[T_MacWood]

Nice, another quote from a politician dismissing his critics.

[Patrick_Mucci]

[size=8x]

WITHOUT CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM

PROGRESS IS IMPOSSIBLE[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Gary Daughters]

Say again, Pat?

[RJ_Daley]

I think Brad Klein's post (more of an essay) above, may be one of the most meaningful and well explained views of the critics role and ethic that I have seen, this side of Plato describing Socretes trial.  

I'm no great student of the classic works of Plato and barely remember the specifics of the Greek commentators.  But, I do recognise the age old theme to these discussions of a critics role, and the paradigm of the hoi polloi, which at first is guided by an ideal espoused or challenged by a radical or questioning philosopher or leader, then becomes a bit of conventional wisdom of the hoi polloi through acceptance of some basic contemporary truth, only to become a stagnant and pedantic dogma used by demagogue to knock the next radical thinker out of the box.

The key to good criticism in my mind is the ability to shift paradigm in order to keep learning... (as described by Klein above):

The larger point of this thread that Jeff Brauer started is very important. The real question here is whether critics, in the course of educating their readers about their own judgments, are obliged in the process to keep learning.

Socretes would know the questions to that answer...  

[JWL]

Brad Klein
I always enjoy reading your discourses, and this one was no different.   I was even agreeing with it as I read it, and lo and behold, you brought up my name in disagreement.   This is due probably because my post was on a superficial level while yours was considerable more thoughtful.   I wasn't necessarily speaking of those that write critical essays, as you have mentioned, but more of those that criticize without reason.
My comment was directed at those that often negatively criticize a course/hole because that is easier to do than analyze the reason why that particular course/hole didn't meet up to the standards of the critic.   Some architects get a pass with the same design "problem".
I am in agreement with TEP on the "big tent" philosophy.   There are all kinds of courses enjoyed by all kinds of players, and, imho, that is what golf is all about.
Certainly there are magnificent golf course designs that usually are a result of unique golf course sites.   Sometime, a really nice course is designed on an average piece of land, and those are the ones that really show off a designer's ability.   I know a couple of the courses that I am most proud of working on, are ones that GCA readers would probably not think very highly of, but I know what awful sites they were in the beginning, and I know all the hurdles that had to be cleared to even get a course, much less one, of which, hosts a Champion's Tour Major.   That is OK with me.   I know what is involved in designing special courses, and I am learning more everyday.

My point is that there are critics that base their opinions on something less than the knowledge of what it took to get a course/hole designed and constructed.  It is just easier to be critical than to have an original thought about how it "could" be done before the fact.   That is what design is...envisioning.    I never shy away from hearing "constructive criticism" as Mr. Mucci points out.  There is often so much more that the critic never knows of when he only sees the finished product, and I welcome the opportunity to explain the why and why nots of the design.   But often the critic's opinion is solely based on what someone has written about what they are supposed to think.   There have even been some "seminars" that I believe you have been part of, that teach a person what is good and not good about a course/hole.   I wasn't at any of these, but correct me if I am wrong in that assessment.   So, I ask, who's opinion are they going to spouse when they leave the seminar, right or wrong.  Their own, that they have determined after considerable study on their own, or the seminar leader's opinion of what is good and isn't?  I have opinions also, and they are based on many years of study and practice.   Because I have seen most everything that can be seen in sites, construction etc. I try to be most respectful to other architects and their work, because I often do not know all they had to encounter, but I know they encountered plenty of hurdles.   While I might not agree with their set of principles in design, I do know this is a business, and compromise is often necessary.   I, as all the other critics of golf architecture, wish it weren't so.

[Gary Daughters]

Pat Mucci..

I still don't understand the large caps and the inherent histrionics in your post.  What is your point?  No one is saying that criticism is bad. Some of us might just prefer better criticism.  Just as we might prefer better GCA.  Surely you can comprehend that.

Here's Jeff's original question:  

Does a critic need to change his paradigm over time to stay fresh, just like a gca must to avoid stereotyped, repetitive designs?  

It's a good question.  Would you hazard an answer, or would you prefer to try to score points?  Your score so far: 0

Tom McW..

Too bad your least bloviating post of all time was also your least interesting.  But revealing nonetheless.  Maybe TEP and TR are right about you.

[T_MacWood]

I don't know what bloviating means. I'm all for critical exchanges in the arts, politics, business, etc. In my view critical review is healthy and trying to stiffle criticism or dismiss thoughtful critics is unhealthy.

Am I a player hater?

[Gary Daughters]

Tom:

Bloviating=fulminating ad naseum.

Your turn:  What's a player hater?

And who's the bigger "player," the GCA or the critic?

[T_MacWood]

I don't think the issue is who is bigger, the question is does golf architecture, the arts, politics, science and business benefit from critical thinking.

[Gary Daughters]

Who here is questioning that?

[T_MacWood]

Re-read your quote and the way he dismisses critics.

[Gary Daughters]

Tom..

In no way did I endorse the TR quote.  I flagged it to Jeff B. because it is the obvious antecedent to his tag line.  That's all.

But.. I don't think the sentiment is entirely without merit.  

Whose contribution do you think is more valuable.. the doer or the evaluator?  Reading Ron Whitten does give me enjoyment.  Playing my George Cobb muni, which Mr. Whitten might or might not dismiss, gives me more enjoyment.

[Gary Daughters]

Apologies in advance if the point is being belabored, but the tenor of some of the posts seems to suggest that GCA is open to critique (rightly so), but criticism itself is off limits.  Have I read that wrong?  Tom Mac?  Anyone?

Full disclosure:  I have written a handful of course reviews in my spare time and have been critical of exactly one course.  

[George Pazin]

Apologies in advance if the point is being belabored, but the tenor of some of the posts seems to suggest that GCA is open to critique (rightly so), but criticism itself is off limits.  Have I read that wrong?

Yes.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci..

I still don't understand the large caps and the inherent histrionics in your post.  What is your point?  No one is saying that criticism is bad. Some of us might just prefer better criticism.  Just as we might prefer better GCA.  Surely you can comprehend that.

Here's Jeff's original question:  

Does a critic need to change his paradigm over time to stay fresh, just like a gca must to avoid stereotyped, repetitive designs?  

It's a good question.  Would you hazard an answer, or would you prefer to try to score points?  Your score so far: 0


If you had ANY degree of reading comprehension, you would  have seen that I already answered Jeff's question.

Or, perhaps you don't understand the terminology, "enduring core values"[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()