Given the speed of responses to this thread thus far -
- I just wanted to point out that I have seen commercial success of architects who have followed with little real distinction the same general pattern of their designs -- whether it be in one state or another.
I just have to wonder if raters and those who follow such matters closely really see what takes place from the vantage point of true creativity or does that not matter if architect "X" really creates for the upteeeeenth time the same type of course.
I like architects that take risk with their work because it shows a desire not be seen as being a particular type of designer with the same formula time after time.
Frankly, that's why I wonder about the fanfare tied to Seth Raynor. In nearly all of his efforts you see the same tried and true formula at work. No doubt there are some really outstanding courses (e.g. Fisher's Island and Camargo come qucikly to mind for me) but for a number of others I see really no desire to break new ground -- just a repeat over and over again.
The same can be said for much of the body of work from Robert Trent Jones, Sr.
No doubt there's a risk in being truly different from the type of courses that generated the amount of fanfare from the get-go. But, if the art side of design bows every time, or nearly every time, to the commercial side than I often view such architects following such a pattern as being very limited in terms of breaking new ground with future efforts.
As I said before -- I see Tetherow, despite what some critics have said, as being exceptional because Kidd didn't mail it in with a similar pattern from other efforts he has created. Will everyone like it? No, but I found such a desire to go in a different direction as being extremely creative and certainly edgy in a positive way in much of what he created there in Bend.