[Joe Hancock]

So, which is it?

An artist does what he or she pleases unless it's a commissioned work. An architect doesn't do anything until there is a paying client.

Does any one of us(no matter our vocation) have the conviction to walk off the job every time we don't agree with 100% of the daily grind? Why should the architect not stick around and make the best of every situation, within reason? Is every architect so good at the trade that they should have that kind of control over every project, every detail?

Joe

[Jeff_Mingay]

Joe, my friend... very, very good question, relative to the realities of golf course design and construction.

We ran into a situation recently at one of our projects where the client insisted on certain things that almost lead to walking away from the project.

Cooler heads prevailed in the end, and Rod Whitman - frankly, to my surprise! - calmly pointed out that, in fact, we are working for our client(s), and thus we should try to make the best of the situation. I think we have, to the best of our abilities. And, honestly, it's been a very interesting challenge; a learning experience too.

Moreover, as much as we consider ourselves artists at the core, we are businessmen trying to make a good living at our chosen vocation. And, of course, pleasing your client(s) is a major aspect of being a good businessman.

I guess in course architecture, part of the trick is to chose the right client(s), if you're in a position to do so.

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
If one treats being a golf architect as a business and needs projects to earn a living, then I would agree that he or she might have to look at this differently than someone who is doing it as a pure passion.  Could this possibly be why some of the great classic courses turned out as good as they did?  As we all know, a number of them were designed by individuals who did not look at golf architecture as a money earning business.  This included some of the amatuers as well as "professional" architects like George Thomas who didn't charge a fee.  I doubt that many of these guys took on projects where they had to compromise their ideas and principles.  
Mark

[Phil_the_Author]

Joe,

I disagree with your premise, "An artist does what he or she pleases unless it's a commissioned work. An architect doesn't do anything until there is a paying client."

Do you mean to te the VAST majority of works produced by Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Rembrant, etc... are not the works of an artist simply because they were commissioned?

It is the quality of the work produced that defines whether it is a great work of art or not. In every case it is still art.

It is the same with golf course design and the architects who create them. They are all artists. It is the quality of the courses created that dictate whether we have another Da Vinci or simply a teenager with cans of spray paint and a highway overpass...

[Joe Hancock]

It is the quality of the work produced that defines whether it is a great work of art or not. In every case it is still art.

Philip,

I really like this statement.

Joe

[Forrest Richardson]

The Work.

 The Client.

     You.

I have never figured out how to change font size in posts, so you will need to imagine the top line in 48 point — the middle in about 30 point — and the last line as it is.

This was a poster by Goodby-Silverstein Partners (advertising gurus) about 20 years ago. It communicated how they looked at their work — the work being paramount, the client being next important, and finally, "you" being a distant last in the overall scheme of things.

Rich Silverstein, a friend, explained the concept as not being "against" the individual, but rather that the individual needs in a creative business is not as essential as the work itself. The work needs to drive everything.

What I love about this poster is that it is shared with clients, team members, contractors and partners — no one is left wondering about the approach. We use this in our office. Whenever I have had trouble with a client, I sketch this simple concept on paper and explain that it is not "our" wishes against theirs — that we are striving for the "work" to be as good as possible.

When everyone realizes that we are focusing on the work, it becomes less personal and less about who wants what.

[Kalen Braley]

I've always sort of thought/figured that stuff like this would be at least in concept worked out before one(the archy) signs on the dotted line...that is if they are in position to walk away.

However, if one is short on work/needs the job/has mouths to feed, then in this case I would suspect its all about what the client wants and the architect would be more in the camp of "Yes Sir" type responses.

But I would imagine all of the above applies to just about any profession as it relates to hiring people.

[JESII]

Joe,

I disagree with your premise, "An artist does what he or she pleases unless it's a commissioned work. An architect doesn't do anything until there is a paying client."

Do you mean to te the VAST majority of works produced by Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Rembrant, etc... are not the works of an artist simply because they were commissioned?

It is the quality of the work produced that defines whether it is a great work of art or not. In every case it is still art.

It is the same with golf course design and the architects who create them. They are all artists. It is the quality of the courses created that dictate whether we have another Da Vinci or simply a teenager with cans of spray paint and a highway overpass...

Mostly agreed, but then how do you explain Tom Doak's answer to Tom Paul about creative freedom on a course he was doing strictly for himself?

I would say the art (if we insist on calling it that) is comprimised by compensation in a way that makes Joe's question very valid...

[Eric Smith]

Is their a great difference in the client/architect relationship from say building buildings and building golf courses?

From my experience, right now we build buildings, the architect is following directives from the client, me, in creating the
type building(s) I desire and have laid out.  Sure I'm borrowing ideas from other buildings I've seen, or buildings we've done before or the many pictures I've accumulated showcasing designs that I like.

The architect puts the ideas together and presents me with a design. We tweak it. He redesigns. We tweak...etc. until the design is what I want to put in the ground.  And I enjoy working with this architect. And vise versa.  It's an easy relationship. And he's paid well.  I can't imagine him saying, uh, Eric your idea for your new building isn't good enough, so I've designed this building instead. Hope you like it!

Now someday I'm going to build the golf course, God willing.  It will be built on land that my family lives on.  I've spent days upon days walking it, drawing it, contemplating it, even playing it in the winter. 15 of the 18 holes are cleared, rolling pastureland.  I believe I've got an excellent routing in place too.  There's much I can't do in putting it in the ground. However I wouldn't choose an architect who doesn't work with his clients.  And I get chills thinking somebody I'm paying would say I'm 'meddling'. What an insult.  If it was another piece of land, one that I wasn't so intimately familiar with, I can see saying hey, run with it, build me the best you can find out there. I've looked at 650 acres right off the interstate as a possibility for this very scenario. Wouldn't have any desire to inject myself in the design of this course.  Would need some investors however!

But this won't be the case on the farm.  

Artist or Specialized Service Provider?  Sounds like there's both kinds to me.

I guess in course architecture, part of the trick is to chose the right client(s), if you're in a position to do so.

Is the 'position to do so' meaning choosing only clients who don't participate in the process?  Would I be considered one of the 'right' clients?  If not, it's a shame.  

I positively love what gca's do. It's one of the coolest jobs in my book.  Especially those who practice minimalism.  I also believe that sometimes a piece of land is begging for a few cups and a few flags and little else and that sometimes others, not just gca's, can see it.  

Happy 2008!

[JESII]

Eric,

Interesting post...do you agree that your personal needs for a GCA might be different from someone with less time and energy to commit to collaborating on the project...but no less of an expectation or goal for the end result?

[Eric Smith]

Jim,
I do agree.
Eric

[Tom_Doak]

Kalen:

You're right, the contract dictates who has the final say in such matters -- if it says.

Not many architects have ever had the power to make their client sign off on ceding control of the design to the architect ... and even those that do (like Nicklaus) sometimes give it up when there is a job they particularly want to do, but the client (like Michael Pascucci) won't cede control.

Once you've signed a contract, it's hard to back out if you disagree with the client.  I've signed a couple where the parameters of the job were completely misrepresented, and I was stuck with building a course I never would have signed up for to begin with ... I'm trying to sort out one of those now, before it gets to construction.  Clients can usually fire "for cause," but architects can't, because the client is investing money in promoting their name well in advance of the course being completed.

So, as Jeff says, you've got to choose your clients carefully.  I have certainly turned down jobs when the client seemed too adamant about having the final say on individual holes ... but I've signed up other jobs where there was the same insistence, because I had a good feeling about the individual.  In a case like Eric's, I would have to feel like I knew him really well before I'd sign up for his process.

[Eric Smith]

In a case like Eric's, I would have to feel like I knew him really well before I'd sign up for his process.

In the words of Lloyd Christmas,
"So your saying there's a chance!"
 -- Dumb and Dumber

[Tom_Doak]

Eric:

I didn't read your whole post before.  I just noticed that you've routed the whole thing yourself and cleared most of it.  That's the part I'm best at, so you probably don't need me then, do you?

[Eric Smith]

Cleared meaning that the field are there. In open pasture.
I haven't cut any trees.

[JESII]

No grovelling Eric...it's embarrssing...


 

[TEPaul]

Sully said:

"Mostly agreed, but then how do you explain Tom Doak's answer to Tom Paul about creative freedom on a course he was doing strictly for himself?

I would say the art (if we insist on calling it that) is comprimised by compensation in a way that makes Joe's question very valid..."



I don't know any of us should just assume that just because an architect (perhaps Doak in this case) may alter some of the things he'd like to do on some project because his client asked him to that there has to be something inferior about the result.

On the other hand, when an architect (Doak in this case) says he might have the opportunity on some up-coming project to do anything at all he wants to do I don't know that we should automatically assume the result will be the best it could be.

I just think on the issue of an architect (Doak in this case) being able to do exactly what he wants without any restrictions would be interesting to see----that's all.

Always in the back of my mind is something Bill Coore once said which was sometimes the best results come from things that at first may've seemed like mistakes or even in the overcoming of something that at first presented a real obstacle.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

I agree with everything you've written above.  Pete Dye enjoyed pointing out to me a couple of places where the design of a hole had to be changed because the builders had not understood him and made a large construction mistake, which he ran with; I'm sure that's where Bill Coore got that.  Likewise, having to work around a difficult obstacle is the making of many great courses.

I also agree with what you said about Patrick lamenting "compromise".  Some people automatically equate the term with meaning "settling for less", but in a profession like design where everything is a matter of opinion, and sometimes your opinion will prove more popular than mine.

However I was talking to Dick Youngscap recently (as I try to do once a year) and he was lamenting the tendency of golf course developers to insert themselves into the process too much.  He said that a great design has a certain rhythm and form to it, and if someone comes into the middle of the process and interrupts that rhythm, it is almost impossible to disguise it and hard to get it back for the rest of the job.  And that's certainly the truth -- if a client is going to have something important to say, he should say it AT THE BEGINNING of the job and not halfway through.  Of course, Dick Youngscap was a practicing architect for years before he developed Sand Hills, so he understands the problem of interference better than most.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Dick Youngscap was a practicing architect before Sand Hills?

I didn't know that. What kind of an architect?

You're right about the word compromise and the perceived meaning of it today. Compromise is one of those words that has somewhat shifted in accepted meaning over the years to what is today, a fairly perjorative meaning.

But it wasn't always that way. Compromise in the old fashioned meaning applied to classical politics (Greek and Roman) actually meant the intelligent and constructive settling of differences of opinions. Perhaps an early form of "game theory" as it were.

Other words that have shifted towards pretty much the perjorative are---"Egregious" which once meant remarkable good but now means remarkably bad.

Another more interesting word is "shit" which has now devolved into only a profane meaning but in Lincoln's time he used the word in public discourse although back then it was "Beshit".

An example of Lincoln's use of the word was a joke he told publicly on General McClellan who as the top general of the Union Army completely frustrated Lincoln due to his constant procrastination in carrying out Lincoln's war policy and orders.

Lincoln got so frustrated with McClellan he got in his carriage and went out to the field to speak with him and when he got to McClellan's camp there was no one there except two privates digging a hole.

Lincoln asked the startled privates what they were doing and they replied;
"We are digging a privy for General McClellan, Mr. President."

Lincoln:
"Is it a one-holer or a two holer?"

Privates:
"It's a one-holer, Mr. President."

Lincoln:
"That's a very good thing because if it was a two holer before general McClellan could make up his mind he'd probably beshit himself."

[Joe Hancock]

Keep it up, Two Toms.....I'm really learning a lot of shit now.....

 

Happy New Year to the two of you......

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:  Dick Youngscap was a building architect by trade, in Lincoln.  I've never asked him about his practice, but I think there was a lot of residential work, because his first foray into golf was Firethorn, the residential development course he did with Pete Dye.

The two of them working together was a particularly strong-willed pairing.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom x2,

I'm pretty sure Mr. Youngscap designed the lodge and cottages at Sand Hills, too, and was hands-on involved with the construction of those buildings as well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()