First, let's kill all the architects?

[Mike_Cirba]

Perhaps it's only me but I can't help but wonder reading a few of the recent threads if we aren't our own worst enemy at times.  Personally, I think we should be encouraging more architects to join this site and the few who do contribute here offer more of value than many of us could do collectively on our best days.  

I think there's nothing wrong in the least with criticizing any or all of an architect's "work", if we provide something of substance, or at least take the time and effort to defend a scathing opinion with some evidence or thoughtful rationale.

Humor is also a good way to do it, as satire works wonderfully at times to make a larger point.  I think the best architects tend to want to hear valid criticism of their work, and even possibly learn something themselves.  If an architect also wants to use this site for greater exposure, marketing, and public relations purposes, that's fine too and it's their right, although I think most can see it for what it is and take it with the proverbial grain of salt.  It's a tough business in a shrinking market and if they're willing to spend their time here to discuss golf courses, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to also point out what they're doing, where they're working, and even blow their own trumpet on occasion.  

However, we now seem to be crossing that fine line again that gets into personalities, motivations, and other axe-to-grind type issues that frankly give credence to the idea that GCA is simply a bunch of purist nutcases without anything valid to contribute to the art but to argue minituae ad infinitum, or miss the larger picture by focusing on the trees.

I know if I were in the business I'd likely view bemused from afar, simply because I wouldn't want to spend my billable hours defending myself on a personal level against broadsides coming across the websphere.  A serious, thoughtful, and critical discussion of my work, on the other hand, would likely draw me in like a moth to a flame.

I'm all for rousing, even harsh criticsm, but let's keep it about the work...not the personalities.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Well said Mike. I am just glad some group other than attorneys is used with a phrase like kill them for sport.

[Andy Troeger]

Mike,
  I agree...well said. Serious, thoughtful, and critical discussion is very much the point here I think.

[Kevin Edwards]

Mike

Do you really think that many contributors actually speak their mind on here or are more then a few inhibited for fear of being chastised for what they really think? Are some things better left unsaid and do some toe the party line to join the GCA "in-crowd"?

Are (some) architects immune to criticism?

[Joe Hancock]

I'm inhibited.

Joe

[Tim Pitner]

Mike

Do you really think that many contributors actually speak their mind on here or are more then a few inhibited for fear of being chastised for what they really think? Are some things better left unsaid and do some toe the party line to join the GCA "in-crowd"?

Are (some) architects immune to criticism?

If people are inhibited from criticizing some architects, that's their own fault.  Show some gumption.  If people are reluctant to criticize because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them (re: access), well, again, that's their own fault.  I don't agree with them very often, but, on some level, you have to respect the Matt Wards and John Kavanaughs on here because they will speak their minds.  Why would anyone feel inhibited?--it's only a discussion forum, for crissakes.  

I suppose the architects that people claim are favored here are Coore & Crenshaw and Doak.  Well, guess what, they're pretty damned good architects, although not infallible.  One reason they may not be criticized as much is that, IMO, there's less to criticize.  So, rather than cry favoritism, why doesn't someone lay out their case, if they have one to make.

[cary lichtenstein]

Please explain to me what purpose it serves to criticise the architects here? Does the treehouse critiquers think it will cause them to do better work, or are they just really being nasty?

I have seen some pretty big spectrums of work by alot of architects, and without speaking with them directly, asking them what their assignment was, how influenental the developer, who wanted the waterfall, were you in favor of it, what you you have done differently if given a totally free hand, what real basis does one have for all this criticism.

Granted, when you have someone like Arthur Hills, who has a very big body of work and hasn't produced anything special, I would agree that his work is not good.

But why bother to criticize him, he is laughing all the way to the bank and he is not going to change a thing.

[Andy Troeger]

Cary,
  Constructive criticism (and the first word there is key) can be useful based on my experience in other areas. There's always ways to improve or do something different, but the problem is that in order to provide constructive criticism that is actually helpful, the person doing the criticizing better know a heck of a lot about the subject.  
   Other criticism does just have the "nasty" element you mentioned...whether intentional or not.
   
 

[Jay Flemma]

You are absolutely right!  Thank you Mike.  "Eckstein" is nothing more then a troublemaking troll.  Lets not be defined by our bad seeds.

Reasonable, gentlemenly discussion is fine.  If someone questions someone's work...there is nothing wrong with fair comment and discussion.

There is one simple rule - (It's like that new commercial "I PROPOSE A NEW "MAN-LAW.")

Here's my man-law - dont say anything here you wouldn't say to the same person if you were face to face over dinner with a table full of GCAers.

Does the Man law pass muster?

If not, how bout "You poke it, you own it?"

And look!  Bettis is over there on the side nodding  

***for those of you without TV, bettis is actually in the "Man Law" commercials***

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike

Do you really think that many contributors actually speak their mind on here or are more then a few inhibited for fear of being chastised for what they really think? Are some things better left unsaid and do some toe the party line to join the GCA "in-crowd"?

Are (some) architects immune to criticism?

Kevin,

That's a fair question and I've voiced some of the same criticism of that sort of unquestioning group-think here before, as well.

If Tom Doak, and Coore & Crenshaw, Mike DeVries, Gil Hanse and some others are getting general plaudits here, there's one very good reason for that; they're doing some exceptional and groundbreaking work in many cases.  However, the situation gets sticky when each new course they open is instantly hailed and not a word of critical analysis or thought is expressed, and that's happened here.  

For example, I've had a few folks express to me privately that a brand new course by a "most favored" architect is perhaps a "6", at best.  Yet, on here you read about it and you'd think it was somewhere between Pine Valley and Cypress Point.  That's just intellectual dishonesty at some level, but you're right that some folks are afraid of losing access or ruffling feathers, or stating an opinion they might have to defend if challenged here.  

I'll give you a personal example.  A few years back I was new on GCA and very uncertain about my own architectural ideas in what was some heady company and a conversation started about the original Doak course at Stonewall.  I stated that although I really loved a lot of things about the course, I thought the par threes really weren't very good, particularly the 5th and the 17th.  Great fours and fives, but the threes ranged from awful (5th) to boring (17th).  Not really knowing at the time that Doak participated here, I was sort of stunned when he responded, telling me he was surprised because he thought they were among his best.  I had no choice but to tell him I didn't think the 5th worked as anything but a utterly penal dropshop cutesy postcard thing, and that the 17th was a long way to walk for such a mundane hole.  Before long we had a dialogue going and I learned some things about the routing and other property restrictions and perhaps Tom at least got the perspective of someone who was a "user" of his creations.  I still think the par threes are the achilles heel of that course and he probably still believes otherwise, but we at least were now perhaps learning some stuff we wouldn't have known otherwise.  Nice surprise, overall, and I relished the idea of such direct feedback and discourse, and the potential of that sort of communications vehicle is whatever we want to make of it, collectively.  That's why personal responsibility and accountability is important for each of us.

I think the best thing to do is just state your opinions truthfully, frankly, and boldly but I do like Jay Flemma's adage to not tell anyone anything that you wouldn't tell them after a few beers over dinner.

Plus, this place and some of the constant bickering grow weary over time.  I think we could have a lot more fun with it than we sometimes do.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Yes, please, someone just put me out of my misery.....

[David Kelly]

For example, I've had a few folks express to me privately that a brand new course by a "most favored" architect is perhaps a "6", at best.  Yet, on here you read about it and you'd think it was somewhere between Pine Valley and Cypress Point.  That's just intellectual dishonesty at some level,...

It would only be intellectually dishonest if the same people who expressed their views to you privately that it was a "6" at best were saying publicly on GCA.com that its was a somewhere between PV and CPC.  Is that what you are saying happened?

Otherwise maybe the people who posted on GCA.com actually believed what they were posting and had a different opinion from those you talked to privately.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Very true.  Sometimes, however, responses either get watered down or only the good is pointed out.

The bad is oft interred with the thread.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Someone mentioned access.  As long as we are talking about architects like moi promoting ourselves, lets not forget that many others have motivations for saying or not saying certain things. I have to think (and I could be wrong) that being a rater would certainly be one of them.  

Certainly, we would have to worry that any course critique we might publicly make could be stored on our "permanent record" and on file at the prestigious courses we love to play once in our life at others expense, no?

And lets not forget those who know this is the directest route to the 1500 people in the world who might buy a gca book........

BTW, one of my pet peeves here is those who are cowed into not posting an OPINION on what they like or think, fearing that a Tom Doak, or other gca or "more knowledgeable" person might make them look foolish.

I love the theoretical topics where one can expound, without it degenerating into a bash of a particular architect.  I realize its easier to say you like a certain hole better than a certain "concept."  And I realize that most gca types have elevated the BS level regarding "Deep thoughts" on gca to levels unseen anywhere outside the barnyard, which I think keeps some (not all by any stretch) from making valuble contributions.

[Jay Flemma]

Again, Mike...excellent, measured, reasonable and fair response.  Also, thank you for the props.  

Could someone explain something else?  I was under the impression people were not allowed to post here anonymously.  Suddenly we have Eckstein and everybody's favorite nickname "Skulled Wedge"

(by the way...isn't it "sculled"? or is he going for the old double entandre?")

Mike that would boost the "credibility and responsibility" you were talking about in your last...

[Joe Hancock]

Could someone explain something else?  I was under the impression people were not allowed to post here anonymously.  Suddenly we have Eckstein and everybody's favorite nickname "Skulled Wedge"

Jay,

My theory is that Eckstein is a long time poster using "Eckstein" as a smokescreen. "Eckstein" has posted for quite awhile. I think there is enough evidence in his posts that someone smarter than me could figure it out. He even (deliberately?) used all caps on one of his posts....clever.

Might it even be a moderator?

Tommy and Ran are the only ones I know are moderators, but I would bet there more than a couple more.

And, all this matters not in the grand scheme of things. Just one more publicity stunt.

Joe