[ForkaB]

Phillip

Give us a break regarding Kingsbarns.  I know you're writing a book about it, but do you really believe that the current "club" (actually a commercial CCFAD) has any historical connection with the club founded in 1815 (and NLE many years ago) except that it is located on the same site?

[T_MacWood]

Rich
You might see these old dead guys as paragons of truth and virtue, I certainly don't. I personally think their flaws make them much more interesting studies. I suspect Hutchinson was bitter man at the end of his life....he suffered from a terrible condition for years. I believe he had his bowel removed or part of it anyway...a butcher of a sergeon tried a new procedure on him.

Do you think nefarious is an accurate characterization....controversial maybe. I'm sure it was for practical reasons, with many of the big wigs of the R&A living in the south. The Rules of Golf Committee was made of almost all Londerers wasn't it?

[ForkaB]

Tom

"Nefarious" might be a bit of hyperbole, and you are right about the fact that the Sassenachs ruled the R&A in the early 20th century but I do sense more than a little "chip on the shoulderism" in the attitude of the English towards the facts that the Scots effectively invented golf, and that they (the English) had to travel miles to play at the best venues.  

It was Gerald Micklem, I think, who told Herbert Warren Wind when the latter asked if there would ever be an Open at Dornoch something to the effect of:  "Its too bloody far away and the natives are heathens!", even though 10-15 years earlier they had an Open at Portrush!  (OK, I embellished that a bit, but the essence is correct.)

[TEPaul]

I'm sorry, I deleted my very long diatribe about Tom MacWood's inablity to discourse with Adam Foster Collin's (and a number of others) questions and challenges and how frustrating that can be. I see either yesterday or early today they actually had a quite nice, productive and intelligent discussion. That's good.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Rich,

My point wasn't that the modern Kingsbarns is left off the list by Price, but that the Kingsbarns Golfing Society & their nine-hole golf course which occupied the same land where the modern course was built in 1999 was left off entirely, as well as other discrepencies.

Kingsbarns remained an active golfing society, with a few brief closings, from the societies founding in 1793 and the building of their course in 1815 down to the beginning of WWII, when it was plowed under, mined, barricaded and fenced lest the Germans landed invaded there in the 40's. In fact, during it's construction in the 90's, an unexploded mine was "accidently found" destroying the tractor that dug it up! No one was hurt.

My point is that there are at least two "definitive" lists of golf courses & societies that differ in many respects from each other. In addition to Kingsbarns, Dates for the founding of Edinburgh & Royal Musselburgh differ, both Leith & Cruden Bay are not on Burnett's & Burnt Island is refered to as Burnwisland.

Why should this be when both men consulted the clubs directly for this information? Why should Price have missed out on KIngsbarns when their members played many matches against the clubs nearby, awarding valuable trophy's & cups that can be seen today?

My point is that history never changes, but that how we view it does, and happens because of the information that we have available to make statements and judgements from.

Frankly, I have no idea if the arts & craft movement inspired or effected any golf course designer, design or construction. It is an idea that deserves examining, but for anyone to speak of it in dogmatic terms, well, I believe it far too soon to do so. The base of knowledge used to build upon is nowhere near set. Like a good concrete, it is still curing.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Is it your understanding that Pugin's religious devotion became a major component of the A&C movement? If so, how did it manifest itself?"

Tom MacW:

If this essay is factual, 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.'
Pugin believed that beauty should grow from necessity, that there were two great rules for design, '1st, that there should be no features about a building, which are not necessary for convenience, construction or propriety; 2nd, that all ornament should consist of the essential construction of the building.' These two principles would influence the succeeding Arts and Crafts Movement, and eventually led to freely composed asymmetrical buildings. 'Architectural features are continually tacked on buildings which they have no connection, merely for the sake of what is termed effect; and ornaments are actually constructed, instead of forming the decoration of construction, to which in good taste they should always be subservient.'
 
AWN Pugin, 'Contrasts', showing the same town in
Victorian and middles ages.
Photograph showing the architectural contrast of Victorian and Gothic.

Another of his doctrines was ‘fidelity to place’, and it too was adopted by the Arts and Crafts movement. It argued that environmental factors were responsible for a given areas architectural traditions and styles. To create a truly sympathetic design one must embrace those naturally evolved regional traditions along with the materials naturally found in the area. For example, Pugin’s design at St.Augustines reflected the regional Gothic tradition and was constructed of local Kentish brown stones excavated nearby. 'What does an Italian house do in England?', railing against the prevailing fashion for Italianate villas.'Is there a similarity between our climate and that of Italy? Not in the least . . . another objection to Italian architecture is this -- we are not Italians, we are Englishmen.'"

Tom MacW:

You wrote this so I'm sure you can see how Pugin's religous zeal for Catholic "Gothic" architecture as opposed to his feeling that faux-Gothic or Classical architecture was "pagan". How that manifested itself in the A/C Movement is as follows;

"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.'
Pugin believed that beauty should grow from necessity, that there were two great rules for design, '1st, that there should be no features about a building, which are not necessary for convenience, construction or propriety; 2nd, that all ornament should consist of the essential construction of the building. These two principles would influence the succeeding Arts and Crafts Movement, and eventually led to freely composed asymmetrical buildings."

[Tony_Muldoon]

Question, what are the names of those 17 clubs?

Philip,

Fig 2.2, on page 23 of Price's "Scotland's Golf Courses", is a map entitled 'The location of golf courses: 1730-1849'.

It shows the following 17 courses:

Peterhead 1841
Cruden Bay 1791
Aberdeen 1780
Montrose 1810
Carnoustie 1842
Perth 1842
Tayport 1817
St. Andrews 1754
Crail 1786
Leven 1820
Burnt Island 1797
North Berwick 1832
Dunbar 1794
Edinburgh 1735
Leith 1744
Musselburgh 1774
Glasgow 1787

On page 7 of Price it states that there were 23 Golfing Societies or Clubs in existence by 1849, but "this does not mean that there were 23 courses."

If you don't own "Scotland's Golf Courses" (it's a great, unique golf book) and you'd like to, try this link http://www.mercatpress.com/BookDetails.asp?ISBN=1841830305&Category=culture

Gentlemen in the midst of this pitched battle we are forgetting our manners.  

Great post Chris, welcome to the tree house.  Notice you weren’t afraid to go straight to the front line.  

PS just ordered myself another Christmas present, thanks for the tip.

[ForkaB]

Thanks for the reply, Phil

My guess is that most golf clubs are relatively ignorant of their history because nobody ever thought it was particularly important, until 100th anniversaries started coming around and some wiseacre on the Committee said:  "Hey, let's get a Centenary book!"

What I think is that most of the people charged with writing these things found out is that for most if not all clubs the records for 100 years ago were sketchy if not non-existant.  So they got whatever information they could, mostly from old geezers who sort of remembered their grandfather talking about the new green on the 3rd.  At my home club (Aberdour) they don't even know who designed the course, and even at Dornoch understanding as to what Old Tom Morris did and didn't do and when he did it is still sketchy and largely speculative.

Leaves a lot of leeway for researchers and guessers!

[paul cowley]

Hey...I'm back..what did I miss?

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne
Where in the essay does it say the A&C movement was an overwhelming influence?"

Tom MacWood:

Are you now saying that the A&C movement was not a significant and direct influence?  Something that one could call overwhelming?  If you don't believe it was an overwhelming influence then we agree.

"The A&C Movement is not a trunk or branch of the tree, it is the vehicle or state of mind or attitude that allowed golf architecture to move from the Victorian to the more naturalistic designs emulating the links."

I didn't say the A&C was a branch of the tree.  I said I did not think it influenced the truncating of the geometric branch of the tree.  And this state of mind or attitude that you refer to that allowed a change in golf architecture is completely meaningless to me.  The golf courses that developed in the late 1800s did not become Victorian.  They were more likely the result of Morris (Old Tom) and others that went out and staked a course in a day and went home.  The ones that built the courses more than likely built them easily and quickly.  Tom Paul thinks the horse world had a great influence on the look of features and he's probably right.  Where is the proof that this state of mind allowed anything to happen in golf course architecture?  The use of the terms state of mind or vehicle to make change doesn't seem to have any supporting evidence.

"They did not call it the new geometric movement they called it Victorian. "

I didn't say anyone called it a geometric movement, that was my description of it.  Others likely came up with it long before me.

"You're right, no one was saying anything about those courses. No one was saying anything negative about any golf course or golf architect. In fact there was a complete absence of any discusion on golf architecture."

If nobody was discussing golf architecture, what was contained in the text in Hutchinson's book in "British Golf Links?"  It sure seems like he was commenting on the courses themselves and not the dining rooms.

David M:

"Not exactly sure what you add to the discussion by describing what you perceive as others' views as "ludicrous," but it each his own I guess . . ."

If you aren't sure, then feel free to disregard.  

"Again, you are inverting what I think may be one of the key factors in the analysis.  These guys rejected the contemporary "Victorian" approach to golf design and returned to the links courses.  This rejection of the current and return to the older, pre-industrial courses closely traces what was going on in the AC Movement at the same time.  "

So where is the direct connection?  What do you mean closely traces?  Why can't it be a coincidence?  What proves a cause and effect?  You have not given any answers to these questions whether you think you did or not.  

"Also, I think you are drastically underestimating this 'stubby little branch.'"

I said stubby branch.  Why would I be redundant and say stubby and little?

"At least the writers and designers of the supposed Golden Age (MacDonald, MacKenzie, Behr, Travis, Hunter, Hutchinson, to name just some) did not treat this as a stub or a temporary offshoot, but a major and destructive phase in golf course design.  "

Exactly how did they treat this as a major and destructive phase in golf course design?  It seems to me, as I've said earlier that Hutchinson praised courses that you think Victorian.  Where was his influence on moving away from that style?  What influence did the A and C movement had on golf architecture if golf architecture didn't exist until years after the A and C movement started?

"Take a look at Merion-- an example you are much more familiar with than me.  The first Merion wasnt anything like that existing now.  And it didnt whither but was actively replaced by something entirely-- revolutionarily-- different.  And look at Wilson's influences.  He doesnt spend his time studying and emulating the hundreds of "dark ages" courses which proceeded Merion, but instead returns to the roots of the game, to the pre-industrial courses and perhaps some newer ones' who had also discarded the "dark ages" as well. This doesnt look like something "whithering" away to me.  It looks to me more like an active and conscious rejection of the current approach and a return to an approach steeped in the pre-industrial roots of the sport.  "

Which first Merion are you talking about?  The one in Haverford or the East course in Ardmore?  I suspect you do not have any idea what the first course looked like in Haverford nor do you really know what the first iteration of the current East Course of Merion looked like.  You wouldn't if you looked at the Flynn drawings in the 1916 Brooklyn Eagle pamphlet.  The evolution report has been carefully studied and it now has been documented but you haven't seen it, that is unless Tom MacWood shared it with you and I trust he hasn't as he promised to keep it to himself.  Or you went to the one repository that has the earliest information and it is not housed at Merion.

Please tell me how you know what Wilson studied.  Do you have his notes and drawings?  If so, I'd like to see them.  If you knew what Merion East first looked like you might have a point to make.  It did change a lot over the years.   It was remodeled after the opening and before the 1916 Amateur.  It was dramatically altered in 1922 and 1929 as well as slightly modified prior to the 1934 Open.  What is your point?  That the A and C movement directly influenced the changes at Merion?  Do you know what the early courses at Merion looked like?   I'd say you likely do not and therefore cannot say what was or was not rejected.  You can only speculate.  What is that worth?  Are your assumptions modeled to conform to your construct or do they conform to historical fact?

"I've written this about 50 times now.  Is it really that difficult to understand?"

The quantity of argument does not necessitate quality.  You have not directly linked the A and C movement to anything at all to do with golf architecture.  Where is the proof?  It certainly is not in the words of the men you claim to be moved by A and C.  But then again, you and Tom MacWood must know better than these guys.  I could care less what you think of my reasoning.  Believe what you want to.  Keep repeating your unsubstantiated claims since you think the more you say it the more it must be true.  Knock yourself out.  My standards of proof are evidently higher than your own.  You have fallen far short of the requirements I have to make the claims you do.  They may be right (I doubt it) but it would be a stretch to say either of you have proved anything at this point.

Tom MacWood:

"The NGLA was not a success and a departure from the crude designs that existed? I personally find the style of Raynor and Banks aesthetically pleasing. And certainly they were looking to the past for inspiration. IMO Raynor was one of the very best at utilizing the natural features of a site. I am also of the opinion that one of the primary reasons golden age architecture is so interesting is the diversity of styles. That is one of the reason the architecture of that period so interesting as well."

It was a success and a departure from some designs that were geometric and what you call crude.  But why does this necessitate that it was due to any influence at all of a general arts movement known as the Arts and Crafts movement?

Your opinion of Raynor as one of the very best at utilizing natural features of a site differs from my own.  I appreciate the work that Macdonald was integrally involved in far more than the work of Raynor or Banks alone.  

"You can trace Ross's conversion to a trip abroad he made in 1910 (following a visit by Hutchinson and Macdonald to Boston) to study and observe the state of modern golf design."

Did Ross admit this or are you inferring it somehow?

[TEPaul]

Hey...I'm back..what did I miss?  

Paul:

You missed Tom MacWood’s response to your take on his opinion of the A/C Movement’s influence on GCA:

“I think he (that’s you Paul;) ) 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'.”

Despite the fact you’ve been a golf architect, building architect, land planner (and I’d say a helluva artist) for quite some time, and apparently thought you had a career in a phase of A/C design (Prairie School) I’m afraid you didn’t impress him at all. Like everyone else on here who has questioned his premise and conclusions on the influence of the A/C Movement on GCA and the Golden Age he said you don’t understand the Arts and Crafts Movement either.

According to Tom MacW apparently no one who’s questioned him or challenged him understands it which seems quite odd since he claims the A/C Movement or its philosophy affected just about every social and aesthetic thought on earth. But maybe we all missed it because he claims it wasn’t exactly referred to it as the A/C Movement by name, or some other such nonsense.

Do you think maybe the Social Revolution of the ‘60s and ‘70s was actually the A/C Movement in disguise when most of us left-wingers were getting’ naked and getting’ back to nature and livin’ in assymetrical huts in communes and trying to nail ever girl in sight? I thought that was pretty social and aesthetic----a bit of a fringe art form in fact, didn’t you? But maybe like the Old Guys of the Golden Age, we’ll have to wait about 80 years for Tom MacWood’s great grandson to tell us what we were thinking back then.  

[T_MacWood]

TE
You appear to be having some problem answering the quesion...I'll help you out.

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!

The A&C architects were reacting to classical architecture, but the movement was a reaction to more than that....including industrialization, the dehumanization of the worker, the squarel of the city, cheap machine-made objects and the de-emphasis of craftmanship, Victorian ornate aesthetics.

There was not 'huge doses religiosity' attached to the movement, in fact just the opposite. Pugin was a devout Roman Catholic; neither Ruskin nor Morris (the leader of the movement) shared his views.

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 Arts and Crafts movement really began to take off around 1890, and lasted well into the 20thC. Morris's revolution touched much more than building architecture. His friend Phillip Webb was more intramental with architecture, who designed Morris's home Red House. Other than his own home, the most important act relating to architecture was creating the Society of the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) in 1877.

The A&C Movement reached its peek in the early 1900's, the same time golf architecture began to turn the corner.

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.

It was more than 'Whoops', there was a reason Park and the amatuer architects revolted against the Victorian designs...the newly created magazines began analyzing and criticizing them.

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.

Those living in and around London--Hutchinson, Park, Fowler, Colt, Abercromby, Paton, Low, Simpson, Hutchings, Mure Ferguson, Hutchison, Taylor, Braid--couldn't help but to be influenced by what was going on around them....the emphais on aesthetics in all aspects of life. It wouldn't have  mattered if golf architecture were ten years or ten thousand years old.

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.

The movement touched all arts and crafts--including those none those gentlemen ever practiced. It was an aesthetic movement or attitude adopted by everything from jewelry making to furniture to gardening and golf 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.

Those early men were influenced by Victorian aesthetics, Victorian shoddiness and Victorian sport (with its well defined field or court).

Does that sound logical, Paul?  

[T_MacWood]

Are you now saying that the A&C movement was not a significant and direct influence?  Something that one could call overwhelming?  If you don't believe it was an overwhelming influence then we agree.

The A&C movement was the prevailing or dominate aesthetic movement at the time. Because of that, it was an important influence (on golf architecture) and instramental in the move back to the historic model--the natural links.

I didn't say the A&C was a branch of the tree.  I said I did not think it influenced the truncating of the geometric branch of the tree.  And this state of mind or attitude that you refer to that allowed a change in golf architecture is completely meaningless to me.

That is at the root of your understanding the entire subject. If you are unable to understand or comprehend the period, no wonder this is difficult for you.

The golf courses that developed in the late 1800s did not become Victorian.  They were more likely the result of Morris (Old Tom) and others that went out and staked a course in a day and went home.  The ones that built the courses more than likely built them easily and quickly.  Tom Paul thinks the horse world had a great influence on the look of features and he's probably right.  Where is the proof that this state of mind allowed anything to happen in golf course architecture?  The use of the terms state of mind or vehicle to make change doesn't seem to have any supporting evidence.

I  don't know about the horse world, but those courses were Victorian. I'm not sure where you come up with 'they did not become Victorian.' 'Victorian' is how Hutchinson, Darwin, Alison, MacKenzie, Simpson, etc referred to them when they wrote about the subject. They were formulaic, geometric and a dramatic departure from the links courses.

If nobody was discussing golf architecture, what was contained in the text in Hutchinson's book in "British Golf Links?"  It sure seems like he was commenting on the courses themselves and not the dining rooms.

The book refrains from any criticism or critical analysis.

It was a success and a departure from some designs that were geometric and what you call crude.  But why does this necessitate that it was due to any influence at all of a general arts movement known as the Arts and Crafts movement?

I don't understand your question. The A&C movement promoted looking back to historic naturally evolved models. That is exactly what Macdonald did at NGLA  and else where(guided I might add by Hutchinson and Low).

Did Ross admit this or are you inferring it somehow?

He admitted he went to the UK (in 1910) to study golf architecture.

[TEPaul]

From Tom MacWood;

"There was not 'huge doses religiosity' attached to the movement, in fact just the opposite. Pugin was a devout Roman Catholic; neither Ruskin nor Morris (the leader of the movement) shared his views."

Tom MacWood:

I see. Perhaps I should not have used the word  “huge” (doses of religiosity), perhaps I should’ve said “doses of religiosity” but according to your essay and your portrayal of Pugin, clearly religiosity, according to what you wrote, was a big part of his motivation in the art form of architecture (otherwise why did you mention it as you did?) that lead him to be one of the three creators (as you said) of the A/C Movment. In your essay you present ONLY three men that you call “The Reformers” that you claim created the “Arts and Crafts” Movement. That’s what you wrote in the Five Part “Arts and Crafts” article.

Are you denying that now or would you just like to minimize it as you did “Father” to “Guide” for HH?  According to you they were Pugin, Rushkin and Morris. You established in your essay that a big part of Pugin’s motivation was his conversion to Catholicism and his consequent strong belief that “Classical” architecture was ‘pagan’ and Catholic “Gothic” architecture the style he strongly promoted. The following quote from your essay supports that. Here again is what you said to me above:

“There was not 'huge doses religiosity' attached to the movement, in fact just the opposite. Pugin was a devout Roman Catholic; neither Ruskin nor Morris (the leader of the movement) shared his views.”

So, Tom, what do we have now---one of the three creators of the A/C Movement, Pugin, who imbues the A/C Movement with his religious/architectural zeal and two others who created the Arts and Crafts Movement with him who, as you say, did not share his views? Is this Movement now a one out of three philosophy or a two out of three philosophy? I guess it would have to be one of the other because if it’s neither, in your opinion, you sure as shootin’ did not portray the creators, the creation, and the philosophy of the A/C Movement very well in your essay.

From Part II of your essay on Pugin;

“Pugin believed that beauty should grow from necessity, that there were two great rules for design, '1st, that there should be no features about a building, which are not necessary for convenience, construction or propriety; 2nd, that all ornament should consist of the essential construction of the building.' These two principles would influence the succeeding Arts and Crafts Movement, and eventually led to freely composed asymmetrical buildings. 'Architectural features are continually tacked on buildings which they have no connection, merely for the sake of what is termed effect; and ornaments are actually constructed, instead of forming the decoration of construction, to which in good taste they should always be subservient.'”

“Another of his doctrines was ‘fidelity to place’, and it too was adopted by the Arts and Crafts movement. It argued that environmental factors were responsible for a given areas architectural traditions and styles. To create a truly sympathetic design one must embrace those naturally evolved regional traditions along with the materials naturally found in the area.”

[DMoriarty]

Wayne,

You are correct that neither I nor anyone else has answered the questions you want answered.  I dont think you will ever get answers that satisfy you.  

That being said, perhaps you should consider whether you are even asking the right questions.  For example, you ask for "cause and effect."   I have no idea what "cause and effect" would look like in this situation.   I am not trying to prove a causal chain, but rather inquiring as to whether GCA should be considered part of a broader artistic movement.  Your other questions are equally confusing.  

Maybe we all ought to step back and try to figure out just what kind of proof would be sufficient to lead us to include gca into the arts and crafts movement.  

As for Merion, I have no interest in pitting your vast knowledge of the courses against my meager knowledge.  Rather, I was throwing out some thoughts in the hopes that you would grasp the importance of returning to golf's roots to the AC theory.  

And let me assure you that neither TomM, nor town officials, nor anyone else has let any preciously guarded history about Merion to fall into my grubby little paws.  I certainly dont want to be the focal-point of another embarrassing information leak and subsequent witch-hunt.  

I was referring to the 9 hole course in Havertown.  This one . . .



As for the original Merion East I have seen a few photographs and read a few articles, but am sure you have much more information than me.  

As opposed to quizzing me on my qualifications to bring up what I hope isnt yet another sacred topic, why dont you tell me what you think of my comments.  Do they check out?  

Was East Merion more influenced by Links and Heathland courses, or by the numerous Philadelphia courses which had come before it, including the Haverford Merion?

Why did East Merion ultimately end up so different than what had been going on in Golf Design at the time?  Or did it?  

What did they figure out at Merion, that they hadnt yet figured out at some of the others?  

These arent rhetorical questions.  I dont know the answers and thought you might.  

As for the rest of your questions. you will have to pardon me, I dont have time to answer now.  

[TEPaul]

"The Arts and Crafts movement really began to take off around 1890, and lasted well into the 20thC. Morris's revolution touched much more than building architecture. His friend Phillip Webb was more intramental with architecture, who designed Morris's home Red House. Other than his own home, the most important act relating to architecture was creating the Society of the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) in 1877.

The A&C Movement reached its peek in the early 1900's, the same time golf architecture began to turn the corner."

I see, now it's around 1890 then? And is that when incipient "golf course architecture" which at that point was effiectively about a decade into its minimal existence and at that point not even an art form became aware of this "state of mind" or "vehicle" (the A/C Movement) that was influencing every social and aesthetic thought?

I suppose it has not yet occured to you that "disciplines" and "art forms" and various incipient artistic professions were developing simultaneously in this world without influencing one another.

Apparently, that's a concept you're incapbable of grasping.

[TEPaul]

"And let me assure you that neither TomM, nor town officials, nor anyone else has let any preciously guarded history about Merion to fall into my grubby little paws.  I certainly dont want to be the focal-point of another embarrassing information leak and subsequent witch-hunt."

Would you mind explaining what you mean by that. Moriarty?

Wayne, since the little gnat can't seem to face me why don't you ask him what he means by that? As for the rest of his questions about Merion East, don't answer them, tell him to buy the book.

[wsmorrison]

David M,

"That being said, perhaps you should consider whether you are even asking the right questions.  For example, you ask for "cause and effect."  I have no idea what "cause and effect" would look like in this situation.  I am not trying to prove a causal chain, but rather inquiring as to whether GCA should be considered part of a broader artistic movement.  Your other questions are equally confusing."

If you are seeking to determine if golf course architecture should be considered part of a broad artistic movement, go for it.  Did golf course architecture influence the movement or did the movement influence the architecture?  I'd say neither unless further evidence comes to light.  As for what would constitute cause and effect, it is very simple, really.  An example of cause and effect would be if any one of a number of classic era architects said "My golf architecture was influenced by the Arts and Crafts movement."  Why is the concept of cause and effect so difficult to understand?  I know it has yet to be produced.  You yourself admit that the question has not been answered.  

"And let me assure you that neither TomM, nor town officials, nor anyone else has let any preciously guarded history about Merion to fall into my grubby little paws.  I certainly dont want to be the focal-point of another embarrassing information leak and subsequent witch-hunt."

I did not for once think that Tom MacWood divulged any information I shared with him (and he shared with me).  I merely postulated that that was the only way you could possibly know the more complete architectural history of Merion.

Merion East evolved over some 25 or so years.  The changes from 1912 to 1934 were very dramatic.  You say it is due to the influence of the Arts and Crafts movement.  What makes you think so?  Surely it must be more than if it were so it would serve to prove your hypothesis.

"I was referring to the 9 hole course in Havertown."  

I know you meant Haverford.  The Merion course in Haverford opened for play with 9-holes in 1896 and was opened for play as 18-holes by 1900.

As for a critique of your comments, let me say that your notion that the course was altered due to the influence of the Arts and Crafts movement is highly suspect.  If you base your understanding of the Merion course in Haverford due to pictures like the one you posted, I think your characterization might need more support.  If it is accurate, it would be by due to accident rather than by research method.

"As opposed to quizzing me on my qualifications to bring up what I hope isnt yet another sacred topic, why dont you tell me what you think of my comments.  Do they check out?"

I don't know what you mean by sacred topic.  Who considers any of this sacred?  Not I.  If you made the comments, surely you must have figured out whether they check out or not.  I suppose to you they do.

"Was East Merion more influenced by Links and Heathland courses, or by the numerous Philadelphia courses which had come before it, including the Haverford Merion?"

"Why did East Merion ultimately end up so different than what had been going on in Golf Design at the time?  Or did it?"

Any influence on Merion East was due to Hugh Wilson, William Flynn and to a lesser degree Joe Valentine.  Only Wilson went overseas to study courses in the UK.  Flynn was never there. None of these men cited the Arts and Crafts movement as inspiring their work or the changes to Merion.  Flynn believed strongly in naturalism (as evidenced by his work on the ground and his writings) and I think the evolution of the course bears this out.  What you fail to grasp is that this can be a result independent of some arts movement no matter how pervasive you like to think of it.  The attribution that you and Tom alledge requires a far higher degree of proof.

"What did they figure out at Merion, that they hadnt yet figured out at some of the others?"

I have no idea what you mean.

"As for the rest of your questions. you will have to pardon me, I dont have time to answer now."

There is no need for you to answer them now or later. As for the remainder of your questions, they will be found in the Flynn book likely on your nearest bookstore shelves this time next year.

[T_MacWood]

From Tom MacWood;

"There was not 'huge doses religiosity' attached to the movement, in fact just the opposite. Pugin was a devout Roman Catholic; neither Ruskin nor Morris (the leader of the movement) shared his views."

Tom MacWood:

I see. Perhaps I should not have used the word  “huge” (doses of religiosity), perhaps I should’ve said “doses of religiosity” but according to your essay and your portrayal of Pugin, clearly religiosity, according to what you wrote, was a big part of his motivation in the art form of architecture (otherwise why did you mention it as you did?) that lead him to be one of the three creators (as you said) of the A/C Movment. In your essay you present ONLY three men that you call “The Reformers” that you claim created the “Arts and Crafts” Movement. That’s what you wrote in the Five Part “Arts and Crafts” article.

Are you denying that now or would you just like to minimize it as you did “Father” to “Guide” for HH?  According to you they were Pugin, Rushkin and Morris. You established in your essay that a big part of Pugin’s motivation was his conversion to Catholicism and his consequent strong belief that “Classical” architecture was ‘pagan’ and Catholic “Gothic” architecture the style he strongly promoted. The following quote from your essay supports that. Here again is what you said to me above:

“There was not 'huge doses religiosity' attached to the movement, in fact just the opposite. Pugin was a devout Roman Catholic; neither Ruskin nor Morris (the leader of the movement) shared his views.”

So, Tom, what do we have now---one of the three creators of the A/C Movement, Pugin, who imbues the A/C Movement with his religious/architectural zeal and two others who created the Arts and Crafts Movement with him who, as you say, did not share his views? Is this Movement now a one out of three philosophy or a two out of three philosophy? I guess it would have to be one of the other because if it’s neither, in your opinion, you sure as shootin’ did not portray the creators, the creation, and the philosophy of the A/C Movement very well in your essay.

From Part II of your essay on Pugin;

“Pugin believed that beauty should grow from necessity, that there were two great rules for design, '1st, that there should be no features about a building, which are not necessary for convenience, construction or propriety; 2nd, that all ornament should consist of the essential construction of the building.' These two principles would influence the succeeding Arts and Crafts Movement, and eventually led to freely composed asymmetrical buildings. 'Architectural features are continually tacked on buildings which they have no connection, merely for the sake of what is termed effect; and ornaments are actually constructed, instead of forming the decoration of construction, to which in good taste they should always be subservient.'”

“Another of his doctrines was ‘fidelity to place’, and it too was adopted by the Arts and Crafts movement. It argued that environmental factors were responsible for a given areas architectural traditions and styles. To create a truly sympathetic design one must embrace those naturally evolved regional traditions along with the materials naturally found in the area.”

TE
Is your A&C movement knowledge limited to what you've read in my essay. Do you see in any of those quotes above that Pugin's religious devotion influenced Ruskin and Morris and the A&C movement? IMO it is important to explore what influenced these men in order to understand them better. A number of the Greek philosphers enjoyed little boys, does that mean their followers also...bad example.

[T_MacWood]

I suppose it has not yet occured to you that "disciplines" and "art forms" and various incipient artistic professions were developing simultaneously in this world without influencing one another.

TE
Are you saying the diverse artists of the A&C movement did not interact with one another? The arts and crafts of the period were in most homes of  the upper-middle class on up. The designs were in the magazines they read. The aesthetic ideas where in the schools they attended. It was a unique period of heightened aesthetics.

I get the impression you are struggling to understand the period.

[wsmorrison]

"The book refrains from any criticism or critical analysis."

That is incorrect.  

On page 76 Hutchinson writes about the Meyrick Park course,

"It is true that the Meyrick Park course is not a long one, nor one fitted, perhaps, to suit the play of high-class amateurs or professionals, for its entire length of eighteen holes only reaches two and a quarter miles.  But Tom Dunn has made the most of every inch of ground at his disposal, and he has placed the hazards with such care and discrimination that while the carries are not long off the tees, they are sufficiently arduous for the moderate driver, the beginner, youth, and ladies...It is essentially a green, however, on which any player is bound to improve his iron play, for the putting-greens are so placed, and the hazards guarding them so arranged, that sure and accurate lofting is the only means whereby a creditable score may be attained.  The long course (eighteen holes) throughout is one hundred yards wide, and has natural and picturesque borders of heather and furze.  The majority of the holes are very sporting in character.  The first is a cleek shot from the tee, perched high in front of the pavillion, down to a putting-green lying beyond a ditch in the valley below..."

Hutchinson then goes on to describe the third, sixth, seventh, ninth, fifteenth holes.  I'd say it is clear Hutchinson is talking about the architecture and character of the course.


As another example, on pg. 140 of British Golf Links Hutchinson writes,

"...at the present moment Eltham justly ranks amongst the best inland courses extant.

The links cover an area of about 120 acres, all strictly private, and the course is admirably laid out, each hole having a distinct character of its own.  The hazards consist of sand bunkers, ditches, etc., judiciously placed to reward the good and punish the evil-doer, and there is an absence of crossing.  The "lies" throughout the course are excellent, and the putting greens large and true...The first tee is within forty yards of the clubhouse, and the last green is the beautiful and undulating lawn before the south front of same.  The holes in length are..." and goes on to show the yardage of each hole on the 5016 yard course.

Look at the photos of this course.  One could hardly think Hutchinson's lofty opinion of a course with such geometric features would be a movement towards naturalism inspired by the Arts and Crafts movement.

Don't you think the writings do contain some measure of criticism and critical analysis?  

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
No, definitely not critical. It reads like a fluff article in Links magazine. Pick up Golf Architecture Magazine Volume7, there is an article on criticism.

[Bob_Huntley]

I suppose it has not yet occured to you that "disciplines" and "art forms" and various incipient artistic professions were developing simultaneously in this world without influencing one another.

TE
Are you saying the diverse artists of the A&C movement did not interact with one another? The arts and crafts of the period were in most homes of  the upper-middle class on up. The designs were in the magazines they read. The aesthetic ideas where in the schools they attended. It was a unique period of heightened aesthetics.

I get the impression you are struggling to understand the period.

Tom,

I am afraid that your statement that "The arts and crafts of the period were in the homes of the upper middle class on up" is not universally true.

The idea that many of the upper classes rushed to join the movement is just not on. I am reminded of a neighbor of one of my uncles, a frightful snob, who declared of another neighbor advocating the call of the A&C movement..." The fellow can't shoot straight and buys his own furniture."  This, the most frightful put-down.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"TE
Are you saying the diverse artists of the A&C movement did not interact with one another? The arts and crafts of the period were the homes of  the upper-middle class on up. The designs were in the magazines they read. The ideas where in the schools they attended. It was a unique period of heightened aesthetics."

No Tom, that is not what I'm saying.

You just said 'The diverse artists of the A&C Movement'!! Aren't you getting a bit ahead of yourself and a bit ahead of your argument and your premise in an historical context? Do you actually think that some of us are accepting of your premise that all the social and aesthetic thought of that time was a result of the Arts and Crafts Movement or even influenced by it? Or for that matter even aware of it???

Do you actually think we are accepting of your premise that the best of the early architects, Findlay, Park, Leeds, Emmett, Ross,  Bendelow, Travis, Macdonald, Thomas, Tillinghast, Wilson, Fownes, Crump, Flynn, Raynor, Behr, Maxwell, Mackenzie, Banks, Bell, Hunter, Egan, Strong, Langford, Thompson were what could even remotely be called 'the diverse artists of the A/C Movement'

That's what you seem to be saying here. That's what you've always said regarding the A/C Movement and its connection and influence on Golden Age golf architecture---its influence, its importance, its pervasiveness is a given to you. Well, it is not a given. And that's precisely what's wrong with your entire conclusion of your A/C Movement essay. Your first assumption and your premise that these people and what they were doing were some part of the A/C Movement is not a given at all.

They were not the 'diverse artists of the A/C Movement', as you say. And it most certainly was not because the A/C Movement had not been given a name or whatever else remotely like that stupid rationalization you might give us next. If they had been all part of 'the diverse artists of the A/C Movement', at least some of them most certainly would've said something about it. No one ever mentioned it and there's a very good reason for that---and that is it wasn't their influence, certainly not a significant one. They spoke about their influences, and wrote about them---it can't be missed in the literature and chronicles they wrote on the history and evolution of golf course architecture.

In my opinion, your conclusion on the A/C Movement's influence on golf course architecture is bankrupt and I think that's being proven here.

You say the surface of the history of golf course architecture has not yet even been scratched!? That too is preposterous, Tom MacWood. You obviously say something like that because you think you and your research is going to turn up some massive historical find regarding golf architecture's history. I say, that's not going to happen, not from you or probably anyone. Golf architecture's history is in its books on its history. It's up to us to read them and reread them. And if you think you're going to revise them, you're wrong.

[T_MacWood]

I am afraid that your statement that "The arts and crafts of the period were in the homes of the upper middle class on up" is not universally true.

The idea that many of the upper classes rushed to join the movement is just not on. I am reminded of a neighbor of one of my uncles, a frightful snob, who declared of another neighbor advocating the call of the A&C movement..." The fellow can't shoot straight and buys his own furniture."  This, the most frightful put-down.

Bob
Little 'a', little 'c'. I'm sure your uncles had A&C objects within their homes: something (carpet, wallpaper, furniture, etc) from Morris & Co, Liberty or Heal & Sons or perhaps a garden inspired by Jekyll.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()