Is golf course architecture kink or fetish?
Is GCA.com kink or fetish?
NYC sex museum has an exhibit on kinks and fetishes. It offers an interesting, "behavior-based" definition for these two terms.
"Kink" is something (anything?) that enhances the experience, while a "fetish" is something that replaces the experience.
This has all sorts of applications to discussions here (albeit far less interesting ones than the MoS came up with), such as the whole rangefinder deal: supporters find them kinky (enhance the experience), detractors find them fetishistic (replace the experience).
As that little example implies, a lot of it comes down to how you define "experience."
What is the “experience” for our purposes here? I think it comes down to whether you believe it’s possible to experience golf course architecture without playing the game? I think the answer to this question determines one’s views on kink vs. fetish.
Applications
1. Is this site kink or fetish? What if: the experience in question is experiencing golf course architecture? Does that make this site kinky? But if the experience is playing the game, then isn’t this site fetish, insofar as posting and reading here creates an enjoyment that is very distinct from playing the game?
Also, does this site lurch from kink to fetish (and back) for you, too? Why is that? Is the point of this site to enhance the playing experience or to celebrate golf course architecture as "its ownself;" ie a discipline to be appreciated without play, much as we can appreciate real architecture without living or working in the building - perhaps, in the case of buildings such as Glass House, MORE so!
2. What is golf course “architecture” in relation to other forms of architecture and the definitions of kink and fetish? Real architecture is definitely fetish for many, as you can “enjoy” or “experience” a structure without using it for living, working, traveling, parking, etc. But in golf course architecture, outside of those who work in the biz, you'd be burned at the stake for positing your interest resides separately from playing: a replacement for playing. So: real architecture has a legitimate claim to fetish, but golf course architecture does not. This is yet another aspect of GCA that makes me conclude it is not “real” architecture. Design: maybe, architecture: no.
Mark
PS This post may die a quick death, in which case I will conclude that posting on kinks and fetishes is a fetish in itself, and perhaps not so sadly one shared by no one else...