Can one know TOO much?

[Peter Pallotta]

A long and late-night preamble that I hope is interesting in and of itself, and then what I think might be a half-way decent question in there someplace, so please bear with me:  

There's a story that when Orson Welles was about to start making "Citizen Kane" -- his first ever film, after his stage successes -- he asked Greg Toland to be his cinematographer. That was understandable, as Toland was considered the best in the business. But when Toland said "yes," many were surprised that he'd agree to work with such a novice director. Well, they start shooting, and pretty soon, before every take/set-up, Welles is asking the lightening people to move lights here and there, and to put lights in the strangest of places. This goes on for days, with Toland saying nothing, and simply acquiescing to Welles' requests. Finally, one day, and after a particularly strange request, one of the lightening assistants can’t stand it anymore. He says, "Mr. Welles, maybe you don't know this because you come from THEATRE, but in FILM it's the CINEMATOGRAPHER who sets up and moves the lightening, not the director, and I think you're being incredibly insulting to Mr. Toland by moving around his lights, and to such idiotic locations!"  A tense moment, but before it could get ugly, Toland brushes away the complaint, telling the assistant -- and Welles -- not to worry about it. It turns out he’d been taking all of Welles’ suggestions, but very subtly and secretly tweaking every lightening set-up, a little move here and there. And he says, in essence, “These are lightening ideas that would never have occurred to me, and that go against every rule I know, but once I saw them I realized they could be brilliant, with just a little tweaking. That’s why I took the job in the first place: how can I ever learn something new if I don’t work with a newcomer”.  And as we know, the film -- and the cinematography -- turned out pretty well.  

Temperamentally, I’d never be able to do what Welles did: it’s too important to me to feel like I really know what I’m doing, and to have studied and learned all that I can (whether for work I’m being paid for, or in various avocations) to start “moving the lights around”; and I find that I really appreciate expert knowledge in the work of others.  But what Toland did is simply remarkable to me: to have such mastery of your craft and the “rules of the game” and yet to be so open to brand new (and seemingly ridiculous) ideas is really impressive. Clearly he was a very confident craftsman who was yet still willing to be a student.

I believe that probably everyone on this board who works in the golf design, construction, and maintenance field knows their craft very, very well, and knows all the “rules of the game”, just as Toland did.  

Is it possible to know TOO much? Can expert knowledge, and all the years of study and commitment, in these areas lead to having “blinders on” for new and seemingly ridiculous ideas and approaches? Or, is it a lot easier to pull a Greg Toland than I’m assuming it is?

Thanks
Peter        

[Adam Clayman]

I believe that probably everyone on this board who works in the golf design, construction, and maintenance field knows their craft very, very well, and knows all the “rules of the game”, just as Toland did.  

Without dispareging those who do, I would assume your assumption is a stretch.

Peter, I absolutely love the analogy and relish the story of an industry I both admire and despise.

My final thought comes from a much lesser quality film but the sentiment is true.

Mr. Toland had the satisfaction that comes from knowing.

Bonus points for guessing the film, but my gist is....

 closed minds yields no gain.

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,

I would say I am a combination of Toland, and you. I am enough of an untrained amateur to come up with wacky ideas, and I am aware enough of the architect's role to not just do something wacky without discussing it first.

One thing I'll never be in danger of is knowing too much. Hopefully my sense of adventure and off the wall thoughts will prevent me from having too many "old stand by's" when I'm out playing in the dirt.

Nice thought provoking thread....

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

Are you asking if it's possible to be closed-minded?  Of course it is.  Sometimes people here ramble on and on about how "you can't do" this or that -- they have so many rules of thumb that they're all thumbs.

I don't think anyone who worked for Pete Dye could ever get to that point.  He would take an idea from anybody who happened to be out there on site, and modify it to work.  A couple of times I asked him where the idea from some hole had come from, and he told me that the crew had totally misunderstood what he was trying to tell them and they came up with this, so he just took what he had and ran with it.

Unfortunately, some clients may figure that they're in the same position Orson Welles was -- it's their course, they want to have input into everything.  A great idea CAN come from a client, but it's a more awkward situation, particularly if they are so attached to their original idea that they don't want you to make the tweak that will make it work well.  That's why it's much better for the ideas to come from anybody else on the staff or the crew or visitors -- you can take what you want from them without having to worry about offending them.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Under what circumstances would mike keiser's advice to richard sattler be considered bad or even negligent?

[Tom_Doak]

If that question was directed at me, I don't understand it.

[TEPaul]

"But what Toland did is simply remarkable to me: to have such mastery of your craft and the “rules of the game” and yet to be so open to brand new (and seemingly ridiculous) ideas is really impressive. Clearly he was a very confident craftsman who was yet still willing to be a student."

Peter:

First of all, it has been said many times by man people (albeit perhaps after the Welles/Toland story you mentioned) that Orson Welles had a better and more intuitive and natural sense of the ramifications of the camera and the scene from the actor's end of the camera than any director did from the director's end of the camera.

Welles had some huge balls and stick-to-itiveness to even get Citizen Kane done at all. He was young and the incredibly powerful Hearst family not only pulled out all the stops to block the release of Citizen Kane but they also threatened to ruin Welles if he released that movie.

In many ways Orson Welles was obviously a true genius.

ROSEBUD!  

But as this story applies to golf course architecture I think all golf architects should at least consider ideas from all kinds of sources. There is no question at all that too many golf course architects just play it safe to avoid the prospect of criticism.

As both Macdonald and Mackenzie said---if everyone likes some architectural feature there's bound to be something wrong with it. There really is a very valuable albeit mysterious element to golf course architecture known as "controversy", but I guess history shows that to pull off controversy well and successfully can be some pretty tricky shit.  

[Mark Bourgeois]

If that question was directed at me, I don't understand it.

"Let them do whatever they want."

[JMorgan]

Peter,

Great thread.  I don't think there is a human endeavor that can NOT become tired and dead-ended because of knowing TOO much within that particular endeavor.  The history of man is littered with pathetic examples.  I've seen it firsthand in science and medicine, as an editor, in other writers and editorial subject matter, in music, in now in land design and architecture.   So continually seeing it in GCA should be no surprise.   Orson Welles is a great example of someone who continued to challenge and sustain himself on "hope and enthusiasm," his words, drawing inspiration from a multitude of sources, while the studio system could only accept one way of doing things.

If you haven't see it, try to find a copy of Orson Welles:  The One Man Band.  Simply moving.  The scene of Welles reciting impromptu a passage from Moby Dick at sunset -- in the Mojave Desert I believe -- is worth the price of admission alone.   More people remember, have learned from and been inspired by Orson Welles than by the men who told him "it" could and should not be done.  

   

[TEPaul]

Also, Peter, one of the very best architects of which I'm aware very much operates under the philosophy "to always remember to know what you don't know." He actually articulates that philosophy. The interesting thing, however, is it's pretty hard to tell when he will use some idea from wherever and when he won't. He goes both ways and the interesting thing is he seems to keep his own council about which way it will be and why. In other words, sometimes he seems to get pretty excited about a suggestion and then not do it and other times he says almost nothing about a suggestion and ends up doing it.

[Eric Franzen]

There have been several examples of musicians with great technical skills who just ended up making music that is mainly enjoyed by other musicians.

The likes of Yngwie J Malmsteen (Swedish guitar wan... sorry, virtuoso) are usually limited in their creative thinking due to their perfection of conventional technique and theory and simply have a smaller artistic horizon than a guy like Thurston Moore. He isn't in the same universe when it comes to technical skills but instead works hard on expanding his palette with experimental tunings and awkward chords/harmonies.

A band like The Ramones made some classic stuff out of three chords. Yngwie, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani and the boys can of play around Johnny Ramone with one arm tied behind their back. But I am sure that it would be a totally different story if they were asked to write a song just sticking to same number of chords that Johnny normally uses.

[RJ_Daley]

Human history is repleat with such examples in art, science, and philosophy of those that broke out of conventional wisdom.  Often however, there was a collaboration like Peter points to with Wells/Toland where the ball is truly moved forward by an out of the box thinker, who needs a little direction or technical assistance.  

I also like to think of the late great physicist, Dr. Richard Feynman and the message in his book, "What Do You Care What Other People Think" and how it relates to this subject and the challenge to conventional wisdom that often sets in to the established disciplines.

[Ken Moum]

Those with huge knowledge AND the ability to take help from the novice are rare, IMHO.

They are as rare as a Ph.D who can teach to gradeschoolers.

When I was taking mid-level anatomy in college, my professer was a German native who had a DVM, Ph.D. in Vet. Anatomy, and was working on his MD a the Univ. of Minn.

One day Herr Dr. Wrobel explained something to me and my Wildlifer buddies and we profusely tanked him for helping us boneheads.

He said, "If you know your subject, you can teach it to a child. If you cannot, you do not know your subject."

He was a rare man, and I think of him warmly even now, almost 40 years later.

K

[Tony Ristola]

The semi-proficient stage of operating a bulldozer afford these same (lighting) opportunities. The better you get, the less randomization occurs. You get what you want.

Conversations reveal all manner of ideas. It's why plans absent of leadership are so limiting. It's why guys motivated and talking get to places paper plans would never take you. It's why paper plans spend more time in the truck than not.

Devaition from paper plans when builders are left alone? It usually isn't appreciated on that rare site visit. But deviation happens. It always happens. How someone manages devaition is critical, and the best way is through on-site conversations as the stuff is being built. All sorts of stuff happens when people have conversations.

[Tom_Doak]

Mark B:

I knew what Mike's advice was ... although, don't forget that he gave that advice to Richard after Mike had suggested I try to re-route the back nine so that the finishing holes were on the water.

When would it be negligent to let the architects do whatever they want?  It would be negligent only if you don't trust the architects you've hired.  It certainly helped that Mike had a lot of faith in me going into that job, and transferred it to Richard; but I think we would have gotten much the same from Richard anyway, particularly since he professed to know nothing about golf.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks much, gents - very good and interesting perspectives from everyone.    

I think what struck me most about the analogy was how genuinely 'outside the box' some of Welles' ideas apparently were, and thus how great of a challenge they presented to Toland (or would have presented to a lesser cinematographer).  And the proof was in the pudding: "Citizen Kane" turned out to be an absolutely stunning and groundbreaking film, and eventually a perennial #1 in the rankings.  It took the "throw the rules out the window" idea to a level no one had even imagined possible...except for those two men.  

But maybe for that to happen, you need a trained master like Toland working with an intuitive genius like Welles; or, to stretch the analogy maybe too far, if not an intuitive genius, then someone who's prepared to devote years of his life to the work, like Crump at Pine Valley.

Peter  

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tom D, the key to trust in big projects comes down to budget management, yes?

Assuming that "must have," a client then should focus on hiring the people who "stand for" what they're looking for and mostly get out of the way.

Not sure the studios trusted Welles with a budget, any more than they do any Hollywood director who casts himself as artiste -- every director who goes down that path seems eventually to go "one budget too far"...

Mark

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

I don't think about it that much, but you're right, budget management is a critical skill.  Without doubt, from my very first course, I had the client's confidence because we had the budget completely sorted out right down to the monthly cash flow.

Some of my more recent clients insist that it's nothing I should worry about, and a few have even gone so far as to not share all the numbers for construction ... I guess it's their information to keep private if they want to.

Still, there are a handful of architects famous for blowing up the budget with one wave of their hand, and it doesn't seem to affect their workload one bit.  Perhaps as long as the client knows what to expect, and can afford it, it's no big deal after all.