Should we be preserving modern architecture?

[Lloyd_Cole]

It's ridiculous just to call for "documenting" golf architecture.  We don't build courses just so nerds can look at old pictures of them fifty years hence.

Tom
That might not be your motivation. And there are some nice pictures in your MacK book. But, to the player or the student, or the nerd, your motivation is basically irrelevant. Once the the course is built, you are potentially out of the picture. There is a literary theory called Death of the Author which argues that once a book is published it does not belong to the author anymore, it belongs to the individual reader. The intentions of the author are irrelavant. Books are not generally revised over time, so the anaolgy is tenuous.  In GCA reality, if your relationship with the course/club is good, you may tweak over the years. If it is not good, you will not, and someone else will, and your intentions may be honoured, maybe not.
Your designs and those of C and C etc cannot be judged in isolation, even if we wanted to. Your body of work will stand, probably conspicuously, in the chronicals of GCA. Your work makes sense historically as a rejection of the current norms when you began. Without those norms, how would we have noticed you?
So what I was saying, or trying to, is that while I don't think there should be pressure on Stone Harbour to keep those ridiculous bunkers, I'd like there to be record of them, so that the changes made could at least be understood, or an attempt at understanding could be made. If there were changes to St. Andrews Beach, ditto.
Is is arguable that we are very close to the beginning of the history of GCA, we have the tools to document the evolution of the design process. How could using them be a negative thing?

[ForkaB]

Very good points, Lloyd.

As a slightly OT corollary, do GCA's (or any A's at all--building, landscape, playground equipment, etc.) have copyright over their work?  I've been told different things by different people when asking this question before.

Thanks in advance.

[Mark Pearce]

Very good points, Lloyd.

As a slightly OT corollary, do GCA's (or any A's at all--building, landscape, playground equipment, etc.) have copyright over their work?  I've been told different things by different people when asking this question before.

Thanks in advance.

Rich,

This is a question that has been nagging at me for some time now.  I apologise for the fact that there's some law in the following.  Under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (this is all from a UK perspective) copyright subsists in an original architectural work (as an artistic work (Section 4(1)(b)).  However, that section states that copyright subsists in an architectural work "being a building or a model for a building", which appears to exclude a golf course from protection as a work of architecture.

Copyright will certainly subsist in architects plans or drawings, so the plans or sketches of a golf course produced by an architect will be copyright works.  From there, it is possible to argue that substantially reproducing (copying) a hole or course built to those plans or sketches would infringe copyright in those drawings.  That gives a result that, effectively, a course is protected where it was built from plans but not if no drawings were produced in the design process.  Working on the basis that most modern architects do produce drawings prior to construction, then some degree of copyright protection will apply.

Copyright is a long lived right (70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the artist dies).  Should, say, Tom D live for another 50 years then copyright in his drawings will subsist for another 120 years.

Is anyone aware of any cases where rights in a golf course design have been enforced?  What do the architects here feel about the copying of their work?  To what extent would a re-working of a hole design (the idea of template holes) infringe copyright?  How far from an exact copy does one have to go before you no longer have a "substantial reproduction"?

I may go away and see if there's any case law on copyright in landscape architecture, which may be instructive.

Mark

[Kirk Gill]

I know this has been belabored on here before, but when you use the term "architect," you inevitably invite comparison to the creation of buildings.

As someone who has lived in a home that was designated as an Historic Landmark, and both enjoyed and was frustrated by what that meant to me as a  homeowner, I can only imagine how the owner of a golf course might enjoy being designated as one of the courses to be preserved, and yet chafe at the bit when dealing with the fact that they own something that they are not allowed to alter.

In my case, I was allowed to make any interior changes I wanted to the house (I could have gutted it if I liked) but the exterior of the house had to be preserved, and I had to paint with proper colors, subject to review. So how would this apply to gca? Would improvements to drainage or irrigation be allowed (since they aren't "seen from the street," so to speak) but visible alterations such as changing green contours, altering (or eliminating/adding) bunkers, or even changing turf grasses would not be allowed?

At who's discretion? Who gets to make that call? Once an architect has been paid, does that transaction conclude the legal entitlement of that architect to have any say whatsoever in what happens to that design in the future? What entity would be responsible for reviewing and approving any desired changes?

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Mark and Kirk

I think we are getting at some of the most important issues now.

[JESII]

Rich,

What's important? Protecting GCA drawings from copyright infringement? Or protecting actual designed concepts?



TEP,

What exactly do you have in mind with this preservation theme? Is it as Tom Doak suggests, taking certain courses and sealing their physical properties off to any change? If not that, could you explain what you're thinking?

[Tom_Doak]

Kirk:

The subject of copyright in golf course design is often addressed in the contract between owner and designer.  In my most recent contracts I retain the copyright to all plans for the course, and the client is granted a license to use the plans.

I don't know that there are any design ideas that are clearly original enough to deserve copyright protection.  I do know that those "Tour 18" courses were told by court order to quit using certain trademarked names of other courses as part of their advertising and promotion, but there was never a suggestion that the holes themselves were protected from duplication.

A couple of designers (Nicklaus included) have clauses in their contracts that if the course is "materially changed," they have the right to withdraw the licensing use of their name as the architect.  I don't know if Jack has ever exercised the clause or not ... generally, if a client was unhappy with the finished product, an architect would want to do something so they'd be happy, unless the relationship with the client is beyond repair.  And ultimately, all designers understand that if they sell their work to someone else, it's at their disposal forever more.

My suggestion of nominating three courses to be preserved (first suggested some months back) was an attempt to find a middle ground.  If a modern designer were to nominate three courses as worth preserving, that would grant them some special status among the many which bear his name.  I would guess there are some owners who would think that special status was worth the same sort of hassles associated with owning a "landmark" building -- in fact, I suggested limiting it to three per architect so that it wouldn't become just another level of "signature" design that everyone would want to claim.  

If the owner doesn't want to register his course, then it's a moot point, and let me reiterate, I'm okay with that ... it IS his course.  And, for that matter, if a future owner wanted to violate that landmark status, I don't know that anyone could stop him from doing so.  Oakmont is supposedly on the National Historic Register, and that hasn't kept them from planting trees, tearing out trees, building ridiculous back tees, or getting their greens too fast.    

The only purposes of my suggested program would be to hold up some courses as the best remaining examples of a designer's work, and to try and put a few speed bumps in the path of course owners who are constantly finding silly little things to change for the sake of change itself, which (despite everything I've heard from Paul and Jeff and Mike) is still, in my experience, one of the main reasons stuff happens on older golf courses.

And I know I can get Mike Young on my side with this simple hook ... just imagine, what if the Donald Ross Society only had three courses to preserve, and would stop meddling with the rest?

[Kirk Gill]

Thank you, Tom. Very interesting stuff, as far as I'm concerned. I certainly think that modern architecture merits preservation, as I mentioned before, and I say that in the spirit of believing in the art, and knowing that what is appreciated in the future isn't necessarily what is deemed worthy right now.

Putting a few "speed bumps" in the path of course alteration down the road seems like a good idea. Of course, as the years go by, the voice of the architect starts to fade from the ears of the owner and operator of the course, and newer, louder voices will always begin to take precedence. How then, to train some of those future voices to make arguments to save design integrity, and preserve the work that was done in the first place...............

[ForkaB]

Rich,

What's important? Protecting GCA drawings from copyright infringement? Or protecting actual designed concepts?



TEP,

What exactly do you have in mind with this preservation theme? Is it as Tom Doak suggests, taking certain courses and sealing their physical properties off to any change? If not that, could you explain what you're thinking?

Jim

Neither.  What's important/interesting to me is who has preservation rights when, why how and where?  I think Tom D hit on the only one which might make it through the courts with his Nicklaus example, but it would work only with a guy with a real valuable (to the owner) name, i.e. Jack Niclaus and....?

PS--I too would like TEP to chime in here again.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Here's the wikipedia page on 'Listed Buildings'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_building
Note two very contentious entries - Centre Point and The Post Office Tower. Definitely Desmond Muirhead territory.

[paul cowley]

TomD said;
"The only purposes of my suggested program would be to hold up some courses as the best remaining examples of a designer's work, and to try and put a few speed bumps in the path of course owners who are constantly finding silly little things to change for the sake of change itself, which (despite everything I've heard from Paul and Jeff and Mike) is still, in my experience, one of the main reasons stuff happens on older golf courses."

....and I agree that this is the problem and the crux of what we are discussing....how to curtail unnecessary changes to a course without inhibiting necessary changes that are needed over time.

[ Excuse me, but I think I might pour me a glass of wine and really think about this a bit ].

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

You've got a few minutes' head start on me, but I will have a couple of beers myself and get back to this and see what you've come up with.

Rich:

I think Tom Paul's main interest is in preserving the information (drawings and photos) of architecture for others to witness later on.  But, I'd like to hear back from him as well, and I have two simple questions:

1.  How can anyone be in favor of restoration if they are not in favor of preservation?  And,

2.  If courses are only changed because ideas have not "stood the test of time," (to borrow an overused phrase), then why would those defunct holes have any instructive purpose for later generations of architects?

[Peter Pallotta]

I assume that some of the classic courses that HAVE been 'preserved', and preserved thoughtfully and well, have nonetheless been lengthened over the years. Wouldn't most agree that there are more than a few modern courses that deserve at least the same treatment? If so, wouldn't most agree that detailed photos and descriptions of the design philosophies would help future preservationists (but 'lengtheners') to best do their jobs?

Or am I missing something (or more than a few things)?

Peter  

[paul cowley]

OK....I'm back [actually fom Outback to Go], and its really easy for me.
With as much as I have learned from and sided with Mother Nature, I think I am going to rely on similar instincts and side with Human Nature about course evolution and preservation.....and not try to fight or curtail the forces of either.........call me wimpy if you want.

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

Must be something wrong with the wine at Outback ... the Aussies would all agree with me after watching what's happened to certain Sand Belt courses in the past 30 years.

Let me try this another way with you ... have you never gone to a course to consult and disagreed strongly enough with the proposed program that you turned down the job?  And did it not bother you that one of your more starving brethren in the industry is just going to take that job and carry out the changes you think are wrong?

Evolution only works over generations of trial and error which allow the stronger to survive ... green committees are simply a source of mutation, not a pronoucement of what actually works.

[JESII]

TD

How 'bout the green committee at a place whose restoration you approve of?   Or are there none of those? Just starving artists that are excused for dealing with the pollutant green committee...

[Tom_Doak]

Jim S:  It depends on the viewer I guess ... I am still baffled trying to figure out why "restoring" is good but "preserving" is taboo.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Doak,
Is Pacific Dunes as good today as it was when it opened?  Maybe a better question would be, is Pacific Dunes different today than from when it opened.  Either way, when do you recommend starting the "preservation" assuming that course is on your list to preserve?  

[Lloyd_Cole]

Jim S:  It depends on the viewer I guess ... I am still baffled trying to figure out why "restoring" is good but "preserving" is taboo.

Tom
How can a great writer like Dawn Powell be out of print for 35 years and then all of a sudden be in vogue and even her letters are published? Should they have remained in print when there was no-one buying?
How could Tilly have become pretty much unknown until Hannigan's article?
These are not questions I think we can answer, but they are related to trends, fashions, and fads. Sometimes the trends, fashions stand the test of time - eg. Hemmingway, Elvis, The Clash, Scorcese, Warhol. Sometimes not - eg. Dos Passos, Moby Grape, Basquiat, Cimino...
It is really hard to know, at the time. It is hard to trust one's instincts when the world is contradicting them... I guess that's why we need great critics - to help differentiate between quality and hype, and to realise that sometimes the hyped stuff is great too..
And then after all of that we need to realise, that on occasion, very rarely, we all get it wrong and it takes many years to pass before we accept this - see New Wave Music/Cinema in early 80's USA and 1960's/70's GCA.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

I would think that a course shouldn't be nominated to be preserved until it has existed for maybe five years, so that any obvious issues would have been addressed by the original designer.

In the case of Pacific Dunes, it really hasn't changed much.  There are a couple of bunkers which keep trying to blow out ... the greenside bunker on #18 in particular, which seems to have a mind of its own.  We might have to bridge the gap entirely there at some point and quit trying to preserve it as is.  And, of course, some bunkers look different today than when they were seeded; it is the Oregon coast after all.  

But, no one has added or moved a bunker, nor added or moved a tee (a couple of alternate tees which didn't get used have been grown over by gorse), nor changed a green, and they've done an excellent job of pruning back trees as they have started to grow up and out.

[Tom_Doak]

Lloyd:

I understand your comparison, however, Dawn Powell's works were not rewritten in the 35 years she was out of fashion ... if they had been, she might never have come back into fashion.

[Kalen Braley]

As an alternative to constantly trying to maintain the faces of bunkers and shape of the greens, couldn't an agreement be reached with the course and designer to come back every  5 years and do a bit of touch up work?

Kind of like when you get braces and go back once a month to get them adjusted.

[Tom_Doak]

Kalen:

Every time I go to Bandon I go around the course with Jeff or Ken at some point and look at whatever concerns they have about how the course is holding up ... the same is true for most of the courses we've built.  That's one of the nice things about doing course openings, it's one of the only times that someone isn't wanting you to change something or look at something.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen:

Every time I go to Bandon I go around the course with Jeff or Ken at some point and look at whatever concerns they have about how the course is holding up ... the same is true for most of the courses we've built.  That's one of the nice things about doing course openings, it's one of the only times that someone isn't wanting you to change something or look at something.

Tom Doak,

Isn't it likely that if something doesn't jump out at you in the first few return visits that it's unlikely that something will jump out at you over a longer period of time ?

That after a few visits the process is one of fine tuning rather than change.

And doesn't that reinforce the quality of the original product ?

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd:

I understand your comparison, however, Dawn Powell's works were not rewritten in the 35 years she was out of fashion ... if they had been, she might never have come back into fashion.

Tom,
They were not rewritten, but they were hidden, which in GCA terms amounts to pretty much the same thing. Her work was not visible. It was not available to the casual browser. The idea of a new generation wanting to read her work sems to me to be no different to a new generation interested in discussing Mack, Tilly and Thomas. And her 'rediscovery'  came thanks to an article quite similar to the Hannigan piece.