MacKenzie bunkering--over the top?

[Marty Bonnar]

Mike N--that USS Agammemnon drawing is very Art Nouveau.  Could it be that Tiffany rather than Morris was the aesthetic father of golden age archeticture?

Fellow Fifer,
Neither Tiffany nor Morris. The TRUE father of the golden age simply has to be one Norman Wilkinson.



As an idea for camouflage for the WWI 'Dazzle Ships', Mr Wilkinson had the remarkable idea of utilising the rigid geometries of Cubist Art as a method of confusing the eye by blurring the edges of objects and thus rendering them difficult to 'range'.
Golf Course Architecture in a nutshell, might I postulate...

FBD.

PS Excellent short article on the 'Dazzle Ships' and more photos:

http://www.gotouring.com/razzledazzle/articles/dazzle.html

[T_MacWood]

How could you torpedo that striking work of art? Thanks for the color rendition. Like I've always said it was a period of extraordinary creativity.

[Philippe Binette]

One thing about the bunkers at Kingston Heath, which in my mind are the best I've seen by far, very far...
There's definitely a Mackenzie input and design in it, but it's also the fruit on 70 years of knowledgeable maintenance.

[ForkaB]

Many thanks, Martin

That "Dazzle" art reminds me of Escher.  Maybe HE was the father of the Golden Age.....

[Adam_F_Collins]

This is an interesting thread.

It seems to revolve largely around the appearance of 'natural' and what that looks like.

Some architects do an excellent job of artificially constructin features that truly appear as if they were created by the wind and weather. Others, such as MacKenzie had the rare ability to create completely unnatural elements which still seem natural in their environments. I find this point to be extremely interesting: How some people are/were able to create man-made structures that fit in in such a way which might remind us that WE are natural.

To me, looking at the bunkers of Kingston Heath is like looking at honey comb or the wax work of bees. NOT that they are similar in form, but rather in the impression they give. They didn't just 'happen', but were created by a creature of nature. They are both 'otherworldly' and completely suited to their environments.

MacKenzie had a gift for making the unnatural - natural. That is one reason why he was so great as a designer. He could go beyond nature by tapping into his own nature and connecting it with ours.

[TEPaul]

The "Razzle Dazzle" article is an interesting one on the various applications of camouflage for different purposes.

As the article points out the "dazzle" paint did not make a ship more difficult to see on the water (actually the article said with airplanes it was easier to see), so camouflage techniques were not used for that purpose (to make the ship blend in visually with the water and sky).

What dazzle paint on a ship did is make it harder to tell which direction the ship was moving in and that was necessary for torpedoeing "visual" targets. Why was it harder to tell the direction the ship was moving in? Because with "dazzle" painting it's hard to tell the bow from the stern.

I'm not much of a sailor but this reminded me of something a good sailor friend of mine pointed out years ago when we were sailing off Martha's Vineyard, Mass. There was another boat a couple of thousand yards from us that was semi-framed by a small island behind it. Since we were headed toward this boat (as a torpedo would be) he pointed out that the boat appeared stationary in relation to the island.  He said if the island was moving towards the stern of the boat that meant when we got to the boat we would pass its stern. He said if the island appeared to be moving towards the boat's bow that meant when we got to it we would pass its bow, but if the boat was not moving at all in relation to the island that meant we were basically on a collision course with the boat.

And then of course if there was nothing out there to gauge the movement of the boat off of (the island) it would be very hard to tell our course relative to the boat.

And with visual spotting for torpedo aiming if there's nothing relative to the "dazzle" ship and it's also hard to figure out visually which end is the bow or stern (due to the dazzle paint) then it makes it that much harder to hit it with a torpedo or even to figure out which direction the ship is going. Fortunately or unfortunately in WW2 radar and sonar changed all this, and dazzle paint on ships became ineffective and unnecessary.

This is an interesting application (dazzle painting) of camouflage for WW1 naval matters but I don't see it could have any effective application to golf course architecture. That is not unless Mackenzie created bunkers that moved!  

[T_MacWood]

Another example of aesthetic fashion crossing over from one field into another (cubism). The two Fifers (with the help of Mike N. and others) have stumbled upon this interesting inter-relationship of disciplines.



The clouds are very MacKenzie-esque.

[TEPaul]

"Another example of aesthetic fashion crossing over from one field into another. The two Fifers (with the help of Mike N. and others) have stumbled upon this interesting inter-relationship of disciplines."

On this website I don't think anyone denies the interrelationship of some art disciplines with golf architecture. In the medium of the illustration above I see an interrelationship of golf course architecture with naturalistic landscape art. This is obviously why Golden Age architects such as C.B. Macdonald and Max Behr mentioned in writing an early English landscape designer such as Humphrey Repton's art discipline as having similar "principles" to golf course architecture.  

[T_MacWood]

TE
Another very good example of the crossover (Repton). How are your essays coming?

[Marty Bonnar]

Tom M,
many thanks for the lovely Railway Poster above. I shall assume you KNEW that it was executed by the same Norman Wilkinson and that this is not just another example of GCA synchronicity at work!

FBD.

[T_MacWood]

Martin
That wasn't my objective in posting the poster, but who knows...stranger things have happened...keep an open mind.

[TEPaul]

“TE
Another very good example of the crossover (Repton)."

Tom MacWood:

Definitely. Perhaps the best example of a design discipline "crossover" to golf course architecture. Apparently Behr and Macdonald thought so.


"How are your essays coming?"

Thanks for asking but figuratively speaking I'd say they are still in the garage. But since I asked you to collaborate on an essay on Victorian golf for the Victorian Web, I would be happy to ask you if you think steeplechase course construction or cross country course construction was a design discipline in the Victorian era?

The reason I ask is here’s what Bernie Darwin had to say about Victorian golf architecture:

“'The laying out of courses used once to be a rather a rule-of-thumb business done by rather simple-minded and unimaginative people who did not go far beyond hills to drive over, hollows for putting greens and, generally speaking, holes formed on the model of a steeplechase course.'

Do you think BernieD meant-----

A/ That Victorian golf architecture’s holes were formed on the model of a steeplechase course?
B/ That even simple-minded and unimaginative people have feelings too and are capable of being artists?
C/ BernieD was joking?
D/ BernieD was full of shit and needed to consult “The Guide” or Country Life magazine to see the way, the truth and the light?

[ForkaB]

Another example of aesthetic fashion crossing over from one field into another (cubism). The two Fifers (with the help of Mike N. and others) have stumbled upon this interesting inter-relationship of disciplines.



The clouds are very MacKenzie-esque.

Fantastic camouflage on that battleship in the background!  I think it was H.M.S. Giant's Causeway, but I could be wrong......

[T_MacWood]

E. Darwin thought it was humorous (and a little pathetic) that Victorian golf courses resembled Steeplechase courses.  

Regarding the Victorian essay, we should first come up with and agree upon a general outline. Based upon the agreed outline we can each take a part of it to work on. We'll then give that work to other for editing and adjusting before putting it all back together....and viola.

I. The origins of the game, early golf history, the first links courses

II. Victorian society (economic and social aspects) and the role of sport, and in particular the growing popularity of golf in the latter part of the century.

III. Victorian golf architecture: the architects (loose term in this case), the background of these men, specific examples of Victorian courses and the defining characteristics of those courses.

IV. The influenes behind Victorian golf architecture, and its ultimate demise.

[T_MacWood]

Not only is that ship in the background brilliantly camouflaged....I believe I see a Boer's head peaking out in the foreground. Boer's head...don't they produce high-quality cold cuts?

[ForkaB]

When I was in the Army we used to drink Boar's Head Apple Wine.  It was about $0.89/bottle.  Mmmmmm.  Finger lickin' good.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale, SPDB, et. al.,

Posting aerial photos of a bunker or bunkers isn't relevant.

The only relevant view of a bunker is from the "golfers" eyes.

It's the architectural presentation that the golfer observes, that influences his play, and the only presentation that is relevant. That's the view that manifests the architect's intent.

In the question you posed, answers should be in the context of the views from the golfers eyes, and not from the Goodyear Blimp.
 

[ForkaB]

Pat

Nobody has been talking about aerial views of bunkers on this thread.  Why are you?

[TEPaul]

"E. Darwin thought it was humorous (and a little pathetic) that Victorian golf courses resembled Steeplechase courses."

Tom MacWood:

A week or so ago you said something to the effect you suspected Darwin was being humorous about that steeplechase model remark. Now you seem to be saying that Darwin definitely did think it was humorous (and now even a little pathetic).

Tom, let me ask you, where are you coming up with this stuff? How can you intuit from a remark like that that Darwin was being humorous?  Are you going to tell me again because he also said some mounds on "Victorian" golf courses looked like dog cemetaries? That would certainly make sense if they just covered up a dead dog with a pile of dirt in the Victorian Age which they probably did do. What was the alternative---to burn the miserable mutt?  

I think Darwin was completely serious with his remark about the "steeplechase model" for Victorian golf architecture for the simply reason it's completely obvious to anyone who looks at both that things like rectangular steeplechase pits in front of steeplechase earthen berms looked practically identical to rectangular cop bunkers with earthen berms in front of them.

And since they do look practically identical I'm not too sure why you're having such a hard time understanding that and accepting it and understanding that Darwin most likely was not joking about it.

Well, strike that, I am quite sure why you're having a hard time accepting it.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

A fairly useful looking outline.

[TEPaul]

"Posting aerial photos of a bunker or bunkers isn't relevant.
The only relevant view of a bunker is from the "golfers" eyes."

Patrick:

I guess it's gotten back to me needing to teach you some of the most fundamental things about this subject. We went over this about five years ago.

An aerial of bunkering most certainly is relevent---it's a whole lot easier to pick up the length and width dimensions of bunkering from the air compared to the eye-level ground view.

The height dimension (verticality) is almost completely picked up from the on-ground eye level view. The height dimension is very hard to pick up from the air. Some try to estimate it by using shadows but that's hit and miss for a couple of obvious reasons.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

Nobody has been talking about aerial views of bunkers on this thread.  Why are you?

Reply # 5 was presented in the context of aerial photos so I thought it necessary to dismiss those as nonrepresentative of what the architect intended the golfer to see and encounter, and to make sure that your question wasn't viewed from the sky versus the ground.

P.S.  I held back on the green, just for you.

TEPaul,

In 1911 or 1928 architects didn't design for the benefit of birds eye views.

There sole concern was with the golfers view.

This is especially important when you consider Dr M's fascination with and use of camoflage.

In the context of a discussion regarding going "over the top" one has to confine his evaluation to what the golfer, not the albatross sees, hence aerial photography is useless in this exercise.

If Dr M didn't want you to know the width or depth of a bunker, then his presentation didn't provide that information, by design.

You have so much to learn and I only have so much time to devote to your education.[/color]

[ForkaB]

Pat

Nobody has been talking about aerial views of bunkers on this thread.  Why are you?

Reply # 5 was presented in the context of aerial photos so I thought it necessary to dismiss those as nonrepresentative of what the architect intended the golfer to see and encounter, and to make sure that your question wasn't viewed from the sky versus the ground.

P.S.  I held back on the green, just for you.

Post 5 was Sean's.  My post #1 was referring to eye level photos only.  I do, however, agree somewhat with TEP that aerial photographs can be useful, if only to show how much you can be fooled at ground level.

PS--thanks for laying off of the green.  Fast and firm brown would do nicely in the future, if you don't mind.

[T_MacWood]

A week or so ago you said something to the effect you suspected Darwin was being humorous about that steeplechase model remark. Now you seem to be saying that Darwin definitely did think it was humorous (and now even a little pathetic).

Tom, let me ask you, where are you coming up with this stuff? How can you intuit from a remark like that that Darwin was being humorous?

Based upon the hundreds of Darwin articles I have read (incuding many on the subject of Victorian design), and the context of those specific remarks.

[TEPaul]

"Based upon the hundreds of Darwin articles I have read (incuding many on the subject of Victorian design), and the context of those specific remarks."

Oh horseshit! That's a total non-answer if I've ever seen one! Half the time your answer to questions about how you can justify the things you say and the premises you come up with on here is nothing more than; "because I've read so much" (implying the rest of us haven't).

Those kinds of responses aren't answers--certainly not intelligent and explanatory answers. If you're going to be credible on this forum with some of the theses you come up with I think you'll have to do a lot better than defending or supporting what you say with "because I've read so much".