[Bryan Izatt]

about your own work, what kind of response do you hope to elicit?  In following the Old Macdonald Short thread, I noticed what I'd categorize as 4 types of responses:

a) fawning: wow that's the greatest I've ever seen; can't wait; love to hear about how you work.

b) critical, you're just doing self promotion.

c) critical comment on the design.

d) inquiries and probes about why you're doing it the way you're doing it.

In using that thread as an example, the majority of responses fell into category a) or b).  Do those type of responses discourage you from posting at all, or from following up on the post, once it goes down that road.

When you post, are you commited to responding to all the replies that are in category c) and d)?

I, for one, like these kind of threads and hope that you, the professionals, continue to make them.  I hope also that you aren't discouraged by the inane type a) and b) responses.  But, also that you don't drop the legitimate category c) and d) responses given the preponderance of the a) and b) type of responses.

[Ed Oden]

I, for one, like these kind of threads and hope that you, the professionals, continue to make them.  I hope also that you aren't discouraged by the inane type a) and b) responses.  But, also that you don't drop the legitimate category c) and d) responses given the preponderance of the a) and b) type of responses.

Bryan, well stated!  We would all suffer if architects and others involved with specific projects are discouraged from sharing their work.

Ed

[Mike Nuzzo]

Does an architect try to elicit?

What about sharing with friends or those that are interested.

I sometimes talk about what I am feeling just to see what will happen next -- either what will happen within me or someone else.
Often the responses are an enlightening surprise.


I have asked Brian Philips in the past to share his work and I would still encourage his work.

[RJ_Daley]

I hope I made myself clear on the Old Mac thread in that I did note an element of self promotion, but I personally feel that is just fine for an archie to participate in that manner along with the higher purpose to participate in a manner that helps enlighten we forum participants about the design and construction and development issues of bringing a project to the forefront. 

I wish more archies would do some placement of threads that calls attention to their work.   Some seem to shy away out of a sense of modesty and feel it is perhaps ethically uncomfortable.  Of course we all admire a modest and ethical person.  But frankly, I for one don't see it as egregious ethical compromise for an archie to come on a site like this, and call attention to their work.  Afterall, this group isn't going to automatically  blanket fawn over the project, and there will be critical (and unfortunately sometimes insulting comments).  But, how can you be in business and pursue a profession that is part technical skill and part artistic, if you don't participate in promoting your product and enjoying the responses, good and bad? 

What better way to learn for us and even other archies than have a practioner place his project up for discussion and have lay people that are passionate about the subject, and other archies and industry professionals comment?  Isn't that what this place is all about? 

I think if a particular archie or firm gets overboard on self promotion on GCA.com, the body of posters will soon tire of overt or crass commercialism and "inane" content, and the whole situation would self correct. 

But, in the mean time archies, please do self promote things we otherwise might not hear of. 

[Phil Benedict]

Self promotion is as American as apple pie.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

Well it's better than trying to do illicit things.   

Sharing is a good motive. But, I presume everybody who posts here is trying to get some kind of response as well as providing information.  I was trying to see if there was a reluctance amongst the architects to receiving critical or probing or clarification type of responses.

I'd encourage all the architects to speak to their ideas, directions and work.  I'd encourage everyone else to focus on type c) and d) responses and discussion.

[Kalen Braley]

Bryan,

My take on your question is of course there is an element of self-promotion which cannot be avoided by one showing thier work.  That being said, I don't see anything wrong with that because its done in the right context of this being an alleged golf course architecture enthusiasts website.    

As it pertains to that thread specifically, I especially like this type of documentation both thru photos and the written word.  We've all seen photos of the finished product on course after course.  Thats not to say I don't like and appreciate the course reviews, but I find the creation part more interesting because if for no other reason we don't get to see it as much.  Personally i'm fascinated by seeing a raw piece of land transformed into a golf course.  Any insight to that is always great to have and I hope threads like this one become more and more frequent.

[Tony Petersen]

I agree with Nuzzo... regardless of the intent, the bottom line is they are sharing with friends and those that are interested... That should be enough in my book

I love hearing input from Architects... We all appreciate the finished product, but it's nice to have a resource for the upcoming~in progress~about to happen~might just happen~can you imagine~projects that little would be known about if but for this site (in my case, at least...)

[Mike_Young]

I start each day trying to promote the hell out of my business.....I have no problem self promoting but I try not to on this site.....I am uncomfortable with it.....PLUS.....most of the guys we need to promote toward look at this business in a different light than this site and they have different hot buttons.....
I can honestly say I post on here mainly for entertainment and I do pick up a few things here and there.....but I see no need to self promote here......

[paul cowley]

Bryan....personally I have no problem answering your question by stating "all of the above".

I enjoy, or at least don't mind, explaining and talking about things I have done.....precisely because they are things that I HAVE DONE and I can talk about them sensibly.....as opposed to my conjecture and opinion about others peoples creations, or their motivations,or  comparisons, or ratings and/or rankings, between most anything, and/or anyone.

That stuff wears me out, and I would rather read about what others think.

 

[Lester George]

I like posting when I think I can add to the discussion or learn something.  Sometimes it's just a release at the end of a long day.

I don't do it to promote, however I'm sure there is a residual affect from posting. 

I tire quickly of the long debates because they sound to much like everyday debates with clients which takes on a "worklike" pattern. Those seem to start to bore me.  I try to avoid people who obviously have an agenda or a need to incite just for effect. 

In thinking back on many of my (not so many) posts, I tend to engage when other architects are engaged.  Mostly I just read some things and consider the opinions of other architects. 

Sometimes I don't come on here for weeks, sometimes two or three times a week if something interests me.  I find I don't spend much time with OT threads because I just don't have the time and I don't type well enough to really go into length.

Lester

[Jeff_Brauer]

I rarely post about my own work, but have answered questions of others, on the rare occasions when someone actually wants to talk about it.

Other than that, I try to answer general questions best I can and when Tommy N was here, defend ASGCA and the occaisional use of a catch basin to drain the golf course.......I also like the challenge of expressing my ideas succinctly in writing. My father always told me that if I couldn't explain an idea in just a few concise sentences, it probably wasn't a good idea.

Sometimes, my noodles and doodles here are dry run for my monthly columns, so there is some practical benefit.

And, sometimes, I just need to get it out of my system!

I often wonder about just what kind of person spends time posting on internet boads.....so far, haven't really come up with an answer I like to justify it.

[Ian Andrew]

Bryan,

I post it on my blog instead – because coming there you know it’s MY blog – and would expect me to post my work. I don’t have to defend it as being promotional – because if you don’t like my thoughts – you simply chose to stay away from my blog.

The site is not mine its Ran’s site – so I don’t feel completely comfortable with posting anything that is purely mine. I look at GCA as a public forum – so actively promoting my own work would be rude – in my opinion.

I’ll comment on courses that I’ve worked or on or projects I’ve been involved with since I assume most enjoy the detail. Although I still think I killed your discussion of the 7th at Osprey once I mentioned my involvement – you know that it tempered discussion. I’m a regional architect by the site’s definition – which means things I work on will rarely make it to discussion.

I know my role here – its Canadian history – I’m comfortable with that.

[Bryan Izatt]

Thanks to all for your responses.  I'm a little surprised at how many of you are so reluctant to talk about your own work for fear that it will be seen as promotional.  Such a sensitive group      Seems to me that most here are quite quick discern the BS and to critique your work so I don't think you're going to get too far with self-promotion even if you wanted to.  But, I see a difference between talking about your work and promoting it.  I'd certainly like to hear more about all your work from your own lips.  What you were thinking and trying to do in certain instances.  There'll always be lots of others who will praise or criticize your work, but it is from their own biased perspectives.  I'd like to hear more of your perspective.

Ian, I get your point about your blog, but I think that sharing some of that here directly would be good for this site, (even if not so much better for you).  And I don't think you killed my thread, I think people just ran out of ways to say kill the damn tree.     I for one enjoyed your inside knowledge and information.

One other hope is that if you guys were to talk a bit more about your work and its ideas and merits we might be able to expand our tastes in holes and courses and break the stranglehold that the favoured few enjoy on this site.

[JMorgan]

I truly enjoy discussions that allow architects to post their work because I get insight not only into a particular designer's way of thinking about gca but also how others perceive the particular work and add otherwise unseen facets to my own perception.  In one small respect this is why I wanted to start an architect's roundtable a few months back ... so an architect might not feel any inhibition when discussing examples of his work. 

[Tom_Doak]

Bryan:

I know some other architects believe that I am the "puppeteer" of this web site and that its main purpose is to promote my work ... even though I spend at least 3/4 of my considerable time here discussing others' work and ideas.

I asked George to post the thread about Old Macdonald because there has been rampant speculation about what we are doing there, the team dynamics, and so on.  A lot of the time I post about our current work it is actually because I feel that I HAVE TO post to correct inaccuracies.

There is some overlap of discussing what you are doing and self-promotion and it's really impossible to do one without some of the other.  I'm happy to see when another architect posts a photo of something they've built for discussion, and I hope it elicits not fawning praise but real discussion.

As for the Old Macdonald thread, I've been away working for four days and there have been about 150 posts since I left ... it's almost like homework just trying to keep up with it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

If you are a puppeteer, I didn't see the strings showing on your gca trading card.......

[Joe Hancock]

Tom Doak,

It's hard to separate the the line between contribution and promotion. I would trust that the sane, reasonable, and trusted folks on this site recognize the difference.

Your contributions here are appreciated by most, I am sure.

I always benefit by seeing examples of you and your crews work, and hope that a day will come that the favor might be returned.

Joe

[Peter Pallotta]

And of course what Joe said also goes for the superintendants and shapers and associates and maintenance and construction crew people who post here. Thanks.   

I've just broken my own (short-lived) vow never to post on a 'meta-thread', those discussions where we discuss how we discuss what we discuss here.....but I wanted to mention that.

Peter   

[David Druzisky]

Bryan,

Nice question. (fawning)

One of the things I enjoy most about the site is the ability I have to get a little GCA mental stimulation.  I am up here in Idaho by myself and sometimes need a little infusion of theory and debate to reflect on.  Not to speak for the others but I would bet several of the other architects that post here are also one man shops and enjoy the site in the same way. ?

Unfortunately, I always forget to post something when it is going on and I need to remember to do so more often.  Plus photos durring construction dont convey much nor do 2 dimensional diagrams in my mind.  We also see other courses and probaly could post stuff on those too.  I played Stanley Thompsons Sao Paulo CC a while back (Ian) and forgot to take photos and if I had I would have thrown those up here as I bet not too many here have played it.  I wasnt able to get much history specifics when I played it because of the language barrier but maybe we would have heard some on here.

As far as concern about criticism, I think many of us work on fine projects that are not as richly in the mold of what goes on say at Bandon, Chambers, Sand Hills etc and thereore do not believe the group, this particular group, would be all that interested.

As far as posters just bringing up our courses, they have to see them.  Many of us have probably done some things we think are really exciting and worthy of discussion along the lines of what goes on here on this site, but if no one sees it because it is off the beaten path, it isn't going to have traction.  For instance, Schaupeters Old Hawthorn in Missouri is chalk full of stuff the folks on here get into yet I dont think it got much more than some mentions of it.  Maybe that is a good example of a good reason for us to post more of our stuff alone.  My Laughlin Ranch (self promotion) has a bunch of features and traits worth discussion on here, but because of its location I would be the only one talking about it! At least architecturally.  Or, maybe a couple posters played it and thought it sucked and are just being nice and not commenting on it .

DbD

[Ian Andrew]

As far as concern about criticism, I think many of us work on fine projects that are not as richly in the mold of what goes on say at Bandon, Chambers, Sand Hills etc and thereore do not believe the group, this particular group, would be all that interested.

David,

Very well put - that sums it up for me too.

I built a public course many years ago that is fun to play - lots of width, short grass and very little bunkering. The greens are really wild because I wasn't consticted by bunkering. It achieved everything I set out to accomplish with a course for purely public play - but its surrounded by housing, has no elevation change, not a single tree on 16 holes, has 5 storm water management ponds (not directly in play at my insistance but they are there) and was the source of fill for all the housing.

Put that up against anything Tom has done and it looks like shit.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - if you'll share what course you're talking about, I'm going to go play it. (Sorry, I don't know enough about you or your work to recognize it from your description). I mean that sincerely. I think one of the (surprising) things that my time on this site has given me is a greater appreciation for the small, unassuming public courses that I've played - I somehow can now better see their charm and nuance. And (except for the housing) your description sounds a lot like the lesser-known British courses that Sean posts pictues of and that I like so much - quiet, subtle, little fairway bunkering, fun greens. Which is to say, Ian, that I think a heck of a lot has to do with perspective; and, excuse me saying this, but perhaps you might want to look at that course you built with a fresh set of eyes.

Peter

[Bryan Izatt]

Peter,

Ha! Sucked you into a meta-thread. 

Ian's course is Ballantrae in a bungalow style retirement community in the burg of Ballantrae up there around Hwy 48 and Aurora Rd. 

Ian is being too modest (fawning).  For the property it's on, he's created an interesting, and challenging track.  The greens, as he's mentioned are something else.  The housing is not too intrusive on the corridors of play.  Unfortunately some of Ian's work has been disfigured in the interest of yet more housing and some of the bunkering has been dumbed down.  I'm sure he would disclaim responsibility for the changes.  There is a nice redan, though.

Let me know in the spring if you want to go there.  I'd be happy to accompany you.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bryan - thanks.

You're right, Ian is too modest. I've played Ballantrae (more than once) and I liked it, and so did my playing partners. I'd be very happy to play it again, with you, once we climb up to say, 5 degrees.

This is a good meta-thread; otherwise, my vow remains!!
Peter

[David Stamm]

I know some other architects believe that I am the "puppeteer" of this web site and that its main purpose is to promote my work ... 

  Just kidding, Tom!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()