it is imperfect.’ This application of this principle does not imply that all imperfect golf courses are necessarily admirable; but it does suggest that in the absence, fortunately, of any existing course that confounds criticism, some imperfect courses are amongst the most interesting and amusing to play over.”   ~~Newton Wethered and Tom Simpson

The essay contains numerous quotes from numerous architects that mirror the thoughts of the A & C movement.

[T_MacWood]

"Morris and his followers were reacting to something entirely different, basically many years of classical and formalized disciplines in so many art forms that had had huge doses of religiosity attached to some of them etc. Some of these art forms were expressions of man attempting to understand his place in this world. Was golf course architecture at that point remotely part of that? Hardly, as it had barely been born!"

TE
What about industrialization and the de-emphasis of hand-made objects and craftmanship? Religiosity? How did that manifest itself in the movement?

[TEPaul]

“A. Foster
Despite your impressive credentials I'm affraid I have not been impressed with your understanding of the Arts & Crafts movement. How would you characterise your knowledge of the movement?”

Adam:

Don’t feel like you’re beating your head against the wall with this guy---just laugh at him. He said it again---to anyone who disagrees with him that’s his standard fall back response. Look at this to Paul Cowley, a guy who’s a golf architect, a building architect and a land planner for a couple of decades:

“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'.”

[Adam_F_Collins]

Thank you Mr. MacWood.

If you have the time, I'd very much appreciate it if you would let us know of the sources of those quotes and where we might find them. It would do us good to read more of the context of these references. Your essay is so thick with names and places, but so few footnotes - it's difficult to get a sense of where you're quoting historical references or if at times, you're filling it in.

[TEPaul]

“TE
What about industrialization and the de-emphasis of hand-made objects and craftmanship?”

Here’s about industrialization;

“At the time Morris begun his revolution against classicism in building art and perhaps other art forms and against the dehumanization of the industrial revolution (around the middle of the 19th century) golf course architecture had barely been born and as such there was probably almost zero art attached to it anyway.”

“Religiosity? How did that manifest itself in the movement?”

Here’s how:

“The turning point in Pugin’s life was his conversion to Catholicism in 1835. The following year he published a book entitled Contrasts (a slight reduction from its original title, A Parallel between the Noble Edifices of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, and Similar Buildings of the Present Day; Shewing the Present Decay of Taste). In the book Pugin argued that Gothic was the only true Christian architecture. It was illustrated by brilliant comparisons between the 'meanness, cruelty and vulgarity' of buildings of his own day, the Classical and faux-Gothic, and the glories of the true Gothic of the pre-Reformation Catholic past. He claimed Gothic architecture was produced by the Catholic faith and that Classic architecture was Pagan. The Reformation had been a dreadful scourge, and medieval architecture was greatly superior to anything produced by the Renaissance or Classic revivals -- 'a bastard Greek, nondescript modern style has ravaged many of the most interesting cities of Europe.'”
Arts and Crafts Movement, Part II by Tom MacWood


Maybe it’s you Tom, who should reread your own article, unless of course you’re wrong!  

[T_MacWood]

Taylor~~Golf Illustrated June 1924

Hutchinson~~'Portraits of the Eighties'--Horatio Hutchinson

Wethered & Simpson~~'Architectural Side of Golf'--NW Wethered and T Simpson

[T_MacWood]

TE
Do you think Pugin's religious devotion was what the A&C founders latched on to? And how did it manifest itself within the movement?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

It is now official.....I've received seven, count em' seven phone calls today, asking me what is up with all of you--that is ALL OF YOU (including me) who have posted incessently on this thread.

For the love of humanity, GIVE IT A F U C K I N G REST!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()