Blowing Off The Natural

[Adam_F_Collins]

I have thought about bunkers as a form of abstract art. They are. The odd, amoeba-shaped white forms that cover so many Golf Courses are abstract representations of natural landforms.

In their most unnatural, or abstract form, golf courses begin to show their true nature, which is a carefully considered, maintained garden; designed for the purpose of playing a game, and enjoying the walk.

If one embraces the idea of abstraction, and controlled, landforms, one can consider "beauty" in a different light. Augusta, for instance, is beautiful, yet still quite far from natural.

I'm sure that this approach to GCA produces many wonderful playing experiences, as control and contrivance does not mean that an architect cannot or will not create features that provide play every bit as exciting as natural landforms. It's just that so many designers have been poor at it, that the idea of "manmade" carries negative connotations for many here.

What are some examples of unnatural, yet exciting golf course creations can we think of? Off the top of my head, Pete Dye comes to mind. Sawgrass is far from natural, yet seems well-liked. To me Whistling Straits looks quite contrived. I've mentioned AGNC already...

What are some of the best examples of "blowing off nature"? And who's the best at it?

[Paul Payne]

This is an interesting topic. I have always wondered what natural formation was the basis of the typical bunker shape we generally see repeated everywhere. Especially when they are executed on a flat surface.  

I have always thought of Tobacco Road as nature on steroids. It seems to be very natural but is really more surreal. Sand Hills on the other hand is about as natural as you can get.

Interestingly enough, I love both courses and compare them in my mind in similar ways. If you took the opening hole from SH and placed it on another course it could possibly seem so contrived as to get negative reviews. "impossible approach to an impossibly back to front sloping green"

In the end I think it comes down to the trick of the eye. If you can fool me into believing that what I am seeing flows naturally than I like it. If it seems abrupt and unnatural, than I may not like it. The key is, I will usually play better if I like it, and therefore will return or give the course high praise.

 

[Garland Bayley]

I have always found Tillinghast bunkers (at Black and Baltusrol for example) to be very unnatural looking, but oddly still very attractive.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Yes, this is exactly the very thing that gets me, Garland.

There are a lot of unnatural bunkers that are very appealing to me too. The MacKenzie bunker on number 10 at Augusta, for instance. It's wicked.

I often draw bunker shapes. (whacked as that may sound). And I often find many of the most abstract shapes to be very appealing. Think of the Road Bunker, or the Spectacles at Carnoustie - unnatural, yet extremely appealing in their own aesthetic way.

The bunkers on Bethpage's number 4...

[Adam_F_Collins]

The Church Pews at Oakmont...

[Kirk Gill]

All closely-mown grass looks unnatural to me. Admittedly, I've only seen Sand Hills from pictures, but those green fairways amongst all the naturally-occurring long grasses, and even the blowout bunkers don't look natural to me at all.

And it doesn't bother me one bit.

Man's interaction with nature, the way it works, the way it looks, is endlessly fascinating, and sometimes stirringly beautiful. I remember the first time I saw the Banff Springs Hotel, perched above its mountain valley, how gorgeously it fit into the spectacle, how it was able to enhance an already-beautiful landscape.

And I feel much the same way about many golf courses. There are courses like Sand hills, that seem to follow the lay of the land, trying to fit in (think Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater), while others (say, every desert golf course ever designed) play off the contrast with nature. Either way, it seems to me that beauty is to be had. Many links courses have rounded, sharp-edged bunkers (like the pictures of Hoylake from a recent thread) that I love, but these are probably less "natural" looking than the heathland bunkers overgrown with vegetation like some of those pictured on the Woodhall Spa thread (thanks, Mr. Schulte). Yet on that same course the hand of man is so very obvious around the greens...........

And I still fail to see a problem with that. If "Natural" is really what you're after as a golfer, head to some empty property, tee it up, and go for it. All golf courses that get regular play blow off nature to some degree, don't they?

[Adam_F_Collins]

All golf courses that get regular play blow off nature to some degree, don't they?

They certainly do, Kirk. And that fact has been discussed here before. But there is a strong contingent which believes that a golf course architect MUST or SHOULD work to hide their hand as much as possible, thus minimizing the appearance of the manmade landscape.

I'm wondering about examples where we find that manmade appearance desirable; even preferable. Where are great examples of embracing the abstract or contrived in Golf Course Architecture?

[Patrick_Mucci]

AFC,

Except for select sites, bunkers are unnatural.

Thus the bunkers at ANGC aren't any different, any less natural then the bunkers at NGLA, GCGC, Seminole and a myriad of other courses.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I agree, Patrick. This is why bunkers have evolved into an abstract form. They have been built for so long, in so many places that have no such sand "blow outs" occurring naturally, that they gradually took on entirely contrived forms.

So why fight it? Why not go with it? Many of the greatest characters in the world of bunkers are quite abstract, human creations.

[Patrick_Mucci]

AFC,

I'm agreeing with you in general.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Returning to the original question, where do we see good examples of architects embracing this abstraction, or "unnatural" approach to creating golf course challenges, in ways golfer find beautiful and enjoyable to play?

[Adam_F_Collins]

Anyone?