Are bunkers placed solely for "beauty" appropriate?

[Adam Clayman]

Appropriate isn't as cool as intelligent.

I'm thinking of The Valley Club and how multi-functional and beautiful.

[Kirk Gill]

Is it inappropriate to actually hit your ball into a bunker placed solely for beauty?

I'm capable.

[Norbert P]

The reason for creating these blowouts is to make all the bunkers look like they are just another natural part of the site. Since the site (region chop dunes) has few natural blowouts, to me, it only makes sense.

  

Very interesting Adam, So the macro environment was modified to adjust to the micro (golf sward) environment. Very interesting.  The motif was cognitively extended into the framework.   Goalby and Slawnik are living, breathing Vincent Van Golfs.   Schneider's a Salvador Dali.

[Adam Clayman]

Mightve been Schneider?

[Anthony Gray]

  Very appropiate. Golf is a game of aesthetics. Augusta National hole 10 looks better with the bunker.

  Anthony

[Mark Pritchett]

  Very appropiate. Golf is a game of aesthetics. Augusta National hole 10 looks better with the bunker.

  Anthony

Agreed!

[Sean_A]

Is it inappropriate to actually hit your ball into a bunker placed solely for beauty?

I'm capable.

Kirk

To me, this is not the point.  I think the point should be is there another feature that could be utilized rather than falling back on the truly tried and often boring bunker - especially on a non-sandy site?  The time has come for archies to properly earn their crust.  We have all seen the bunker look from the big and small in the industry. When is another look coming down the pipe?  Which archie has the wit, intelligence, clout and balls to go after something really different?

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

Just remember, be careful what you wish for ... ten will fail before someone succeeds.

As for bunkers placed for beauty, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and though some people aren't going to like them, the majority probably will.  I think that a lot of courses suffer from bunker overkill, but at the same time, I would hate to rule out any design element that has the potential to add so much to a course in the right hands.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom,
That's really well said.  Thanks.

[Kirk Gill]

Sean, my tongue-in-cheek post was really in response to folks bringing up bunkers like the one in the fairway of the 10th at Augusta. Setting aside the fact that it used to be a greenside bunker, that bunker may not be in play for the pros, but it might be for me, or other lesser players. Bunkers placed "for beauty," might be in play for a different golfer, was what I was trying to say.

To your point, sand bunkers offer a great combination of visual contrast with the grass, and they're harder to play out of than grass (for most players). It's not just the bunker look, but the way they play, the fear of going in them working on the mind of the golfer, and the "tradition" of their use that make them so ubiquitous. I also await that cutting edge architect you mention, and I look forward to what they'll use in place of the bunker.

[Matt_Cohn]

Do you think that bunkers placed solely for visual appeal appropriate?

No. The addition of beauty is never appropriate and should be avoided and at all opportunities.