Is natural the ultimate goal?

[RJ_Daley]

Joe, believe it or not, I hestitated to post in thinking of justifying the Lawsonia example (or a Yeaman's Hall, or CC of Charletson) but then thought they do fit my parameters.  Neither courses have features that insult nature, they have created features that make good golf sense, and are not just willy nilly.  The gullwinged FW bunkers of Lawsonia are there for strategy as are the less artful Raynor bunkers of YH and CCof C, but are stylish enough and strategic (at least to my eye)  They are sort of restrained artificiality necessary for the strategy.  At Lawsonia, the platforms of greens are plausibly like topped off drumlins that are all over our glacier kettle and morraine region.  At a more lowland Yeamansand CCofC, there are some more built up than others.  The built up ones aren't natural sites at all, but still they are restrained to not insult nature, I don't think.

[Melvyn Morrow]

In past years when I travelled the world, I wanted the same standard of accommodation wherever I went e.g. a Hilton Hotel near every airport. However, I have never wanted the same with golf courses.

I am of the very old school. I love the natural courses with minimal intrusion because that is how golf started – this was the basis of the game. I am not a supporter of moving mountains – I can accept artificial lakes (for the sole purpose of storing water to irrigate the course) but I don’t want to play on what I describe as plastic manicured courses.

What scares the hell out of me – is that when we start to live on the Moon, we may see beautifully manicured courses with trees, lakes, double lane buggy tracks and 10,000yds long courses, located beside a Hilton Hotel. As Spock may have said to Kirk ‘Jim, this is not life as we want to know it’ – Guys if you get there please, please, please design a natural course.

Everything else is just plain artificial.

[Carl Rogers]

I am lost by this thread. 
How can a putting green and sand trap be natural?  How can a golf course be natural?
Is it that we have an innate sense of an idealized pastoral abstraction of what looks good or what is "natural"?

Is 'natural' a style?  

This thread reminds of when people in my field (I am an architect...buildings) and discuss things like 'function'.

[TEPaul]

"Is natural the ultimate goal?"

Jim:

I don't think so.

I guess I'd say if golf architecture is an art form the ultimate goal of the artists in it should probably be whatever kind of expression of art they want it to be. I'm all for the "Big World" theory that there should be a lot of difference in this art form. But for those artists whose ultimate goal is naturalism, I'd like to see some of them push that limit maybe farther than its ever been pushed before.  

[Peter Pallotta]

great thread - thanks gents.

Jim - It's hard not agree with Joe H and others who talk about 'personal preference' as opposed to 'ultimate goal'.  But here goes:

Wouldn't the ultimate goal of designing for a sport that's played inside be the very opposite of that for a sport that's played outside?

If the sport is played inside, in a building, I'd want that building to be a technological marvel, and to take full advantage of all the man-made know-how that's available.  The actual field of play would remain unchanged and standardized in any event - independent of the site. 

If a sport is played outdoors, in nature, I'd want that design to be a naturalistic marvel, and to take full advantage of the depth and breadth of nature's ways. The actual field of play would be affected dramatically, and there'd be no hint of standardization - totally dependent on the site.

Peter

[Tommy Williamsen]

The only natural golf course I have ever played was in my Dad's backyard.  Nonetheless, there is a difference between using the land and abusing the land.  I at least like to see the course fit in with the surrounding land in plantings, trees, and undulation.  A course like Ballyneal or even the Sanctuary fit in this category.  It seems that Jim's course at Pradera fit the crterion as well.  Black Rock pushes the envelope a little, especially #11 but even that course fits into the landscape. 
That said, I love Whistling Straights.  From the course you can't see the flat land the surrounds the course, so it at least feels to fit in with the surroundings.

[Sean_A]

There are so few courses that actually pull off a natural look successfully that I gotta believe its either much harder to make a course a look like it belongs then not or it isn't desirable to make courses look like they belong.  Even so, so far as I am concerned, natural is one goal, not the ultimate goal. 

Ciao

[Jim Engh]

Boys, thanks for the replies. My apologies for re-starting the old thread about Tommy. It was not intentional. I was trying to copy the quote from Mr. Doak and the next thing I know, I have the entire thread posted........ That is why the guys in my office will only let me have pencils. Nothing that can't be fixed with an electric eraser! They are sitting in fear as we speak.....oh no! Engh's on the internet!            Honestly, I do hope that Tommy is doing well.

Anyway, after reading all of your interesting and heartfelt perspectives I have come to the conclusion that the topic is simply too complex for a definitive answer. However, I would like to share some thoughts in simple, non-connected statements.

- I noticed in a past thread, I think started by Jeff Brauer,  that the majority of you view the profession more as an artform than a technical function.( Jeff sorry if I didn't get that exactly right.) I tend to agree. In fact, I view the technical side of the profession to be more about solving problems created by the artistic process.

- Is the goal of art not to invoke interest, passion and thought from the human spirit? Would that be the same for golf?

- If a piece of land is flat and boring, is it the gc architects duty to design to mimic the land or provide an unique human experience through art?

- If the goal is to invoke interest, passion and thought through art, how much of the passion revolves around the game versus the landform?

- Suppose that if art is in fact, suppoosed to be natural, how would you view the following artists? Renoir? Picasso? Warhol?

- If you feel that art does not have an obligation to be natural, how do you feel about the same artisits? Which style do you prefer? Are you pleased that there is a wide variety artistic perspective? Would that same wide perspective be positive for the game of golf?

Sorry for all of the abstract. Just things that have been running through my dark-hole-vaccum of a mind.

All the best

Jim

[Sean_A]

Boys, thanks for the replies. My apologies for re-starting the old thread about Tommy. It was not intentional. I was trying to copy the quote from Mr. Doak and the next thing I know, I have the entire thread posted........ That is why the guys in my office will only let me have pencils. Nothing that can't be fixed with an electric eraser! They are sitting in fear as we speak.....oh no! Engh's on the internet!            Honestly, I do hope that Tommy is doing well.

Anyway, after reading all of your interesting and heartfelt perspectives I have come to the conclusion that the topic is simply too complex for a definitive answer. However, I would like to share some thoughts in simple, non-connected statements.

- I noticed in a past thread, I think started by Jeff Brauer,  that the majority of you view the profession more as an artform than a technical function.( Jeff sorry if I didn't get that exactly right.) I tend to agree. In fact, I view the technical side of the profession to be more about solving problems created by the artistic process.

- Is the goal of art not to invoke interest, passion and thought from the human spirit? Would that be the same for golf?

- If a piece of land is flat and boring, is it the gc architects duty to design to mimic the land or provide an unique human experience through art?

- If the goal is to invoke interest, passion and thought through art, how much of the passion revolves around the game versus the landform?

- Suppose that if art is in fact, suppoosed to be natural, how would you view the following artists? Renoir? Picasso? Warhol?

- If you feel that art does not have an obligation to be natural, how do you feel about the same artisits? Which style do you prefer? Are you pleased that there is a wide variety artistic perspective? Would that same wide perspective be positive for the game of golf?

Sorry for all of the abstract. Just things that have been running through my dark-hole-vaccum of a mind.

All the best

Jim

Jim

I was rolling with you, though I admit it was a bit of a bumpy ride, until I hit "Suppose that if art is in fact, suppoosed to be natural, how would you view the following artists? Renoir? Picasso? Warhol?".  I don't see how making architecture naturalistic went to art being natural.  Do you really consider yourself an artist in the same way Renoir or Picasso were artists? 

Ciao

[Jim Engh]

Sean

Thanks for trying to stay with the ramble.

Certainly, I am not trying to compare myself with these artists.     
The purpose of using those artists was to present three artists with a wide and varied range of styles and perspectives, that most people would recognize. The point was that these three artists reached the heights of thier profession with wildly differing styles. Could there be an analogy to the artform of golf course design?

I do feel that any art form is supposed to inspire an emotional response from those that experience the art form. So I suppose that I do feel a kinship in that way. Of those three greats I have a personal preference. However, I truly respect and enjoy the emotional experience from all of thier works.

Jim     

[Richard Choi]

Cool! Art discussions on GCA… neato!

Jim, I believe artists like Renoir, Picasso, and Warhol are all naturalistic in their endeavor. They may not “look” naturalistic, but Renoir wanted to distill and put emphasis on how natural light interacts with objects, while Picasso put emphasis on how views from multiple angles affects how we view our world. Warhol’s naturalistic endeavor was to emphasize innate beauty in everyday objects around us.

They certainly stretched and expanded a lot of boundaries, but they were all ardent students of nature.

But I don’t think the current state of golf architecture mirror those artists. I think it goes back a bit more.

To me, the original “golden age” of golf architecture is more like the Renaissance revolution in art where faithfully recreating nature was of utmost importance. And I would argue that the period that we went through in 60’s through 90’s represented Rococo period in golf architecture where overly ornate and extreme proportions were all the rage. I would further argue that the back to the “natural” movement we have witnessed over last decade or so is the equivalent of Classicism (Tom Doak) and Romanticism (you) where artists wanted to reflect back on the essence of Greek artists and Renaissance artists.

What I am REALLY looking forward to in the future is what kind of equivalent vision we will see in golf architecture like we saw with Impressionism in art world. Who will be bold and daring enough to really distill the essence of golf architecture and re-interpret nature in a very specific manner? That should be very very exciting (at least to me).

I do think that we are a long ways from a golf architect equivalent of Picasso and Warhol.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Again, I agree with Jimbo here.  The goal is a "good test of golf" not a good test of nature!  The art of landscape and golf course architecture is to modify the landscape to make it fit for a specific human endeavor. 

Golfers are our target, not the land itself. Owners success is our concern as well.  A great natural course that doesn't sell enough rounds will soon be natural again!

Obviously, modifying it as little as possible has some benefits, but in reality, in some markets, and on some sites, so does modifying like putty, a la Whistling Straits. In others, like Sand Hills, it would be a crime and wouldn't work.

The trick is to know the difference!

[Sean_A]

Jim

I spose I see your point, but I believe gca is inherently far more limited in scope then any painter would be because the archie' s main goal is to make a product which is functional.  A painter doesn't have such a restriction.  At the end of the day, an archie can believe what he wants about his work.  Is it art, engineering, labouring etc or some combination of everything?  It may sound crass, but I am not terribly bothered what the archie believes about these matters.  No matter the philosophy or outlook, courses all look more or less alike and as such are an easily identifiable product which is part of the reason I am not convinced that archies are artists - at least in the normal sense of the word.  Off the top of my head I can't think of another "artistic" endeavor which in which the end product of all its practitioners is so similar.  Even other very functional creative areas such as furniture or building architecture can be more diverse in their appearance.  I may think this way because my eye isn't trained to see architecture or furniture the same way I see gca.  For instance, I can be cruising through on a train and spot a golf course from just a glimpse because of the difference in colour of the surrounding landscape or how an area looks strangely flattened or built up even.  I automatically try to read the course just as I would an advertisement on a billboard. 

Ciao

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff, can you think of any examples of any courses that were built to be in harmony with natural surrounds and conversely, any that were totally artificial, either kind that have gone under?  I'll have to think on that myself some.  

But, I just perked up at your statement that courses that are designed to reflect a natural playing environment, that don't sell enough rounds, are going to soon revert back to truly natural.   Where has that happened?

[Philippe Binette]

I think the goal might be integrity.

Which means, if you go for something, then flat out do it, do not go for half the result.

That's why a place like Oakmont is great, they had one thing in mind, built a hard penal course and in every detail that's exactly what they did.

When Tom Doak does a course like Barnbougle Dunes, his goal is probably to make a great field of golf, but to make as natural as possible, so every detail is oriented that way with great success.

Probably the same philosophy applies to Raynor's course, fit the templates them fit it all the way...

If you start building just another golf course, or a course that would be like the other one you did on the other side of the country, then you're in trouble.

Basically, try to make every course unique, respect it's uniqueness all the way. It might be green style, bunker style, hell tee style, whatever, but try to reinvent yourself a bit every time.

great artist consistently try to reinvent themself, if you become stagnant, you're dead

[Geoffrey Childs]

Jim

I think these questions posed months ago remain relevant to your new thread "Is natural the goal".  Perhaps you can answer them here in this context.

Thanks

From your other thread-

I see Jim Engh bumped up the Tommy thread and I was hoping to get some answers from this query 2 months ago.. I'm hoping he can expand on some statements he's made.. I'm keen to know the answers..

Jim-- anythoughts on the below

Jim

I had the pleasure of playing Pradera this past summer with some friends and your design associate Tim H.

We noticed that the course features well placed and very imposing central bunkering but there seems to be an upslope going into them from the tee facing side and a lot of heavy grass in their surrounds.

We mentioned to Tim that these features seem to be "anti-gathering" and you almost need to fly the ball into them to have a ball hit into these bunkers and we asked if this was by design. He replied that you did this on purpose and the design intent was "not to punish members good shots".  Your quote from above "The noses and slender nature came from my belief that my profession is more about art forms and human spaces than the creation of a field on which to play a game." seems to be in line with what Tim told us.  Are these imposing looking (and playing if you get in them) bunkers really more for art and eye candy then for playing the game?  Given that you said your "muscle bunkers" were inspired at Royal Portrush which certainly are gathering bunkers that were designed as hazards I wonder if you could explain a bit more about your design intent with regard to the bunkering schemes at your courses?

Thanks for your participation.

and

Bump for an answer to Noel's question.

I was there at Pradera and spoke with Tim about the bunkering and their design intent as well.

I'd love it if you would expand on your statement

"The noses and slender nature came from my belief that my profession is more about art forms and human spaces than the creation of a field on which to play a game."

because I strongly disagree.  Golf is a sport and the playing field is there for the game.  It is not a museum or national park to be passive and look at it. I certainly think your profession is an art form and the more that a course is integrated with its surrounds and the better it pleases the senses the better the experience of PLAYING THE GAME will be.

I'd really appreciate your take on this.

[RJ_Daley]

You're not the only one, Mr. Grumpy 

[Peter Nomm]

I sure wish I could pen the ultimate answer, but truth is there is not one.  On this site alone there are 1500 ideas of natural, 1500 ideas of contrived, and 1500 ideas of a great golf course. 

Which is why these threads are so much fun 

I would imagine that each one of us, even on the best course we can imagine, would be able to find something that we would do differently.  Probably even the course's designer???

But even on that hole that I hate - if I hit a great shot and make birdie, I LOVE IT.  And that is what it is all about.

[Joe Hancock]

Dr. Grumpy, RJ, and Naffer I presume,

I hope your interest in hearing Jim's position on these design issues is because y'all are inherently interested to know many perspectives in the field of golf course architecture.

If it's because you are looking to hold a person up to public humiliation because they think differently than you, or have different priorities for golf courses, then I would say that would be a wrong motivation.

Not a gauntlet or anything, just deciphering a bit of tone from the typed words...I hope I'm wrong.

Joe

[RJ_Daley]

Joe, speaking only for myself, No Way am I looking for any 'humiliation'.   I have never played one of Jim's courses.  I've just seen many very flattering pictures.  The landscape beauty of his landscape focused design is very appealing. 

But, there I said it, as he apparently did in the quote:

We mentioned to Tim that these features seem to be "anti-gathering" and you almost need to fly the ball into them to have a ball hit into these bunkers and we asked if this was by design. He replied that you did this on purpose and the design intent was "not to punish members good shots".  Your quote from above "The noses and slender nature came from my belief that my profession is more about art forms and human spaces than the creation of a field on which to play a game."

I'm asking about this apparent priority he seems to be presenting about  a desire to create an artform and human space before attending to the playability or a field of play.  We are asking him to explain this more fully.  Perhaps, as is highly understandable from all the short phrases everyone makes that don't reflect the "whole" idea of our values, this is one example of a quote out of context, or not fully developed.  We would like Jim to elaborate.  I think that is fair.  They are his words after all, not ours...

And to be upfront, I personally believe you must provide the field of play of the game considerations first.  I thought I was quite balanced in my views above, that I'm not a "natural design absolutist".  I just feel that if you go either way (artificial landforms as landscape art) or designs that collaborate with the natural surrounds, the golf sense has to come first, or else one is just producing nice golf calendar photo views.  Would you agree with any of that? 

[Joe Hancock]

RJ,

I pretty much agree with everything you said. I would like to hear Jim's perspective on why, or if, he choses to prioritize the space and art forms than the actual playability....as it seems he is saying.

However, even if he comes back and confirms his priorities as implied, I am just hoping that the differences of opinion that are sure to follow would be respectful. We deal with ideals on this website most of the time, and it may prove enlightening to hear from someone who is radically apart from the status quo here....even if we disagree.

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

For me natural is the ultimate goal, because it seems like a nearly impossible thing to strive for.  We've come close, but we have never really gotten there yet, and that's one of the things that keeps me going.  I just went and looked at a new project in the Caribbean (of all places) that could be the one -- but it's still several years in the future, unfortunately.

At the same time, I understand that natural isn't the goal for all courses, or even for all of mine.  I think we will be pushing the envelope at Old Macdonald far more than most people expect, and I'll be the first to applaud when somebody pulls off the Picasso of golf course designs, really out there and yet fun to play.  I was talking with a landscape architect recently and asked him who he thought would be a good collaborator for such a project -- not a Tour pro but a landscape architect who is way "out there" so I could serve as the golf expert for them.  But, I doubt I will ever attract the sort of client who wants something like that; I'm typecast now as much as you are.

Our styles are just opposites, which is why it's so interesting they both attract attention.  My associate Brian Slawnik was the one who contributed the little phrase on our web site about "Any edge of disturbance ... is strenuously examined and finessed until it is blurred beyond recognition."  It's a lot different than your approach; for better or for worse, that's for others to say.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jim,
I'd encourage you to post a picture from your new bunkerless course.
Do you think that course looks more natural than the Reynolds course?
Cheers

[Geoffrey Childs]

Joe

This is Ran’s website dedicated to issues related to golf course architecture. It is a subject most of us are obsessed with to the point that we spend time here that might be better spent with work, families or reading.  I don’t spend much time on line anymore for a variety of reasons but I don’t know what your point is regarding the questions.

We spent some one on one time with a design associate who personally gave us some insight into bunkering schemes and strategies intended for member play at the course. Those insights also related to a quote “The noses and slender nature came from my belief that my profession is more about art forms and human spaces than the creation of a field on which to play a game." Jim made on this website.  I found that to be as unique a statement from someone building golf courses as I have ever read in books or on this site. Are you saying that it is unacceptable to disagree and discuss it and dissect exactly what Jim means by this?  Isn’t that EXACTLY what Ran intended for this site and one of the blessings some of us as amateurs have in directly questioning architects, superintendents and writers?  Geez Joe – if we can’t discuss this and ask these questions why are we on this site?

Many know that I am a great admirer of Macdonald and Raynor golf courses.  If anything is true it is that they function superbly as a field of play for the game of golf. I do consider some of them museum pieces but for different reasons then their being works of art.  I thought my question to be one that got into a successful architects insights regarding his work and one that might be of interest to the entire group.

Perhaps I was wrong – See you in the spring when you are back this way and we can discuss it over an alcoholic beverage.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I don't think that natural is the "ultimate" goal.

I think the ultimate goal lies within the framework of the architecture as it relates to the challenge presented to the golfer, vis a vis the impediments placed in his path as he attempts to venture from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible,  through the workings of the architect's mind, the shaper's blade and the superintendent's care.

Golf is a game, a participant sport, not a spectator sport.

It's how the architect prepares the playing field in an attempt to frustrate the golfer's quest that determines the merits of the challenge and the value of the architecture.

The ultimate goal is to blend the task of the challenge with the excitement and joy of the pursuit of the lowest score, vis a vis the production of great shots relative to the golfer's ability.

The ultimate goal lies within the substance, not the form of the challenge.

There's little that's natural about the bunkers a Merion, Aronomink, Winged Foot, Quaker Ridge, Baltusrol or Plainfield.

There's nothing natural about the elevated foot pads at thousands of tees.

There's nothing natural about the greens at NGLA or Westhampton.

Yet, these courses provide a joyous challenge for most levels of golfers despite their unnatural genesis, construction and maintainance.

The ultimate goal is in the play of the game and not in the purity of the soil.