[Lester George]

Forrest,

I love this thread....I hate this thread. 

It clearly demonstrates that the view from the "cheap seats" is always excellent.

It also demonstrates that we (architects) have gone down an irreversible path of letting the masses take credit for work they have no business being involved in.

Lester

[Melvyn Morrow]

Lester

Well said, All and I mean ALL Architects and Designers need to stand up for their involvement in the design. If it is Co-designed then fine just confirm it but don’t give credit to those who do not deserve it.

In the past there were records of what was done and by whom, but over the years these records have been destroyed, misplaced or burnt when the old timber club houses and storage facilities went up in smoke. 

I for one am left trying to resolve what Old Tom Morris actually did or did not do. I have to put up with sniping comments from others at times, but let’s be generous and call it due to incomplete research on Old Tom.

It’s a bloody mountain that has to be climbed, those who research other designers know the problem, yet most of them are searching in the 20th Century, I am going back to the mid 19th Century. Records still surprising exist, perhaps no longer in the archives of the main or regional newspapers but in Universities, libraries and most of all the old Estate records and archives. Slowly, day by day I am putting together a list of courses that I believe I can prove had Old Tom design involvement from original to modifications. Also a list on the courses he opened and played in the first match, so as not to be confused with his designer work.

If you could see the volumes of articles, paperwork I read and the unbelievable number of e-mails and telephone calls I have to make just looking for Old Tom’s involvement you would clearly understand how important it is for future generations that the real designers are clearly identified with their courses. Plus those designers that follow must make a list of their involvement on the changes they make to the original design. We need to have a true record of who did what and when> Fine credit a Celebrity with his involvement but also identify the real designer – the one who actually designed the course - the definition of which needs to be agreed by all first.

It may appear unimportant to you but you will leave a nightmare for future researchers.  If nothing else it’s MHO that you owe to golf the right to know who was responsible for the design of her courses.

Melvyn

[JMorgan]

Can anyone cite instances analogous to ghostwriting, where the pro has hired someone to essentially "write" the course but the pro claims authorship?

[Jim_Kennedy]

It also demonstrates that we (architects) have gone down an irreversible path of letting the masses take credit for work they have no business being involved in.- Lester George

Lester,
What masses are you referring to?

[Lester George]

Melvyn,

Please don't take my answer wrong.  Believe me, I applaud your efforts.  If more people did what you were doing, there would be less misrepresentation.  

I have struggled with "correcting" the record on many courses I have renovated (new ones seem to keep things together).  It's like finding a needle in a stack of needles.

I hope you prevail, but I think it is a terrible task to validate.

Lester

[Lester George]

Jim,

I am referring the the "Pro Golfer Designers" as the thread states.  But only the ones who do not attempt to learn form years of dedicated practice, which, in my opinion, is the majority of them.

Lester

[Jim_Kennedy]

Lester,
Thanks for clarifying. I asked because I didn't think there were 'masses' of Pro golfers posing as architects. 

[Ulrich Mayring]

Philipp:
I don't know Georg Jensen, but in the case of the arts and craft shops I know (e. g. Orrefors, Swarovsky, Villeroy & Boch) and I believe also with Ikea it's actually different. They hire well-known designers and try to profit from their brand - that is actually the equivalent of bringing a celebrity into a golf design project.

What I rarely see is that a company credits its employees or suppliers, if they are not celebrities. I do remember the Amiga's design team was allowed to sign the inside casing of their computer, but do we know who invented all the stand-out industrial designs that Apple markets? It would appear Steve Jobs, personally!

Ulrich

[Tony Ristola]

Philipp:
I don't know Georg Jensen, but in the case of the arts and craft shops I know (e. g. Orrefors, Swarovsky, Villeroy & Boch) and I believe also with Ikea it's actually different. They hire well-known designers and try to profit from their brand - that is actually the equivalent of bringing a celebrity into a golf design project.

Ulrich

I consider it more akin to a work of art. It would be like slapping on the name of a tour pro on a painting... or someone having produced a work of art, and then having Rembrandt sign it as his. Wouldn't you want an accurate assessment of who the real artist is? Of course.

Further, you have actual guys doing far more than the label slapped onto the project... people who should be receiving credit... not getting it.

It's a divorce between the game and business.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Philipp:
I don't know Georg Jensen, but in the case of the arts and craft shops I know (e. g. Orrefors, Swarovsky, Villeroy & Boch) and I believe also with Ikea it's actually different. They hire well-known designers and try to profit from their brand - that is actually the equivalent of bringing a celebrity into a golf design project.

Ulrich

I consider it more akin to a work of art. It would be like slapping on the name of a tour pro on a painting... or someone having produced a work of art, and then having Rembrandt sign it as his. Wouldn't you want an accurate assessment of who the real artist is? Of course.

This happened in Renaissance art and sculpture much more than you may realise... It was the same setup with the workshops of the Renaissance Master Artists...

The key here is whether the apprentice actually works directly for the name...

With many Pro-Golf Designers, this is not the case...  The "real" designer deserves the correct credit...

When the Designer works for a company, he foregoes that honour by signing for the company... For instance, Philip Spogard has just finished the excellent new Carya Golf Club in Turkey... He always knew that it would be marketed as a Thomson-Perrett-Lobb design... Those in the know will give him the credit he deserves...

If you take it further (ala Howard Roark), all this matters not a jot... It's the doing the work that is the important part, not the doling out of credit...

[Philip Spogard]

Ally: Thanks.

Tony: I fully agree.

There is nothing wrong with designing under an 'umbrella' company - but at the same time credit should be given to the designers who have actually contributed to the design work. This ultimately benefits both the company, the designer and the user.

The art is then for the company to attract the most talented designers and manage them. If a company does not give credit to the designers I personally think they wil struggle to keep them in the long run.

[Charlie Goerges]

A golf course may or may not be a work of art. But if a golf course achieves that level of beauty, it is still a FUNCTIONAL work of art. In that case I don't think that painting or sculpture are the right analogs. A better one would be furniture. And not the stuff that you can buy at the store nowadays.

In the late 18th century and early 19th century if someone bought a piece by John Goddard or Duncan Phyfe, he would be receiving largely the work of apprentices and journeymen. But those apprentices and journeymen were trained by masters like Goddard and Phyfe and others. G&P were probably among the best, most creative masters. They advanced their craft and evolved design, but while some of their work is truly ART, they would probably not have called themselves artists. At any rate, it was their name on the dotted line.

As I read back over this, one fact seems glaring. Goddard and Phyfe worked their way to the top by doing the work of apprentices and journeymen. That makes them more like the golf architects than the pros who sign on to the process. I guess there is no analog for them (the pros) in 18th century craft!

[Philip Spogard]

Charlie:
I am sure you agree that Goddard and Phyfe could also - at any point - step in and continue the design or the construction to the point of completion?

How many golf pros could do that with a golf course design?

The point is that there is a difference between designing under a 'master' and then just signing the project for marketing purposes.

[Tom_Doak]

A lot of people who argue about "credit" and "principle" are really arguing about the money, but doing it in a roundabout way so that they don't have to admit they're arguing about money.  (Maybe that's why both are monetary terms.)  The main value of credit is that it gets you another job at a higher fee -- but it won't get you one of those jobs where they want to hire a "signature" player, anyway.  Those people are buying something different; they don't even really care about design.

Ally is right, at the end of the day the person who should be happiest is the person who knows deep in his heart that he really did the work ... although, sadly, some delusional people think that if they got paid the most, they were the primary designer.

All the people who are trying to "right these wrongs" should understand that the only thing that really matters is whether the work endures.

[Charlie Goerges]

Agreed Philip. I guess my point was more about giving credit to the "apprentices" than to the pros. Phyfe was more like the architects who are posting to this thread than he was to someone like a Fred Couples or whomever. In fact, there wasn't anyone like Couples way back then.

[Philip Spogard]

Tom:
Don't you think a lot of architects rather want recognition for the 'artist' they are - instead of just wanting more money? (I realise that people need to make a living from it - so it is just not a hobby).

Sometimes it seems like it is almost two different professions doing similiar work. ('poor happy GCA-artists' vs the 'wealthy GCA-businessman').

I personally think - as long as you can make a living - it is down to your personal integrity as a GCA to say no to working with Signature names if you feel they undermine the profession.

[Tom_Doak]

Philip:

Most of the starving artists I know, wish they weren't starving.  However, I admire your principle only to work with someone who is holding up their end of the deal.  I've tried to do business (and live life) the same way. 

All I'm really saying is that all the hand-wringing about "pro golfer designers" really gets no one anywhere ... they are still going to get a healthy share of the market that cares more about name branding than about architecture, and we can either bitch about it, or just accept there are a lot of people who don't care and focus our efforts on those who DO care.  Which you seem to be doing.  Good for you.

I can tell you, though, that it's a struggle to manage a bunch of associates regarding credit.  Perhaps in your firm there are only two people involved in a job, but in our firm, several associates may contribute to the finished product ... and if the lead associate gets all the credit for those jobs, that's wrong, too. 

Similarly, I've found that whenever I share name credit for a job, the golf business seems to assume that I've turned into Georg Jensen and I am no longer personally involved!  And I can assure you, I'm still deeply involved in anything my name is on.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D.: "...in our firm, several associates may contribute to the finished product ... and if the lead associate gets all the credit for those jobs, that's wrong, too."

Good point. That is one reason the ASGCA developed the format where we do our best to sort through the "credit" to make sure that an applicant has done "enough" relative to membership. It think is generally assumed that it is nearly impossible for one individual to truly deserve ALL the credit for any golf course. We all know that is not reality as many people contribute.

[Philip Spogard]

Tom:
Let us see in 10 years time what my ideologies have left me with!

[JC Urbina]

Forrest,
I am wandering who will get credit for The Cal Club if they had to put closure on it today.

Vernon Macan and others
Alister Mackenzie and others
Robert Hunter.  I believe used the Cal Club as an advertisement for his construction company.
Robert Trent Jones  "       "
Kyle Phillips             "       "
Mark Thawley
Dan Powell
The shapers - Alister McFrancis and George Waters
Josh Smith
The golf course contractor
The golf course superintendent

[Forrest Richardson]

The recent re-make is the work of Kyle — at least that is what I see from my vantage point. If you are asking for the purpose of ASGCA membership, it would likely be considered a remodel/renovation and not a new course.

[Jim_Kennedy]

There is a course in Ct. which was such a disaster from it's inception that the successive string of architects who had gotten involved all tried to get their names removed from the credits. Quite possibly the worst flow of any golf course I've played in the state, MHO.

They finally got one to come in, make the best of it, and leave his name on it.

Reverse attribution! 

[Pat Burke]

As a former player, who has an absolute love of golf course design, and spent 7 years mowing greens, fairways, and working as an asst super (more a foreman than anything) BEFORE qualifying to play, this has been a really interesting thread. 
I had the opportunity to have some input (very little but enough to be interesting) on some changes at 3 different courses.  One was with the supt and greens committee, and 2 were during the "dirt moving" phase of new courses.  A few of my suggestions were used, and I love seeing them when I visit the courses, but that certainly does not make me an architect (just more a GCA geek ). 
I always thought it interesting that so many GCA toil behind the scenes, routing, drawing, and sweating to produce a product that will be celebrated by __________ (insert player) in a ceremonial round, after making a few site visits.  While there are certainly a few player/designers who dive in to the profession, and really "get dirty", there are also a lot who should at least be making a little more known, the contributions behind the scenes by talented staff.
The irony of this thread to me at least, is, how many of the current courses struggling to survive, are partly struggling due to the higher building costs brought on by the price of their "marketing presence"?

[Peter Pallotta]

Just to say, do you know the story about Robert Riskin (writer) and Frank Capra (director). In a professional relationship/dynamic that's been repeated a thousand times since, they 'collaborated' and shared writing credits on the screenplays for several of Capra's earliest and most successful films: Platinum Blonde, Lady for a Day, It Happened One Night, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, You Can't Take it with You, and Meet John Doe.  But Capra wasn't exactly a modest fellow, and wasn't shy about taking as much credit as he could for both the directing and the writing -- he was fond of talking about his "one man, one film" theory of/views on great filmaking, and encouraged others to discuss the "Capra touch."

Well, by the early 1940s, Riskin had grown tired of Capra taking so much credit for the screenplays, and he never worked with him again. But the story goes that, before splitting with him for good,  Riskin shoved a blank piece of typewriter paper in Capra's face and said: 'Here, go ahead and put the famous Capra touch on that!".

Peter 

[David Druzisky]

Like Lester said, "I love this thread...I hate this thread"! 

As a small one man shop and ASGCA member it can be a very competitive field out there and the infusion of tour pros into the profession is just adding to the competition - if you want to compete in that market segment.  Don't get me wrong, I like competition, but with these guys it sometimes seems unfair.  The amount of resources they can pile on to their marketing efforts can be gawdy and when they can get away with, and yes get away with, saying they are golf course designers it takes away what should be reserved for those that truly practice the craft in all regards and in a qualified and professional manner.   I also do not understand why more of them don't just don't go about it the way Mike Weir has with Ian.  That, I believe is something we can all respect.

Again, I understand at the end of the day it comes down to what the market bears.  And, maybe they are just better business people or have people (managers and agents) that are more into the "business opportunity frame of mind" than some or most of us architects. 

Also, there is a big difference between giving credit to staff designers working under a principal owner architect, and an architect getting due credit for the work that a "design consultant" did a little work on but is getting the lions share of credit  As a staffer you assume that role and it is entirely up to the principal as to how and when others get credit.  One of my past bosses told me that clients are not hiring his firm because of his staff, but for him.  When I was young I probably was not wise enough or patient enough to understand that but I now do.  To get credit you have to assume a good portion of the risk as well.

Has the infusion of tour pros into design been good or bad for design?  Many might say we are seeing the initial back lash of far too many efforts where marketing got a little out ahead of itself and it is time to pay the price.  I have a feeling many of those facilities would rather have not paid out that extra 500k or 1million in up front costs about now and realize what better uses that money could have gone to like going out and getting customers or giving the GC Superintendent a little more $ to work with.

BTW I have a clause or two in my contract that are intended to cut this off.  I have yet to be called out on it by clients and their lawyers nor has it been put to test.  I assume this is because I am such a huge marque name as it is .

DbD

Oh yeah,  I too think TD should apply for the ASGCA.  Why not?  It has been fun for me.  Plus, you get to see how big of nut balls guys like Forest and Jeff B truly are!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()