[Bill Brightly]

I don' think there has been an Eye Candy "PHASE" but rather, eye candy architecture is a bad attempt at naturalism. I'd say it is trying to build something as beautiful as a C & C course, but ending up trying too hard.

What's eye candy: you know it when you see it. An intrusive feature that clearly attracts your attention, but really is not natural looking at all, it just goes over the top.

The gorse in the top of Doak's bunker at Pacific Dunes (pictured in the thread "Opinions Please" is a good example. The bushes are natural, that bunker fits beautifully with the land, but bushes in the top of a bunker (put in by the Superintendent, not Doak) are just eye candy, and they junk up the look.

It's like putting too much make up on a women. No amount of make up will make an ugly women look pretty, and the more you put on, the sillier she looks. Put too much on a beautiful woman, and you take away from her natural beauty.You make her look sleezy. But put just the right amount on a beautiful woman, and you enhance her beauty.

And thats what the pictures of Doak's Stone Eagle remind me of: a beautiful piece of land with just the right amount of enhancements, applied in a manner that you just say "WOW, that is stunningly beautiful." Many others would have taken that same site and "tried too hard," applied eye candy, and mucked it up.

Hope that makes sense.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Seriously----in my opinion, this particular subject just may be perhaps the best and most interesting of all when one begins to consider the whys and wherefors of the history and evolution of golf course architecture.

The only problem with threads and subjects like this one is they truly do ask people to REALLY THINK and also understand the accuracies and realities of history.

Nevertheless, subjects like this one are the ones I like best on here. I think if we can somehow keep a thread like this and the discussion of this subject going in the right direction and eventually run it to ground, we may even get people asking something like----"golf architecture has been there before, and that was a long time ago---why would we want to consider taking it back to something that long ago?"

And if that gets asked and discussed, Patrick, we will really be into something very good!  

We may even be able to uncover if and when golf and golf architecture may've somewhat lost its way!

For some years now I've had this odd suspicion that there might be a snake in the grass or two in golf architecture in perhaps the latter half of the 20th century and that snake in the grass, or two, just might be either some of the "art principles" of the art form of landscape architecture or in the realm sometimes known as "standardization"!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I have a question that transcends architecture.

When did WASPS from Main Line, Philadelphia, start using words like chutzpah ?

Getting back to the topic, I agree, it's a topic worth discussing.

One only has to review the comments related to the Cascata thread to get a sense of what the public wants to see.

The picture of the word "Cascata" might be cited by some as a tangential element of "eye candy"

To deny its existance or the evolution of architecture toward it is to deny the existance of resort or residential community golf, which probably catapulted "eye candy" architecture to the forefront.

Let the debate continue.

[TEPaul]

"When did WASPS from Main Line, Philadelphia, start using words like chutzpah?"

I don't know when WASPS from Main Line, Philadelphia, started using words like that or even if they do. And the reason why is, I'm not from Philadelphia, I'm from New York and I cut my teeth in the city hanging out with some of the most interesting Jewish brokers and analysts you ever saw. They used words like chutzpah all the time.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't see how anyone can deny the influence of TV on GCA over the last 50 years.

And, TV equates to "eye candy" in many instances.

One of my great disappointments was when Merion was awarded the Walker Cup over NGLA.

Merion has had plenty of air time, but, revealing NGLA to the viewing public would have been awesome exposure for its unique architecture, perhaps leading a movement back toward those design principles.

[TEPaul]

"One only has to review the comments related to the Cascata thread to get a sense of what the public wants to see.

The picture of the word "Cascata" might be cited by some as a tangential element of "eye candy"

To deny its existance or the evolution of architecture toward it is to deny the existance of resort or residential community golf, which probably catapulted "eye candy" architecture to the forefront."


Pat:

In my opinion, it's a whole lot more than that. I think it's a whole lot more fundamental than that, and that's probably one of the primary reasons I came up with my theory I call "The Big World" theory.

And, as you know, I'm a huge believer in the philosophy of Max Behr, but I've felt for a long time now that Behr may've been quite wrong about one thing---and that is his assumption that golf architecture should and perhaps must give golfers either real naturalism or something man-made that looks natural enough where they won't notice it's artificial.

Behr apparently believed that because he felt if golf architecture didn't do that "Man" (the golfer) would instinctively criticize the artificiality and want to change it.

I think the ensuing 80 some years since he wrote that philosophy may have proven that "Man", the golfer, maybe just doesn't care about that. In fact, just maybe a good slice of golfers actually like the look of artificiality----eg the obviously "man-made"---eg "eye candy".

And if so, we need to ask why that is.

But some of us think maybe he (Man, the golfer) doesn't even notice that much and just maybe if he's given golf architecture that is far more natural and natural looking he will like it even more than anything else he's ever known.

Questions like these, Patrick, just could be at the heart of things like this Joshua Crane vs Max Behr, Mackenzie, Jones et al debate back in the '20s and '30s.

Some call it "penal" vs "strategic" but I think it's much more than just that. Things like fairness, minimization of luck, standardizations and even aesthetics are probably part of it too.

Part of the problem with some of these subjects and discussions on here is the participants tend to want to compartmentalize the subjects, to limit them.

I don't think that's a good thing because I don't think things happened that way----golf and architecture didn't evolve that way. It didn't evolve down some black and white road of easy compartmentalization---it was gray all the way, and a lot of things went into making it happen over time the way it did.

Aesthetics, is a most interesting thing, and a lot of differing things go into it, but I suspect it is also a very tricky business in how it's both defined and applied---and of course accepted or not.

But my overall sense and hope, Pat, is that in the future, golf course architects both should and will take the part of greater leaders, not greater followers of what they think golfers want!  

[paul cowley]

I've struggled with 'Aesthetics' most of my life....not so much with its meaning, but with its spelling...and its only been since I found the 'spell check' feature on the toolbar that I have become comfortable discussing it openly with others.

Being recently freed from its spelling, I have begun a more personal debate on its meaning.....especially as it relates to things I get paid to build for others to see and use.

Its simple to say form follows function....but I really find security in the 'substance' of something I know that works....versus the uncomfortable, subconscious, nagging feeling about something that might look good...something that might add pretty to the composition....but with little purpose, especially when a purpose is required.

Its a 'design check' feature that really makes me go the other way....maybe to my detriment when it comes to the Wow [?] factor, but I feel much more honest with myself as a result.

....and this is coming from a son of an artist and Art Professor, who has created a volumne of work that is 'pretty' [among many other things], but on purpose.......because that is its purpose.

Now back to golf and eye candy [I don't like it].......and the aesthetic progression of golf design [its hardly a straight line, but a zigging one that frequently doubles back on itself in an attempt to keep moving forward].

I guess I'll just have to try harder to design things that are 'pretty'....but that also have a function.

[TEPaul]

"I've struggled with 'Aesthetics' most of my life....not so much with its meaning, but with its spelling...and its only been since I found the 'spell check' feature on the toolbar that I have become comfortable discussing it openly with others.

Being recently freed from its spelling, I have begun a more personal debate on its meaning.....especially as it relates to things I get paid to build for others to see and use."


Pauly:

That's one of the funnier thoughts I've seen on here.

When we get together next how about you take it as "esthetics" and I take it as "aesthetics" and let's discuss how it should get on the ground?

[paul cowley]

10/4 good buddy....do you want to lead and I'll follow...or should I lead and you follow?

Or do you want to just hold hands and walk out together into a glorious sunrise?

[TEPaul]

Paul Cowley just said:


"Being recently freed from its spelling, I have begun a more personal debate on its meaning.....especially as it relates to things I get paid to build for others to see and use.

Its simple to say form follows function....but I really find security in the 'substance' of something I know that works....versus the uncomfortable, subconscious, nagging feeling about something that might look good...something that might add pretty to the composition....but with little purpose, especially when a purpose is required.

Its a 'design check' feature that really makes me go the other way....maybe to my detriment when it comes to the Wow [?] factor, but I feel much more honest with myself as a result.

....and this is coming from a son of an artist and Art Professor, who has created a volumne of work that is 'pretty' [among many other things], but on purpose.......because that is its purpose."


Paul:

Whether the contributors and viewers on this website realize it or not this is what most of golf course architecture is all about.

This is in fact the real difference between the "amateurs" (those not in the business of golf architecture AND CONSTRUCTION) and the professionals.

This is the divide between those of us who say "why not" and those who say "No can do" (for practical reasons like poor drainage etc) as the professionals do.

This is ALSO the ongoing difference and dynamic between the forces of Mother Nature to devolve or even destroy earth formations and the apparent exigencies of golf---and professional golf course architects.

[TEPaul]

10/4 good buddy....do you want to lead and I'll follow...or should I lead and you follow?

Or do you want to just hold hands and walk out together into a glorious sunrise?    

No matter at all, just so long as I get my way in the end. Unless, of course, your way is better which it probably is and I see it.

I don't have the slightest concern any longer for BillS and the others. I have all confidences in the world that we both can snowball them any which way to Sunday we want to.

Paul:

Wikipedia this guy Nassim Taleb and his theories on randomness and such and let's see if we can get that cat on the ground.

[RJ_Daley]

I've struggled with 'Aesthetics' most of my life....not so much with its meaning, but with its spelling...and its only been since I found the 'spell check' feature on the toolbar that I have become comfortable discussing it openly with others.

Being recently freed from its spelling, I have begun a more personal debate on its meaning.....especially as it relates to things I get paid to build for others to see and use.

Its simple to say form follows function....but I really find security in the 'substance' of something I know that works....versus the uncomfortable, subconscious, nagging feeling about something that might look good...something that might add pretty to the composition....but with little purpose, especially when a purpose is required.

Its a 'design check' feature that really makes me go the other way....maybe to my detriment when it comes to the Wow [?] factor, but I feel much more honest with myself as a result.

....and this is coming from a son of an artist and Art Professor, who has created a volumne of work that is 'pretty' [among many other things], but on purpose.......because that is its purpose.

Now back to golf and eye candy [I don't like it].......and the aesthetic progression of golf design [its hardly a straight line, but a zigging one that frequently doubles back on itself in an attempt to keep moving forward].

I guess I'll just have to try harder to design things that are 'pretty'....but that also have a function.

I must say, that is one of the most understandable utterances from a GCA on this forum that I have ever read.  You all can analyse my cognitive abilities to grasp things amongst yourselves...  

The progression of eye candy and golf course aesthetics also got me thinking of the word 'effete'.  Some of the definitions are:
1. Depleted of vitality, force, or effectiveness; exhausted: the final, effete period of the baroque style.

2. Marked by self-indulgence, triviality, or decadence: an effete group of self-professed intellectuals.

3. Overrefined; effeminate.

4. No longer productive; infertile.

To me, eye candy in GCA is a component of selling the project to the public as an aesthetic composition to be marketed to the highest degree, and a component that pleases, tranquilizes, and usually doesn't have much to do with the game mentality of man playing the golf course.
As I understand what someone said above; if you take the eye candy progression of aestheics on a golf course to the forward looking natural highest progression, it becomes 'effete' in much of the stated terms of the definition above.  Eye candy aethetics overwhelm usefulness as a strategic game and it looses vitality and effectiveness.  It becomes decandant.  It even rises to the level of 'effeminate' or unmanly.  (Boy, I can hear a hoard of feminists thundering over the horizon to attack me there!)  

But, it does seem to me that the emphasis on aethetics as a force that drives commercial acceptance of the widest cross section of golfers, who pony up big bucks to play golf, will ultimately progress to an exhausted notion of eye candy, conformity of what pretty golf course means, that will render the strategic/ game mentality of the golfer, nearly obsolete.

somehow a quote sticks in my mind about this whole progression of aesthetics and where eye candy applies to this (I paraphrase):

"change is merely the application of technology, but to have progress we must have the application of ethics"

Whereas to me, the ethics in context of this discussion is the faithfulness to the original game mentality of golf; and change is the progressions of aethetics as a component of continuing marketablity of golf as a commercial proposition.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

With respect to artificiality and blatant artificialty, while many on this site might cringe at the sight of a massive waterfall behind a green, an inordinate number of golfers love the feature.

So much so that they try to have it replicated on their home course.

It's apparent that the market demand for "eye candy" is substantial.

One only has to tour clubs in South Florida and the Southwest to see the influence of "eye candy" in the design of modern golf courses.

It would seem that GCA.comer's are in the vast minority when viewed from the perspective of your "Big World Theory".

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()