Architect bashing on this site....

[Jeff_Brauer]

So is over-the-top self-promotion..... (Not you Keff)

You're the moderator. You can boot me off if you think I am self promoting too much.  If anyone feels that way, then I will be glad to leave the site.

Tom said more briefly what I tried to say in three posts.  For another brief take, look at it this way -

If you don't think a magazine editor (other than National Inquirer) would allow your post to pass, change it until it does.

Or, if you are ashamed to show a post to your mother, change it until you are not.

None of my suggestions are for the benefit of the architects - they benefit the readers of this site and the posters themselves.  As a self disiplined Texas Aggie I know often says, "Have some respect for yourself."

Seriously, those who would post a rant or trashing will probably never understand the mindset of those who won't, and vice versa, so I consider this point moot for now.  Anyone want to talk architecture?

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: I couldn't agree with you more.  As a judge from Birmingham, Alabama once said to defense counsel in one of my cases: "Sir, you can ask your question but there's no need to get ugly about it."  

[paul cowley]

Hey guys....its a new and very nice day...and this is only a website.
But a website that suffers when it loses part of itself.

So Jeff...hang in here....and when it gets too tiring, just give me a nudge out of my stupor and I'll take a few swings for you.

....but I sure wish I had that Moran dude to stand back to back with.

[A.G._Crockett]

I have no problem with someone bashing my work here (or anyone else's) as long as they have specific points to make.  

A general bashing of someone's body of work is ridiculous, because no one has played more than a fraction of most architects' output.  You can say I've played these four of so-and-so's courses and I think they are rubbish and has he done any that anyone likes?  But to say it's all bad is silly.

Tom,
I think this is one of the key points in all of this, and it comes up often in one form or another here.  I think it raises some questions, and I'd love to hear your opinion, along with others, on each.

1. What portion of an architect's work must be seen in order to get a sense of the total?  A majority (50% + 1)?  More? Less?

2. If I've played four courses by the same guy and LOVED each, and consider him to be a favorite and a star in the profession, would THAT be valid?  

3. If the answer to #2 above is "yes" then would there be any difference in giving a GCA a negative review based on the opposite experiences?  Is more volume required for criticism than praise?

I do think that we cross a line here sometimes because this IS a discussion among a LARGE and diverse group of friends (at least in a sense).  As in any conversation among a large group of people, we sometimes raise our voices to make ourselves heard to the rest of the circle, and probably use language that we wouldn't outside the circle to create emphasis.  The problem comes when others outside the circle overhear.

I heard a great basketball coach say once that he always told his players that he wouldn't say anything worse ABOUT them than he would say TO them.  Not a bad rule for here, or for life, for that matter.

[JESII]

A.G.

Tom will certainly answer, but I think his intent with:

A general bashing of someone's body of work is ridiculous, because no one has played more than a fraction of most architects' output.  You can say I've played these four of so-and-so's courses and I think they are rubbish and has he done any that anyone likes?  But to say it's all bad is silly.

is similar to Mucci's position of "how can you comment on a course you have not seen?"

No problem praising or bashing based on direct experience, but to carry it across a body of work is irresponsible if you ask me...my position on here is how the bashing or praising is done. I don't think the architects on here need to be unreasonable praised any more than they dislike being unreasonably bashed, and I think the architects on here are extremely valuable...despite the occasional self-promotion.

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.

Tom will certainly answer, but I think his intent with:

A general bashing of someone's body of work is ridiculous, because no one has played more than a fraction of most architects' output.  You can say I've played these four of so-and-so's courses and I think they are rubbish and has he done any that anyone likes?  But to say it's all bad is silly.

is similar to Mucci's position of "how can you comment on a course you have not seen?"

No problem praising or bashing based on direct experience, but to carry it across a body of work is irresponsible if you ask me...my position on here is how the bashing or praising is done. I don't think the architects on here need to be unreasonable praised any more than they dislike being unreasonably bashed, and I think the architects on here are extremely valuable...despite the occasional self-promotion.

JesII,
My question is, at what point have I seen enough of the architect's work?  Patrick's point is a little different, and I agree with it.  Commenting on A COURSE without seeing it is tough to take seriously.  

But that is NOT the same issue as having seen 25%, or 50%, or 75% of the GCA's body of work and drawing conclusions about that body of work based on less than 100%.  How much is enough?  And, is there any difference between a positive evaluation and a negative evaluation in terms of how seriously it might be taken, along with the % of work that needs to be seen?

Note that I am asking this seriously.  I am curious as to what most feel the answer to be.

[JESII]

AG,

This is all just my opinion obviously, but I would expect you to develop an opinion on the architect after playing just one of his/her courses. The more courses you play, the more informed your opinion is. I don't think you can weigh in with an opinion on a course you have not seen though even if that is the only course of an architect that you have not seen. I would think it unfair to the architect because the one you have not seen may well be unique. It also may be their best.

There is no reason to not establish and stand by an opinion after just one playing, but painting with a broad brush after playing any fraction of their courses is irresponsible.

[Dan Kelly]

AGC (Atlanta Golf Club?) --

How much is enough to make a *generalized* comment (positive or negative) about a guy's "body of work"?

I'd say: 100% -- in either case.

If people would limit their judgments here to what they've seen and know, I don't think this site would have any problem with either "bashers" or "butt boys"!

Here's what I think: If you hate every course you've seen by Architect X, you should feel free to say so, and to tell us why -- but you should not, therefore, feel free to indict his entire body of work.

[BCrosby]

I must not be as good a person as you guys. After playing 7 or 8 courses by someone, I start to see a style. I see the ways the architect likes to deal with a variety of issues. Things repeat and I start to see patterns.

This is the really embarrassing part. But I must confess. After a while, I reach a conclusion about the quality of the work of an architect. Even before I've played every one of his courses. I don't like that side of me, but there you have it. Can't seem to help it.

BTW, I will come right out and admit I do the same thing with restaurants, acquaintances and authors.

So sue me.

Bob

[cary lichtenstein]

I generally do not like architect bashing...period. That being said, I have my opinion of each architect, and as I add courses to increase my play on their body of work, I think I have a better understanding of their range.

I know Coore and Crenshaw's work very well, and think some of it is just great and then again, I think some of it isn't. With them, their better work is very site dependent.

I don't think any of the architects who post or lurk on this site have such a thick skin not to be affected by unjustified bashing.

[Dan Kelly]

I must not be as good a person as you guys. After playing 7 or 8 courses by someone, I start to see a style. I see the ways the architect likes to deal with a variety of issues. Things repeat and I start to see patterns.

This is the really embarrassing part. But I must confess. After a while, I reach a conclusion about the quality of the work of an architect. Even before I've played every one of his courses. I don't like that side of me, but there you have it. Can't seem to help it.

BTW, I will come right out and admit I do the same thing with restaurants, acquaintances and authors.

So sue me.

Bob

Bob --

I know you're trying to be funny here (and succeeding!), but ...

I was serious!

If people here would limit their statements of what they think to the courses that they know, there'd be no "architect bashing" here! There'd be course bashing, in spades. And why not? Who could object to that? The architects whose courses are being bashed? No problem. They can sue us.

Dan

P.S. As for whether we're better people than you are: I'll let you know just as soon as I'm qualified to make that judgment!

[A.G._Crockett]

AGC (Atlanta Golf Club?) --

How much is enough to make a *generalized* comment (positive or negative) about a guy's "body of work"?

I'd say: 100% -- in either case.

If people would limit their judgments here to what they've seen and know, I don't think this site would have any problem with either "bashers" or "butt boys"!

Here's what I think: If you hate every course you've seen by Architect X, you should feel free to say so, and to tell us why -- but you should not, therefore, feel free to indict his entire body of work.

Dan,
If I've played two dozen Fazio courses, a large number by most measures but a very small portion of his total work, and I've either loved or hated every single one of them AND felt that way for the exact same reasons in every case, do I have to play the other two hundred or so before I express a "Fazio opinion" rather than a specific course evaluation?

If I express my opinion in a relatively civil manner, what's wrong with an opinion based on less than 100%?  In the case of Fazio, for instance, would playing the last few courses or so out of his total portfolio be necessary to validate an opinion based on dozens of his courses?

(In the interest of full disclosure, I have played only a dozen or so of Mr. Fazio's courses.  I'll save my opinion, which is based on far, far less that 100% of his work, for another thread.  He's just an example here because he's so damned prolific!
 )

[Tom_Doak]

A.G.:  I just do not think there is any point in someone having an opinion of an ARCHITECT as opposed to having an opinion of his COURSES.  There is a huge difference.

For starters, if you have formed an opinion of an architect, you are automatically biased as far as any future courses of his that you see.  Maybe you can overcome it, but you're starting your opinion of all his new courses from a bad spot.

The other thing is, to judge a course, you only need to judge what is there ... you don't have to care what the preconditions were.  To judge the architect, you really have to judge how he did with that piece of land, and as others have said before me, most people will just never know nearly enough to make that judgment.

But to me it comes back to WHY anyone would want to judge an architect's entire body of work.  I'm not saying you shouldn't make your own judgments of whose work you want to see more of ... but why try to foist your own opinion off on others?  The only people who need to make judgments of architects are potential clients, and even then, it is probably the case that there are different horses for different courses.

[Dan Kelly]

AGC --

Do whatever you like! People state opinions based on insufficient data all the time -- and sometimes those opinions are perfectly correct!

I'm certain you, at least, will supply all necessary caveats.

Civilly,
DK

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.:  I just do not think there is any point in someone having an opinion of an ARCHITECT as opposed to having an opinion of his COURSES.  There is a huge difference.

For starters, if you have formed an opinion of an architect, you are automatically biased as far as any future courses of his that you see.  Maybe you can overcome it, but you're starting your opinion of all his new courses from a bad spot.

The other thing is, to judge a course, you only need to judge what is there ... you don't have to care what the preconditions were.  To judge the architect, you really have to judge how he did with that piece of land, and as others have said before me, most people will just never know nearly enough to make that judgment.

But to me it comes back to WHY anyone would want to judge an architect's entire body of work.  I'm not saying you shouldn't make your own judgments of whose work you want to see more of ... but why try to foist your own opinion off on others?  The only people who need to make judgments of architects are potential clients, and even then, it is probably the case that there are different horses for different courses.

Well put.  Thanks for taking the time.

[Dan Kelly]

Well put.  Thanks for taking the time.

Oh, sure. Tom Doak gets thanked -- while I languish in deserved obscurity!

I think I need a Butt Boy!  

[A.G._Crockett]

AGC --

Do whatever you like! People state opinions based on insufficient data all the time -- and sometimes those opinions are perfectly correct!

I'm certain you, at least, will supply all necessary caveats.

Civilly,
DK

Dan,
Well put.  Thanks for taking the time.

[Gary Daughters]

"I just do not think there is any point in someone having an opinion of an ARCHITECT as opposed to having an opinion of his COURSES.  There is a huge difference."

Tom, I'm not following the disctinction you are making.  Is having (I prefer "forming") an opinion of an architect that much different from forming an opinion of a musician based on the musician's work?  

Why would it be pointless to form an opinion of an architect?  Don't we rank favorite architects on this site all the time?  




 

[SL_Solow]

As I understand it, Tom Doak (and others) have suggested that there is little to gain in criticizing an architect except with respect to an individual course.  The criticism of a course is more objective and can be evaluated based on what is observed on the ground and therefore separated from prejudices that may exist based on an architect's other works, writings, personality etc.  For the most part I agree with this position.

However, there are at least two circumstances in which reference to the architect's greater body of work are both useful and important.  The first is when one is attempting to understand why a course turned out the way it did.  Reference to an architect's written philosophy or examples of other work may help to explain choices made on a course; i.e. a reliance on aerial approaches, artificial waterfalls, cross bunkers etc.

The second circumstance would be when one is considering engaging an architect to design a new course or revise/renovate an existing course.  While many factors will impact the hiring decision, certainly an evaluation of the architect's work and style must be an important (perhaps the most important) variable.

Frankly, I think that a forum such as this must inevitably upset practitioners because in acting as critics, we will say negative things.  But it is both irresponsible and ultimately ineffective to make the criticisms personal in nature.  If I dislike the work or the philosophy of an architect, I have every right to say so.  However I should do my best to give a cogent reason why I am critical.  If the architect or his defenders think I am wrong, they will have an opportunity to respond and through the ensuing dialogue we may learn something.  Since that appears to be the goal of this forum; the exchange of knowledge about a topic we find interesting (and through it making new friends as a bonus); we should try to conduct ourselves so that knowledge is exchanged.  That shouldn't prevent us from giving each other"the business" from time to time; we're all entitled to have some fun.  But Mike Young is right when he suggests that for some who visit it here its more than fun; its their livlihood.  Even if we don't like their work, they deserve our respect.

[RJ_Daley]

Gary, I really don't think we as a group rank "favorite architects" on this site all the time in terms of personalities.  I think the majority of folks that have a favorite architect do so because of a body of that person's work that they have found to be consistently high quality.  I don't think they are into archie X is funnier, smarter, taller, more sociable than archie Y.  

There are examples all over the professional and artistic map of people that are great at their field of endeavor, who are generally perceived as jerks, quirks, and dorks as a personality trait.  That shouldn't and doesn't generally seem to be the methodology of the treehouse, IMHO.  We can joke about "butt boys" all we want, but I find that most serious posters here evaluate the courses, and perhaps the tendancies for consistent quality as a reliablility factor that an archie is likely to present, but not rate the archie's personal character.  I hope that isn't too naive...  

[ed_getka]

Gary,
    The criticism should be aimed at the course, not the person. The course is where you play the golf. So criticise the offending features, holes, course. I know the architect designed the course, but do you think he intentionally built a bad hole or course, or didn't care? Not very likely from what I have seen with the  architects I've met. There are so many variables that could account for a hole not being very good, that could have been out of the control of the architect.

[Gary Daughters]

RJ..

Sorry if I was imprecise but when I used the word "favorite" I didn't mean a thing about personalities.

Gary

[Gary Daughters]

Ed,

If you're willing to say that a feature, hole or course may be criticized, then would criticism of an architect's body of work not be a logical and reasonable next step?

I haven't been a party to the bashing as such, just wondering where you and Tom Doak are coming from.

[RJ_Daley]

Gary, although you asked Ed...  

Bashing a hole or 'some' holes of an archie, is not IMO bashing the architect's body of work, and shouldn't lead to any hard and fast conclusion of his/her abilities, or competence.  I think every single archie designs some clinkers.  And, many of them are forced errors due to unavoidable circumstances of site terrain, soil, client's demands, etc.  

If you see consistency as a repeating theme where the architect is presenting the same mistake or poor hole pattern, over and over, or "taking perfectly good farms and ruining them" as Dave Hill might say... then you got something to bash the architect's abilities.  But, that archie may still be a great guy, as I know you have pointed out is not your intent to attack the person.

[Dan Kelly]

If you see ... the architect ... "taking perfectly good farms and ruining them" as Dave Hill might say... then you got something to bash the architect's abilities.

Though, of course, Dave Hill was dead wrong.