Slag:
#4 is an awesome post---some very rich food for thought in that one.
Peter said:
"I'm wondering how far this unconscious "seeing" extends."
Peter:
I think the key word in your remark is "unconscious". This is the area of the subliminal, an area that is more "feeling" than actually "seeing" visually, in my opinion.
It also may be one of the most important areas in all of golf course architecture or any other art form. I stress "may be". I say that because who can deny that this kind of thing will and does affect various people in vastly differing ways?
I think this is an area that Behr was ultimately trying to explore as to how various types of architecture affected golfers sensibilities in various ways. We do know that he preferred man-made golf architecture to appear to be as natural looking as it could be under the circumstances. He did say that only this way would man, the golfer, object to it less, particularly if it caught him up.
This is one area of Behr's philosophy I'm not so sure I agree with, particularly after we have had about eighty years to test his theory on golfers generally----eg hindsight; something he obviously did not have the benefit of.
I guess I should say, I, personally, do agree with what Behr said in this area but I think it may be true to say that not as many golfers as he might have hoped agree with it or are even subliminally aware of it.
On the other hand, more modern architects such as Desmond Muirhead most certainly did test the subliminal effects of various types of golf architecture. In so doing with a course like Stone Harbor he got pretty far away from what any of us might call the look of naturalism. He got into other types of symbolisms. Obviously, a guy like Fazio is very good at it in other more traditonal natural landscape architecture applications such as the art principles of Harmony, Rythym, Balance, Proportion and the one I may like the least--Emphasis.
But I think it all gets back to this comparison that Behr apparently tried to draw between Man's relationship to Man himself vs Man's fundamental relationship to Nature.
In that way, it's just perfect that Slag Bandoon mentioned that Man too is certainly a part of Nature. He certainly is that albeit one of the most remarkable parts of Nature imaginable in that he apart from all else in Nature seems on the verge of totally controlling Nature itself. The fact that MAN, generally, is either consciously or even subliminally aware of that, partiicularly in the last couple of hundred years, creates a whole different equation for a whole lot of things.
That's pretty heady stuff and unconsciously or subliminally it's bound to create some pretty interesting dynamics and dualities and such.
There is a book called "Landscape and Memory" by England's Simon Schama that deals directly with this entire subject. It's pretty damned deep. I almost drowned in it frankly.
But on the subject of landscape architecture of almost any era or style, including golf course architecture, I'm always struck by something Tom MacWood, seemingly alone amongst all golf architecture analysts or landscape architecture analysts, mentioned.
He always said he did not necessarlly agree with the apparent dictate of all landscape architecture thinking that Nature's imperfections should be removed from the scene. There's no question this dictate is a form of "idealization", albeit for a purpose and perhaps a very good one, but Tom MacWood, for one, didn't seem to think this was a good idea in all cases, particularly in golf course architecture. In may ways, I think this is the basis of his real interest in the essence of the "Arts and Crafts" Movement.
On that particular point, which is certainly not an insignificant one, I believe I've always agreed with him.