[Patrick_Mucci]

Would an indication of one's interest and dedication be revealed by the quality and quantity of GCA publications, authored by the great architects and other interested GCA parties, that one has read ?

Ross,
Tillinghast
MacDonald
Behr
McKenzie
Hunter
Thomas
et. al.,

Can one have a comprehensive understanding of architecture without reading and/or studying their works ?

[Ryan Farrow]

Yes. We are dorks.

Understanding w/o reading their works? Not really. Not entirely

[John Kavanaugh]

Pat,

Please give me one example of where reading one of these books is going enhance my appreciation of architecture after 39 years of playing the game?  Why should I sacrifice the joy of discovery for the immediacy of learning.

[Adam Clayman]

I'd say probably not. But I'd also say that reading them won't gaurantee it either.

[David Stamm]

Pat, I would say that it is an important part of understanding architecture. Experiencing the courses of those arch's is certainly more important, provided that that particular course is true to the original concept. Too many times this is simply not possible. I find it curious that courses by arch's that have written book(s), essays and articles so often have designed courses that are so revered, yet some don't even take the time to read and come to know how that come about, to know the thoughts and ideas of that architect. Some may never get that chance to experience some of these courses, so how else are the enthusiasts so supposed to understand what the design elements the arch was trying to implement? Efforts are made, for example, to read rankings from various publications or write up's done by present writers, but who best can describe what the intent was on certain holes than by the man who took the effort to A) design it, B) put his thoughts to paper? How can anyone not want to learn everything they can about something that they care about? Does learning ever really stop? Does one ever become so experienced that they can't possibly learn more?

[BVince]

David, well said.  I agree.  I think we must all continue to learn, especially on the subjects which please us the most.

John, I have to say that these books DO enhance my appreciation of architecture.  I have learned so much about the theory of design and understanding of why a course does or does not have certain features.  Furthermore, I think the best GCAs of today show show traits of the Golden Age architects.  In fact, most would agree that the study is well worth the time.  

Is it necessary to study the works of the architects listed above?  No.  Will it enhance your understanding of course design?  Yes.  

[Rich Goodale]

Would an indication of one's interest and dedication be revealed by the quality and quantity of GCA publications, authored by the great architects and other interested GCA parties, that one has read ?

Ross,
Tillinghast
MacDonald
Behr
McKenzie
Hunter
Thomas
et. al.,

Can one have a comprehensive understanding of architecture without reading and/or studying their works ?

No.  In fact there may be an inverse correlation.

Yes.  Once you get past the trivialities, self-aggrandizement and poor writing, the greats don't really have much to say, particularly for and in this day and age.  Reading this website (and learning how to separate the wheat from the chaff) is far more benficial.

[Lloyd_Cole]

I've read a fair old few and I must say that I think if one were to read The Links, The Spirit of St Andrews, Anatomy of a Golf Course and Geoff Shack's Masters of the Links there's not that much more out there that will enhance your understanding of GCA, plenty for bragging rights at dinner parties, maybe, but not much. I read for pleasure and I enjoy finding voices I enjoy, so I continue... but GCA is not rocket science and once you have a grasp of it (we don't all grasp it the same way) you are unlikely to change your ideals because Tilly tells you to.

Eg - I had never read Behr - still haven't much and so the term 'Line of Charm' was something that I was unaware of before seeing it here, and on Geoff's book. However, once I understood it's meaning, it didn't impart any great new understanding - it's just a cool way of saying what makes sense in strategic design, and play.

Which is not to say that we can't learn new things, find new insights, new angles.. I'll second Rich. Once you've read a few - you are more likely to find new those angles, ideas etc here.

[Rich Goodale]

I've read a fair old few and I must say that I think if one were to read The Links, The Spirit of St Andrews, Anatomy of a Golf Course and Geoff Shack's Masters of the Links there's not that much more out there that will enhance your understanding of GCA, plenty for bragging rights at dinner parties, maybe, but not much. I read for pleasure and I enjoy finding voices I enjoy, so I continue... but GCA is not rocket science and once you have a grasp of it (we don't all grasp it the same way) you are unlikely to change your ideals because Tilly tells you to.

Eg - I had never read Behr - still haven't much and so the term 'Line of Charm' was something that I was unaware of before seeing it here, and on Geoff's book. However, once I understood it's meaning, it didn't impart any great new understanding - it's just a cool way of saying what makes sense in strategic design, and play.

Which is not to say that we can't learn new things, find new insights, new angles.. I'll second Rich. Once you've read a few - you are more likely to find new those angles, ideas etc here.

Thanks, Lloyd

I agree that much of what is said on this site is said in code (e.g. "lines of charm," "golden age," "minimalism," "penal architecture," "ideal maintenance meld," "tying in," etc., etc.) which both places an undue aura on the phrase and stifles productive communication.  In many cases, the latter seems to be deliberate, as if the phrases were some sort of divine shibboleth, rather than just ways of describing things which most of us know intuitively.

Rich

PS--I should have added to my previous post that playing and watching other people play the game, as often as you can, will teach you more than any book, if you know what to look for, which if you have been paying attention to what is said on this site, you should and probably do know.

R

[Edward Coombes]

My initial exposure to the writings of some of these big names came through GA Magazine which I think does an admiral job issue after issue of giving the reader some excellent examples of works, philosiphies and writings from these epic talents.
I've since read some McKenzie (spirit of St.Andrews) and look forward to acquiring books by other Golden age designers in the future.
I particularly enjoy the depth of thought with which they write, completely consumed by their chosen profession their writings cast a  
perspective with which I had never previously considered regarding the aspects of course architecture.

[paul cowley]

I'm with Rich.....stimulating discourse is good...and to be a successful designer you come to a certain point where you have to think for yourself.....books can become crutches and a substitute for creativity.

[BCrosby]

It is silly to forego the benefits of reading the best gca books. After you've waded through the bad prose and sloppy arguments, there is a view of things architectural that will enrich what you already know. I don't care how perceptive you think you are.

It is equally silly to think that reading the books is all you need to do. Playing and seeing courses, having arguments on GCA, ... heck, just talking to people with similar interests, all that matters too.

And the best part is that it never ends. At least it hasn't for me.

Bob

[Mike_Young]

I think such would definitely be an indication of one's interest and search for knowledge on the subject.  Of course one must read the publication before determining if there was any quality to it also.  As far as determining dedication, I don't think so. Quantity, yep..because it would be part of weeding out the quality.

[JESII]

"ARE YOU SERIOUS......ABOUT GCA?"


Not if it requires reading one of your multi-colored responses...especially if you've engaged someone that tries to do it right back to you...once there are two colors more than standard black, I'm out...

[Rich Goodale]

For me, as with Jacqueline Susanne, "One Color is more than enough."

[JESII]

I always give Pat his due by reading the first added color...after all, he might ask a question that elicits the response Charlie Dusic gave him a year or so ago that I've memorialized in my message line...

[jeffwarne]

Are we going to be tested on this?

I've read several /many books by the authors listed.
(I guess I read them for the pictures, which would make me illiterate, except that I read Playboy for the "articles" ).


I like playing good (by my definition of course) golf courses.
I also like seeing what's out there (via some of the  great pictures on this site and elsewhere)
Along the way, anecdotally, I may have learned a bit about many different courses their GCA, and their architects.

I'm sure I wouldn't read any of the books by the authors listed and play many of their courses if that was a requirement to be serious about GCA. It's hobby I enjoy to supplement my golf, but if the word serious comes out I think it may go from hobby to chore.

[RJ_Daley]

I'm not sure how many great artists ever did anything with soul and intellect, who didn't read and study previous great masters.  I don't know how many building architects ever designed anything great, functional, and aesthetically pleasing without knowing and studying a previous masters.  

To say you learned to play the game by yourself, and didn't need either instruction from someone who knew the finer techniques of how to play a course, and then to go on to say you don't need to read the great GCA writers who were architects or those closely associated with the study of the field of GCA from it's inception, and then to say you intuitively know or understand or appreciate GCA is myopic and leads to hubris, which is anti-intellectual, IMHO.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Yes, I like to think I am serious about gca!  And, I have read virtually every book there is to read on the subject, as well as pamplets, off hand quotes, and even a tombstone or two!

[Rich Goodale]

Dick

Do you really think that Poussin read anything written about art written by Raphael, or Mozart anything written about music by Bach, or Frank Lloyd Wright anything written about architecture by Charles Rennie Mackintosh, or Michael Jordan anything written about basketball by Larry Bird?  Artists don't really give a flying **** what other artists say, they care passionately about what other artists do and have done, and they create their own art accordingly.

IMHO any budding architect should read what MacKenzie and MacDonald and Doak and Cetera wrote, but before they reach age 25.  After that, they are on their own trajectory, and any re-reading of any of those old mostly dead guys (insert smiley face here for Tom D) should be increasingly for amusement, rather than enlightenment.

Rich

[George Pazin]

Pat,

Please give me one example of where reading one of these books is going enhance my appreciation of architecture after 39 years of playing the game?  Why should I sacrifice the joy of discovery for the immediacy of learning.

John, I know you love to trot this point of view out every 3 or 4 months - or more accurately, as often as it warrants - but where would mankind be if no one researched anything and tried to learn it all for themselves?

The fact that Rich appears to be on your side only strengthens my position....

 

[BVince]

Does Tiger have a swing coach?
Do Tiger and Steve study a course before playing?
Does learning the game ever stop?

What if Microsoft or Apple simply said, "This is a great product.  I think we will stop looking at the market and business competitors because we got it."  

You can downplay the books of previous architects, but there is no reason that anyone should discourage the study of any profession even if you are the best.   Just because you read a book, does not mean you have to use that style.

[John_Cullum]

The problem with golf course architects is they tend to write what they think people want to read.

So it is now, and so it has always been

[George Pazin]

You can downplay the books of previous architects, but there is no reason that anyone should discourage the study of any profession even if you are the best.   Just because you read a book, does not mean you have to use that style.

Terrific post.

[Mark Manuel]

It seems like sometimes we as a group venture off on these tangents and forget the original question.

"Can we have a comprehensive understanding of architecture without reading and/or studying their works?"

I would argue that you can without reading their works, but you have to study their work which is the golf courses they designed.  I can read all about Van Gogh, but can't understand his work until I see his paintings.  I can read about Frank Lloyd Wright buildings but can't understand them until I see the building.  I can read about Ross but can't understand his work until I stand on his tee boxes and greens.

Kind of the old cheesy adage that one shouldn't read about life one should live it.  While I enjoy reading about golf and do it is more fun to play it and experience it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()