What is it that eventually gets some holes and some courses and some architecture to that point where no one thinks to change them? Perhaps even to the point where no one would ever dare to?
Max Behr talked about this general concept to some extent---his philosophy became known as "Permanent Architecture".
Behr talked about that concept and philosophy in two distinct ways---eg what it took to actually construct something that would withstand the forces of Nature (his tag-line in this way was that one should both analyze and imitate landform structures that had the greatest chance of withstanding the evolutionary ravages of Nature's ways, particularly the flow of water and also wind).
But his other point was one of an eventual appreciation that led to permenancy of architecture. His thought, generally, was that if an architect made something man-made that looked natural enough instead of clearly artificial, golfers generally would subconsciously or consciously accept it, where they would tend not to do that if they suspected something that tripped them up was the creation of another man (architect)
What are some of the ways some golf architecture gets to that point?
Both MacKenzie and Macdonald said that eventual level of appreciation actually required a certain amount and a certain type of controversy.
That seems a bit counterintuitive but it seems to be absolutely true, as the examples of that around the world and over time seem to prove them right.
But how so, exactly?
If you stand a dozen people shoulder to shoulder in front of a beautiful American elm in the middle of a beautiful field (no golf course), are they really seeing the same thing? Would they see the same thing if you merely put golf clubs in their hands?
