Max Behr wrote in “Art in Golf Architecture”;
“So lovable was this adventure that man was not content to pursue it apart in its natural habitation, but must needs transport it to situations unaccommodating to its playing. But to transport it he had to commit a sacrilege---he had to analyze it, tear it to pieces the more easily to pack it in his mind. And, in so doing, he did not realize that what he carried away with him was the letter only, and that he left behind something intangible, that property of unsullied nature, innocent beauty undefiled as yet by the hand of man.
It was inevitable that the first review of links land golf should have engendered a type of architecture which disclosed a conscious adhesion to a formal order of things. It was not to be expected that the mind would immediately seize the sensual appeal of native golf. Hence, it was not considered in the construction of our first inland courses. The natural architecture of links land, passed through the sieve of the mind, came out utilitarian in aspect and mathematical in form.”
Tom MacWood said;
“It appears Max is saying the early architects saw golf architecture in a very formal, symmetrical, mathematic and orderly way. I would call that a classical approach or classical aesthetic, very similar to popular Victorian tastes.
He then goes on to say that eventually and gradually golf architects realized that those courses lacked naturalness and other qualities found on the links. He does not explain why this new approach or attitude came about. Maybe you see some explanation in there that I missed."
Tom MacWood:
You just said that you think the early architects saw golf architecture in a very formal, symmetrical, mathematical and orderly way. And you say you would call that a classical approach or classical aesthetic, very similar to popular Victorian tastes. OK, I understand your contention, I always have, and once again I almost totally disagree with it. And the following is why I disagree with your contention;
I most certainly do see some explanation in Max Behr’s article (that you just posted above) that I think you missed. I’ve said it a number of times on here but I guess you missed that too, so I’ll say it again..
The explanation in Behr’s article that I think you completely missed logically lies in the realities of that time in what was being required of golf architecture and architects of that time, what those requiring any semblance of golf architecture were willing to pay for it which as you can imagine relates directly to time involved. But more than that it more than logically lies in the fact of who Max Behr was referring to in that article.
For instance, look carefully at the very first line in Max Behr’s first paragraph above. “So lovable was this adventure that man was not content to pursue it apart in its natural habitation, but must needs (sic, needed?) to transport it to situations unaccommodating to its playing…….”
Who do you think Behr was talking about and referring to when he mentioned ‘man’ in that sentence and in the context he was explaining?
Do you think it was only the Tom Dunns, Willie Parks, Old Tom Morrises et al of that early time just after golf first migrated out of Scotland?
And look a bit more carefully. He mentions that ‘man’ was not content to pursue the game apart in its natural habitation. Then he says that ‘MAN’ needed, at that time, to transport it (golf) to situations unaccommodating to its playing.
Ok, Tom, now just ask yourself who do you suppose it sounds like Behr was referring to—ie ‘man’?
Does it sound like he was only referring to those original architects or “lay-out” specialist of that very early time after golf first migrated out of Scotland---eg the like of Willie and Jamie Dunn (of Musselburgh and Blackheath), Willie’s son Tom (Mussleburgh and later Wilmbledon), Charles Hunter (Prestwick), George Lowe (St Annes-on-the-Sea), Tom and George Morris (St Andrews), Douglas and Mungo Park (Mussleburgh), Douglas Roland (Elie and later Malvern), Archie Simpson (Royal Aberdeen) and David Strath (North Berwick)??
Does it sound like those were the people he was referring to who were not content to pursue the adventure (golf) in its natural habitation? How could it have been those early architects (named above) as the linksland WAS their natural habitation? It was their home, and by the way every single one of them had day job ss either a professional,greenskeeper, or teacher at the clubs mentioned behind their names
Does it sound like he was referring to those early architects who needed to transport golf to situations unaccommodating to its playing? How could it have been those early architects who needed to transport it elsewhere if they all came from the linksland of Scotland which was certainly not unaccommodating to its playing?
Where were they transporting the game to that was not their habitation if the game and they came from Scotland?
So, who was Behr referring to who did not have Scotland as their habitation and who felt the need to transport it elsewhere? (I have the unsettling feeling you may not understand what I’m saying or you’ll just deny all of it on principle to defend your unsupportable point about the A/C Movement).
So it he wasn’t referring to the Scottish architects whose habitation Scotland and the linksland WAS, and if he wasn’t referring to those early Scottish architects who didn’t need to transport the game out of Scotland because Scotland is where they and their game CAME FROM, then then who was Behr referring to?
Well, Tom MacWood who else could they be?
Could they have been those people who wanted to transport the game to courses in their “habitations’ OUTSIDE Scotland?
Could they have been those people we sometimes refer to as “clients” of those early architects?
Since you are remarkably slow on the uptake, let me stop here to see if you’ve followed this so far. Have you? Can you see where this is going? Can you even remotely see WHO it was that Behr was referring to----ie "MAN'?
Of course there’s more, a lot more.
Later I’ll try to lead you through WHY it may not have been those early SCOTTISH linksman architects who were as responsible for that early Victorian architecture, those steeplechase looking courses, that crap, as you think they were!
If you have a hard time understanding what I'm saying here you or anyone else could just read pgs 14-19 of Cornish and Whitten.
Perhaps you think Geoff Cornish and Ron Whitten are mistaken about the truth of the history and evolution or golf course architecture too. While the first section of "The Architects of Golf" is not particularly in depth, why don't you tell us where and how you feel they're mistaken in what they've reported about those early architects and the architecture of the so-called Victorian Age, not to mention why you think they're wrong about why the healthland architecture of Park happened when it did and where it did?