[paul cowley]

TomD said in the Tommy thread:

"Shivas and Joe:

I agree with you about the ass-kissing.  Heck, when I can have a friendly exchange with Jim Engh and not even mention how artificial his courses are, you know there's something wrong here.  Half the time I'm here nowadays, I'm biting my tongue, and if I really enjoyed that I'd just join the ASGCA.  (That one was for Tommy  )"

I found that interesting because as best I know we [Love Golf Design], were in the final two of the selection process at Reynolds Plantation, competing for the site that Jim was selected for, the Creek course, which has been mentioned here of late.

I did a routing for the course, and our feeling, after reviewing the existing courses, was that the resort would benefit from a different "look".......more along the lines of some of the other courses we have designed....which I can best describe as our own versions of CBmac/Raynor styles and strategies.
....courses that are not in your face artificial, but utilize some engineered effects non the less.

Jim got the job and executed it in his "style", which some here might consider artificial....much as some here also consider the best courses produced by MacD/Raynor/Banks artificial.

A while back we coined a term "Rossnor" to describe what we were designing....which was a softening and blending of the more engineered features of Raynor et al, with Ross tie ins.

I will be interested to see if Old Macdonald utilizes a similar approach.....or will it be more hard lined and "artificial".

[TEPaul]

Pauly:

With this crowd if you ask a question you have to include a question mark at the end, it seems, or they aren't sure what to do in response.  

I think this entire question of an engineered or somewhat artificial look in architecture vs a real natural look or an attempt at it is just going to be one humongous ongoing question and issue. It will probably never end and maybe it never should since it seems like it's pretty hard to categorize who will like which one and why.

Maybe that's the way it should be in golf architecture, an art form that probably needs as much of a wide spectrum as any.

It's just all part and parcel of "The Big World" theory, you know?

[TEPaul]

You know what I'm really wondering Paul?

That is if an architect could apply both looks on a single course and site?

I don't know whether that would be something that would satisfy both camps or piss off both camps.

Shall we try it just to see what would happen in that vein?

[TEPaul]

I'd have to say that Stephen Kay and Whitten probably tried that when they did "The Architects Club" in northeastern Pa with a smattering representation from a lot of different architects and styles from the past.

But you know what, I bet most of the golfers who play that course probably don't even notice the distinctions and differences in look and style and architecture amongst the holes.

[Garland Bayley]

The templates existed naturally somewhere didn't they?

[Tom_Doak]

Garland:

Precisely.

The Redan and Eden and many others of Macdonald's favorite links holes were built from relatively natural plateau green sites, while others (like the Road green, I believe) were more artificial in nature.  So I think it's possible for us to build some of both at Old Macdonald.

[Garland Bayley]

Precisely!

[TEPaul]

Garland:

What do you mean when you say 'the templates existed naturally somewhere didn't they?"

As Tom Doak said some of Macdonald's template holes may've been originally just basically natural landforms used almost totally as natual landforms for golf and others (best example the Road Hole green and such) may've been completely man-made.

I think that's been Tom Doak's point and it's certainly been mine---ie back in the real early days of the first expressions of man-made architecture in Scotland they may not have cared a whit what they looked like!

[Tom_Doak]

But, I DO care what they look like, and I don't really want them to look artificial.  I think if I can get everybody else on board, we can build what look like 18 greens built out of natural dunes and hollows, even if we have to build the dunes and hollows ourselves for some of them.

There are a handful of natural green sites there already (holes 2-3-7-8-13-15-17), so we're off to a decent start.

I don't think it was Macdonald's intent to build artifical-looking greens and bunkers ... he just didn't have much practice at building natural-looking ones.

[Garland Bayley]

Well, I've seen a first. My answer to TEP disappeared into the ether, but Tom answered quite well, so I will rest on that.

[paul cowley]

TomD.....this is in no way an attempt to get you to show your hand...seriously...but are you more interested in finding sites and building holes that are closer to the original ones that CBM admired....or will you try to incorporate CBM's templates to the site?....or both?

I have a preference for what its worth.

[paul cowley]

....and since our posts crossed at the same time, I can see that our preferences concur.

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul
fwiw, this thread helped me realize that I've changed my mind in the last year when it comes to work of 'historical significance'.

I now think capturing the spirit of the past better than trying to recreate the letter.  

I now think it best for a modern architect to put his stamp (his talent, his ego, his ideas, his talent) on a work.

I now think that, as in any art form, trying to codify into a fixed form the fluid principles/decisions of the past a mistake.

I now think that the best architects of today more than stack up against the best of yesterday, and that they need to be bolder in their work (even bolder in the quietness and subtlety of their work, if that's what type of work they're doing).  

Did you see the shot-by-shot remake of "Psycho" that came out a few years ago? Not too many people did, I don't think.  Nothing against a good director like Gus Van Sant, but why would I want to see his version of a better director's film, especially when he copied almost exactly the original shots and editing, and especially when much of the power of the first film was the then (and only then) stunning suprise of having the lead character killed-off in the first 20 minutes?  

On the other hand, and more to the point in the context of this thread, if Gus Van Sant was a better director than Hitchcock, why would I want to see him ham-strung by trying to copy exactly the work of a lesser talent?

In other words, I now believe that if some tangible expression of the 'Spirit of St. Andrews' is possible, it is only possible if artists in every generation open up to and channel that spirit in their own unique way, and in ways appropriate to their time.

Peter

[TEPaul]

"But, I DO care what they look like, and I don't really want them to look artificial.  I think if I can get everybody else on board, we can build what look like 18 greens built out of natural dunes and hollows, even if we have to build the dunes and hollows ourselves for some of them."

TomD:

I realize you care what they look like and I think I realize how you want to go about making them look like what you care about----eg that they not look obviously artificial.

What I'm most interesting in, however, is whether some of those old linksland architects who were part of the original architects of golf in the linksland cared what they looked like or if they were even aware of the subject.

Since Macdonald took his template holes from the prototypes of that early time in Scotland done by those first architects the question becomes did he even care what they looked like?

[TEPaul]

"I now think capturing the spirit of the past better than trying to recreate the letter.  
I now think it best for a modern architect to put his stamp (his talent, his ego, his ideas, his talent) on a work.
I now think that as in any art form, trying to codify into a fixed form the fluid principles/decisions of the past a mistake."


Peter:

I believe I know what you're getting at but I don't want to try to speak for you.

I believe it's pretty hard to deny that an art form like golf course architecture undergoes various cycles as time goes on and in a phrase those cycles involve tearing into the future with all kinds of innovations and then slowing down or stopping from time to time and taking stock of where things have gone----and then, generally, looking back into the past to perhaps see where things may've gone off track in various ways if the current cycle or style or product is not exactly cutting the mustard for some perceived reason.

I think we are just about in the middle of the latter type of cycle---eg some form of renaissance of that age or style we generally call "classic" or Golden Age.

But should we consider that time in the evolution of the art form to be the pinnacle of it all to date?

I don't know that we should so the question becomes what does the art form do next----which direction does it tear off into in the future and what will the results be and what will they look like in 50 or 100 years?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I'm afraid that the current retrospective trend has already reached its zenith, and for purely economic and demographic reasons, we've now hit 1930.

[paul cowley]

Good post Peter....points I debate internally.

TP....I think CBM was more interested in recreating the essence of how the holes played....and less interested in how they looked....or maybe, as TomD sugests, he lacked the ability to recreate them naturally....or maybe he loved the different look of the holes, and it was his intent....hell, I really don't know any more about that conjecture beyond what I can see.

But I do know that by trying to recreate certain holes he ended up creating courses that were unique on their own....which is back to Peters post.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE
you got to the heart of what I'm thinking about/saying.

(I have to admit that these new beliefs are tied in part to my own experiences with the creative process, in music and writing; my natural inclination has always been to honour and aspire to the excellent works of the past, and so I know well the downside of all that, i.e. being overwhelmed or otherwise constrained by the ghosts of the greats. Honestly, the weight of that aspiration has been too much for me to bear, creatively speaking and so far.)  

You asked "But should we consider that time in the evolution of the art form to be the pinnacle of it all to date?"

I'd answer that, even if we do consider that time the pinnacle of the art, we are only seeing the art in its 'completed' form; as Paul suggests, we're maybe not privy to the deepest most thoughts and ideals (and practical realties) that 'inspired' it.  And I'm thinking that if we should copy anything, it can only be the spirit/inspiration that lay behind that art.

But then the question is, "What is that spirit?" -- which is why I'm so interested in the theoretical/historical threads, and which has to do with your looking ahead 50 and 100 years.

You asked earlier: "Since Macdonald took his template holes from the prototypes of that early time in Scotland done by those first architects the question becomes did he even care what they looked like?"

From the little I know, Macdonald strikes me as a John the Baptist type, a firebrand reformer who saw himself as a voice calling out from the wilderness.  Those type of reformers tend not to be too subtle or nuanced. The task they set for themselves is usually so large that they can accomplish it only by focusing on what they believe are the essentials. In Macdonald's case that meant bringing to life in America the great holes and strategic concepts on British links golf, and this in the face of the 'sins' of early architecture here. I don't think he had the time or the inclination to make his message any 'prettier'.  But nowadays, do we honour the messenger or the message?  

Peter

 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom / Peter:

When I look at Macdonald's work, the courses on which he spent the most time also tend to have the prettiest featuring.  National's greens and bunkers are a lot more natural-looking than some of the work Raynor did on his own.  I've always guessed that Macdonald did care about that stuff a bit, but just wasn't practiced enough to get it really right ... whereas Raynor (the engineer) just wanted to get the right shapes and sizes.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

For me to even go forward with this kind of discussion I guess I have to make a premise and first see who agrees with it or not.

And that premise is that in my opinion, the linksland or early GB golf courses that Macdonald was pulling his template holes from were a remarkable combination of completely natural landforms used for golf along with some remarkably artificial looking man-made features used for golf.

Obviously Macdonald was aware of this. Or was he? If he was did he really care since some of those holes such as the Road Hole green seems to have passed the test of time into awe and respect despite the fact it looked rather shockingly man-made and artificial as of course it was?

On the other hand, sometimes Macdonald talked the talk of desiring to make his golf architecture more natural looking but the fact is he just didn't really do that in a whole host of ways.

I just want to know why that was. I certainly have my own personal feeling on the reasons for it.

[Tom_Doak]

Kelly:

I think that one of the reasons National was modified so often by Macdonald was that he didn't get the shaping quite right the first time -- perhaps the green contours were too severe and approaches bounced away more than intended.

But, as for whether the course impacted players because it wasn't natural-looking, I don't think so.  In those days there were not nearly as many "recreational" golfers who were just out to enjoy the beauty of the countryside -- because most of the courses of that age weren't beautiful.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom(s) - thanks for those answers/posts.

I've always assumed that part of the reason for the difference is that, as many of us move ever further away from experiencing nature in our everyday lives, the 'nature' of a golf course becomes ever more important. It does for me at least.

I also assume that almost a hundred years of engineering since Macdonald's work (in all aspects of life, and with the good and bad that it has wrought) makes us a little more skeptical of the marvels of technology and of new technology, or at least a little less impressed than those of Macdonald's time with feats of engineering (like Lido?).

But perhaps most importantly, I've assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the main thing that Macdonald was importing was "shot values", i.e. holes/concepts that had proven to be effective at testing golfers' games. By other people's standards (I'm thinking Behr and Mackenzie) that might have been as limiting a concept then as it strikes me today. But maybe Macdonald felt he could not broach (or allow others to broach) 'secondary' considerations like naturalism without risking his main goals being watered down.

Do you think any of this have some validity/basis in fact?

Thanks
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

I do agree with what you've posted above.  Macdonald, above all, considered himself a golfer, so he was consumed by "shot values" being the most important part of design just as much as Jack Nicklaus is today.

However, Jack is not oblivious to trying to make his courses beautiful, as well as making them play right.  I don't think Macdonald was oblivious, either -- although in his day he didn't have as many competitors stressing that aspect of design.

[Sean_A]

I think to a large extent MCD was interested in getting the right land so he could recreate (at least to some degree) some of the shots and challenges he experienced while learning the game in Scotland.  Didn't he think the beauty was in the site, the history and the tradition of the game (and all this encompassed)?  Perhaps he did believe he was building beautiful courses because they adhered to the traditions of the game - sort of in the mind's eye beauty.

I can certainly see where this is a more than reasonable approach despite not really caring for some of the aesthetics - such as #16 at Sleepy Hollow.  For instance, do I think something that plays as well could have been built there and been prettier?  I have no doubt this was possible, however, is it desirable to do so given the history and tradition of the club?  I don't believe so.  

Ciao

[TEPaul]

TomD:

I have little doubt certainly Macdonald knew perfectly well the differences between what looked natural and what didn't in golf architecture and its features.

I just think the man probably had his feet and his career stuck right in the middle of a real transition era and seeing as he brought a form of golf architecture and a look directly from the other side where it was a real combination of both highly natural and highly artificial looking he just didn't feel like going with the new flow over here that was going hard towards much more and much greater naturalism than he'd brought over here.

For him to go with that new highly natural looking flow or the attempt at it in the future probably would've felt to him like an admission that what he brought over here from the other side could be massively improved upon at least in look. A guy as stubborn and egotistical as Macdonald was probably just didn't like that or the prospect of it as a comparison to say the look of an NGLA.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()