Aesthetics in design, the natural progression ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Discussions with respect to the "short" hole, along with other discussions got me thinking about the evolutionary process of designing within the context of aesthetics and/in GCA.

We saw golf transition from a harsh geometric phase to a constructed phase to a natural phase to the eye candy phase.

Isn't EYE CANDY architecture the end result or natural progression of design principles centered on aesthetics ?

And, who is it that objects to "eye candy" architecture ?

The Cognoscente ?

Are the developers of residential communities and new golf courses correct or misguided when they focus on eye candy within the context of golf course architecture and the surrounds ?

Lastly, THINK prior to posting.

Thanks

[Joel_Stewart]

Are the developers of residential communities and new golf courses correct or misguided when they focus on eye candy within the context of golf course architecture and the surrounds ?

Not at all.  They know exactly what they want as are the developers who hire Doak, Hanse or C&C.  The golf architecture is second to the type of environment they are trying to set, a pretty, peaceful environment.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Pat,  don't you think that the "eye candy" came about because of the number of high ends resorts that wanted a course of signature holes.  Everyone knows the par three at Mauna Lani, the floating green at Couer D'Alene, and island green at Sawgrass.  Then private clubs and public clubs both followed suit.  Even the old Donald Ross courses now have flower beds all over the place.
 I remember the first time I played Oakmont about fifteen years ago.  I played with my best friend.  His remark at the end of the round was, "I never want to come back.  It is an ugly course."

I like courses in beautiful places if the course is good but I hate all those damn flower beds around the tees etc.  I played Keowee Vineyards this summer and the fairways were lined with flowers and mulch.  It was a nice park but an aweful golf course.  People that have played it always say, "It is beautiful," but they don't say,"boy what a good course."

I think the object of eye candy is to promote a course.  Unfortunately it works.  But everything goes in cycles.  Baroque architecture gave way to Rococo and then went bust.  In some ways we might be in the Rococo stage of golf design.  I am curious to see the next evolution.  

[Kirk Gill]

I can't argue with the notion that eye candy architecture would be the result of design principles that center exclusively on aesthetics. To me, the term eye candy implies "useless beauty," and in terms of GCA it would be aesthetic touches that don't actually enhance play (although they might be considered to enhance the playing "experience"). But are quality aesthetics and quality architecture necessarily at odds?

[Tom_Doak]

Aesthetics are an important part of golf course design in the modern era.  If Coore & Crenshaw and Gil Hanse and I weren't building beautiful courses, the minimalist school wouldn't be in the news at all.

One man's "eye candy" is another's beauty.  The only question is whether there is any substance behind where the pretty features are placed and whether there is any attempt to challenge the golfer or just to pander to him or her.

[Michael Dugger]

I find the notion of eye candy to be rather subjective.

Some think waterfalls are the pinnacle of cool.

Others love huge beds of flowers.

I sense Patrick is attempting to label lacey edged bunkers eye candy.

This issue of "minimalist" bunkers really seems to be getting out of hand.

Bunkers that serve as a transition area between the green golf grass and the native serve dual purposes.  They aren't like that merely for the aesthetic, IMHO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Would you concede that the "type" of courses that you, C&C and Hanse produce differ from the "populist" versions ?

That your products are "niche" products rather than shelf products.

Michael Dugger,

I don't think you could classify the bunker pictured as "lacey" edged, it's far more ornate than that.

[JMorgan]

Patrick, I think to see golf course architecture as a "progression" is a mistake.   Nor is it an evolution.  

Moreover, the history of golf course architecture doesn't read "first there was the A, then the B, ... C, and D Phases" etc.  There are plenty of architects practicing today -- as there were during other decades -- who would defy classification into a neat school or category.  

The famous 20th c Japanese designer Noguchi, who also built plenty of gardens, said he didn't want nature to hide him like a tree-trimmer, like the garden designers of the Edo and Meiji eras.  He wanted to show himself, and he considered that preference "modern".  But there's nothing new in that idea, and certainly the parallels are everywhere, even in golf course design.  

(And just who are the Cognoscente or the populists?  Are those the guys who distribute your pills in the Dixie cup every night? )

[Peter Pallotta]

Good posts.

Patrick - I think it might be more accurate to say that eye candy is the end result of design principles centered not on aesthetics, but on artificiality.

I've come to believe that those who like/liked an overwrought and overmanicured and overstylized look like it not in spite of its unnaturalness but BECAUSE of it.

For whatever combination of reasons (and I'm still just thinking this idea through), what essentially came back into fashion was simply a more flamboyant version of the harsh geometric look of early architecture; and it continues to live on to this day, in an even more sophisticated (or at least more expensive-looking) version.

Maybe there's a desire to actually see the hand of man and the hand of technology coming together in what is, overall, a very formalized and modern look; it makes people feel like they're getting their money's worth.  Maybe the naturalism that some crave is the very thing others dislike, as the randomness and unkeptness makes that golf course so different from any other sport's field of play with which they're familiar, e.g. the precision and sameness of a baseball diamond or football/soccer field.

Peter  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You really are a slow learner but at least you seem to be heading in the right direction.

This website has only been having the kind of discussion this thread suggests for about eight years now, and it isn't lost on me that you basically never participate in these kinds of discussions.

One of these days you might learn if you just stick near me you might actually learn something by osmosis.

But again, at least you seem to be heading in the right direction as this thread's subject is about where some of us were on this website about seven years ago.

And furthermore, if you're going to try to discuss the subject of "eye candy" you probably should come up with a definition or define the terms.

What are you talking about and thinking about---bunkers and/or other things?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, I think to see golf course architecture as a "progression" is a mistake.   Nor is it an evolution.

I don't think your views are widely subscribed to.[/color]  

Moreover, the history of golf course architecture doesn't read "first there was the A, then the B, ... C, and D Phases" etc.  

I thought that Tom MacWood, Geoff Shackelford and others had clearly documented that.

Have you read, "The Golden Age of Golf Design" ?[/color]

There are plenty of architects practicing today -- as there were during other decades -- who would defy classification into a neat school or category.  

Could you name 5 ?[/color]

The famous 20th c Japanese designer Noguchi, who also built plenty of gardens, said he didn't want nature to hide him like a tree-trimmer, like the garden designers of the Edo and Meiji eras.  He wanted to show himself, and he considered that preference "modern".  But there's nothing new in that idea, and certainly the parallels are everywhere, even in golf course design.  

There's a difference when you charge for admission. [/color]

(And just who are the Cognoscente or the populists?  Are those the guys who distribute your pills in the Dixie cup every night? )

It's the Dixie "CLUB", the predecesor of "Rachele's", and yes, I'm there every night ...... with Ran.[/color]

TEPaul,

The only problem is that those of your who were there 7 years ago ...... are still there, having made NO progress

[Sean_A]

Patrick, I think to see golf course architecture as a "progression" is a mistake.   Nor is it an evolution.

I don't think your views are widely subscribed to.[/color]  

Moreover, the history of golf course architecture doesn't read "first there was the A, then the B, ... C, and D Phases" etc.  

I thought that Tom MacWood, Geoff Shackelford and others had clearly documented that.

Have you read, "The Golden Age of Golf Design" ?[/color]

There are plenty of architects practicing today -- as there were during other decades -- who would defy classification into a neat school or category.  

Could you name 5 ?[/color]

The famous 20th c Japanese designer Noguchi, who also built plenty of gardens, said he didn't want nature to hide him like a tree-trimmer, like the garden designers of the Edo and Meiji eras.  He wanted to show himself, and he considered that preference "modern".  But there's nothing new in that idea, and certainly the parallels are everywhere, even in golf course design.  

There's a difference when you charge for admission. [/color]

(And just who are the Cognoscente or the populists?  Are those the guys who distribute your pills in the Dixie cup every night? )

It's the Dixie "CLUB", the predecesor of "Rachele's", and yes, I'm there every night ...... with Ran.[/color]

TEPaul,

The only problem is that those of your who were there 7 years ago ...... are still there, having made NO progress

I do agree with JM.  I don't think there is such a "progression" of architecture as many claim.  To me, there is no such thing as A to B etc.  Its a neat way to present a timeline, but not entirely accurate - in others words - its far too neat.  We on gca tend to only look at architecture from an elitist view.  There have always been far more courses built which are cheap and cheerful (relatively speaking) compared to the innovative and/or endearing designs.  This is part and parcel of culture in general.  

I also follow Tom D's (and I believe Kirk's) line of thought.  The important aspect is to challenge the golfer in a balanced manner.  Not too hard, not too easy.  It is also important to make the challenging aspects of the course attractive.  People may disagree on what is beautiful or attractive just as they may disagree on what the proper balance of challenge is, but that doesn't create a conflict of interest between the two.

Ciao  

[JMorgan]

Moreover, the history of golf course architecture doesn't read "first there was the A, then the B, ... C, and D Phases" etc.  

I thought that Tom MacWood, Geoff Shackelford and others had clearly documented that.

Have you read, "The Golden Age of Golf Design" ?

Both Geoff and Tom M. demonstrate that golf architects are members of a larger socioeconomic world; they do not work inside creative vacuums isolated from world events like the Depression, the two World Wars, post-war booms, etc., not to mention the work of their competitors.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Great topic, and while discussed in dribs and drabs and other contexts, never addressed straight on as the centerpiece, I think.

It would be hard to argue that the aesthetics of golf design isn't the result of a progression, given that all architects openly admit to studying past works and being influenced by them, as well as by new materials and technology (earthmoving, lakes, waterfall pumps, even grasses) which encourages (along with natural creativity) a desire to try something new.

Those counter balanced trends produce progression and the not entirely clear (until the historians look at it 25 years later) trends in the finished look.  No one should expect a perfect A-B-C trend, but whatever historian writes about it needs to simplify, if for no other reason than he will have a word limit on his article or book.......

It would be a mistake to say aesthetics are confined to lacy edge bunkers.  Or to not label MacKenzie bunkers as eye candy.

I am not sure if current lacy edge bunkers are a trend or fad or a progression.  They are modern and slightly different adaptations of early bunkers that actually go against technology in that early versions looked like that because of maintenance technology, or lack thereof, and these look like that by gca choice.  

Like everything else in golf, at least on most sites, it may take more to look natural than to clean it up a bit.  Sadly, and as crazy as it seems, with irrigation everywhere, there is probably no square inch left on the golf course that doesn't require some maintenance vs. "letting it go natural."  

It may be that to remain in vogue, it will actually take some maintenance technology breakthrough that allows it to be maintained to that look easily and consistently.  

[BCrosby]

Pat -

The whole progression thing is interesting. There is clearly some sort of progression from one architectural era to another. But it's not causal. At least not in any usual sense of the word.

I think it is more often architects simply trying to get attention, market share and more commissions. The American way and all that.

Mike Young has an interesting take on this. Mike will correct me if I'm wrong, but he thinks the eye candy works. It will get you attention. Developers and golfrs do like it. It's the WOW factor. It is eye candy, afterall.

But he thinks that the true cost of that eye candy won't emerge for another 10 or so years when the costs of keeping the candy looking like candy comes home to roost.

It is a cost that will appear at a number of levels. From exploding maintenance costs to members' waking up one day to the realization that they bought a lot on a course because of its eye candy and the eye candy is now unrecognizable.

Bob

[JMorgan]

Great topic, and while discussed in dribs and drabs and other contexts, never addressed straight on as the centerpiece, I think.

It would be hard to argue that the aesthetics of golf design isn't the result of a progression, given that all architects openly admit to studying past works and being influenced by them, as well as by new materials and technology (earthmoving, lakes, waterfall pumps, even grasses) which encourages (along with natural creativity) a desire to try something new.

Those counter balanced trends produce progression and the not entirely clear (until the historians look at it 25 years later) trends in the finished look.  No one should expect a perfect A-B-C trend, but whatever historian writes about it needs to simplify, if for no other reason than he will have a word limit on his article or book.......

It would be a mistake to say aesthetics are confined to lacy edge bunkers.  Or to not label MacKenzie bunkers as eye candy.

I am not sure if current lacy edge bunkers are a trend or fad or a progression.  They are modern and slightly different adaptations of early bunkers that actually go against technology in that early versions looked like that because of maintenance technology, or lack thereof, and these look like that by gca choice.  

Like everything else in golf, at least on most sites, it may take more to look natural than to clean it up a bit.  Sadly, and as crazy as it seems, with irrigation everywhere, there is probably no square inch left on the golf course that doesn't require some maintenance vs. "letting it go natural."  

It may be that to remain in vogue, it will actually take some maintenance technology breakthrough that allows it to be maintained to that look easily and consistently.  

Jeff, I agree with you regarding the study of past works and technology, but I wouldn't call it "progress," which suggests something totally different IMO.  Definitions of progress:

   1. Movement as toward a goal; advance.
   2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
   3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See synonyms at development.
   4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.

If this website demonstrates anything, it's that many if not most of the contributors look backwards - to the Golden Age -- for examples of great architecture.  Moreover, there may be "movement" but what is the goal?   I suppose one could argue that irrigation or drainage technology have made steady improvements, as have machinery and design software and so on; but has architecture gotten better as a result?   Pine Valley still bowls them over.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think progression is a process, progress is an opinion.....

And, I think your (or anyone's) opinion of current work is incomplete and will be until we have time to see how new courses age.  It is probable that many of today's courses will be similarly highly regarded at some point in the future, and that some revered Golden Age courses will be seen like Prestwick - former greats, or great for their time, but not suitable for the game of the future.

Of course, thats just my opinion!

[Lloyd_Cole]

Pat, What is EYE CANDY architecture?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Isn't it all aesthetics whether turf type contrast, bunkers style, lakes, earth sculpture to lead the eye,  bunkers to lead the eye, trees to frame views, etc., etc. etc.

And isn't the question "why can't we have both?"  Basically, the best courses always have had both, no?  Cypress Point being example no. 1.  Time may take away its strategies for the best players, but won't ever diminish its aesthetics.

My take on this thread is that Pat wanted almost a value free discussion about how gca and its aesthetics got to where it is now in America, and specifically admonished us to think, and provide answers with a bit more depth than "Mongo like lacy edge bunkers!"

[Kirk Gill]

Terms like "natural progression" bother me unless they're used in hindsight, trying to make sense of history. When "natural progression" extends itself forward, it seems like someone is trying to force their ideas down my throat. It's the whole Hegelian dialectic again - it seems to explain a lot when looking backwards, but if framed towards the future (monarchism (thesis) leads to democracy (antithesis) and the natural progression is then towards communism (synthesis)) then it falls flat for me.

In hindsight, don't most progressions seem natural? After all, they've actually happened. And whatever dialectic or notion of progression you attach to the things that have happened are just ways to make sense of something that is in truth incredibly complex.

I disagree with Peter when he says that "eye candy is the end result of design principles centered not on aesthetics, but on artificiality." I don't buy this at all. A gca can have an aesthetic sense rooted wholly in naturalism and still create features that serve no useful purpose. Forgive me quoting both myself and Elvis Costello in saying that (imho) eye candy is "useless beauty," something that appeals to the eye and is presented exclusively for that reason. I don't buy for a second the notion that "simple = natural." The natural world is, on occasion, baroque in the extreme, in shape, color, texture, scent, taste, etc..........

There is no doubt, as Peter says, that "there's a desire to actually see the hand of man and the hand of technology coming together..." If this wasn't the case, a lot of courses would look a lot more like TOC. But how many do? Maybe that's because that course, and some others of similar ilk, were "discovered" more than designed. The moment that a human makes the decision to create a golfing ground, a human's intellect and ego are involved, and being the visual creatures that we most certainly are, aesthetic considerations begin to be taken into account, along with other design considerations, both strategic and agronomic.

[BCrosby]

Sean -

I'm not sure what you mean. Surely talking about progressions from one era to the next makes sense at some level. You can play with counterfactuals and come up with obvious examples.

For example, it is inconceivable that a Fazio type course could have been built in, say, 1915. Why? For a bunch of reasons, but one is earth moving equipment.  

Along the same lines, it is not insignificant that Doak learned the trade from Pete Dye and not someone else. When and from whom he learned the trade has a direct bearing on the courses he designs. Is there any doubt that his courses would look different if he had trained under a Ross or a Flynn or a Braid?  

But I suspect you are asking a different question. You are wondering whether a designer feels like he is building courses to satisfy the norms of a particular era. No?

I think the answer is that his conscious understanding of what his era might be about is somewhat irrelevant. He is a product of historical forces like everyone else in his era. Whether he wants to be or not. Those forces act something like boundary conditions. They don't dictate what he does. Every designer is unique. But unique within a range. The boundaries for which are set by the time in which he happens to live.

Those boundary conditions don't act like the instructions you used to get in model airplane boxes. There's a lot of room within any era to build different kinds of model planes, to stick with my metaphor.

There is simply no question, however, that a reasonably informed person can distinguish architectural styles from different eras. That's the giveaway. How is that possible if there aren't - at some level - shared characteristics within an era?

Bob  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
The only problem is that those of you who were there 7 years ago ...... are still there, having made NO progress.  


Patrick:

We've made plenty of progress on the subject. It's just you haven't been aware of it because heretofore it seems you haven't been interested in it or participated in those discussions. But, again, you seem to be at least headed in the right direction now.    

Look in the back pages on some of the threads that discuss and track various applications of the evolving world of landscape architecture in golf course architecture and you'll begin to build an historical perspective and understanding of this kind of thing.

First check out the Part Four, The Glossary of Design Terms, and "Art Principles" in Cornish and Whitten. You'll begin to understand the application in golf architecture of LA and art principles such as Harmony, Proportion, Balance, Rhythm, and perhaps my least favorite of all---EMPHASIS---eg "The eye is carried first to the most important part of the arrangement and then to other details".

That latter one (LA or Art Principle) really kllls me, particularly if the 'most important part' is where the golfer SHOULD or particularly MUST hit the ball.

In my opinion, that's not much more than golf architecture and its strategies basically being driven by and for aesthetic art principles only----eg visuals. I really don't think Mother Nature ever arranged things natural like that JUST for the benefit of golfers!!    

What Mother Nature gave us, blessed us with, is things random, things deceptive, and things that took some experience to know and understand if and when we are to ply our way around them, even if with a golf ball and implements and some eventual holes in the ground!!

Those are the kinds of "ARRANGEMENTS" I'd like to see golf architecture use more of and when they don't exist in particular areas, make them to look as if they were not made by man but by Mother Nature!

Again, try to define what you mean by "Eye Candy!"

OR, let me try to help you with a question or so.

By eye candy are you referring to things such as bunkering that appears to be there merely for visual effect only and with no apparent strategic purpose in play for anyone?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, What is EYE CANDY architecture?

Lloyd,

Like obscenity, I think you know it when you see it.

For me, it's those things that take your eye/focus from the shot at hand to other elements within or outside of the design.

Emphasis is shifted from strategic planning to sightseeing, inclusive of architectural features.

Hope that helps

[Patrick_Mucci]

Isn't it all aesthetics whether turf type contrast, bunkers style, lakes, earth sculpture to lead the eye,  bunkers to lead the eye, trees to frame views, etc., etc. etc.

Yes ..... and  No.

I think there's a distinction between that which sends tactical signals to the eye and that which misdirects and/or distracts the eye.[/color]

And isn't the question "why can't we have both?"  Basically, the best courses always have had both, no?  Cypress Point being example no. 1.  Time may take away its strategies for the best players, but won't ever diminish its aesthetics.

To a degree, you can have both, provided one doesn't overwhelm the other.

Some golf courses have evolved from what the golfer sees to what the TV camera wants to show, and therein lies the rub.[/color]

My take on this thread is that Pat wanted almost a value free discussion about how gca and its aesthetics got to where it is now in America, and specifically admonished us to think, and provide answers with a bit more depth than "Mongo like lacy edge bunkers!"

Jeff, that's true.  But, as you know,
You can lead a GCA.comer to a thread, but, you can't make him think. [/color]

[TEPaul]

"My take on this thread is that Pat wanted almost a value free discussion about how gca and its aesthetics got to where it is now in America,..."

JeffB:

What exactly do you mean by that? What's do you mean by a 'value free discussion'?

And will you just look at this Patrick? He's about seven years late to the discussion on this most fascinating subject, and he's got the chutzpah to tell us we don't know how to think!?!?

Patrick, it's better to be years late than never----so if you just stick with me on discussing this subject and understanding it, I might even be able to show YOU where the road is that leads to the sunlit uplands of almost complete golf architectural clarity!

I'll show you where the road is and where it begins but I can't walk it for you---only you can do that.

Try it and hopefully one day I'll see you in those sunlit upland of golf architecture.

[Tags:]

Tags: