Self Conscious Architecture

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul mentioned a comment I made to him on the....ah....Merion..... thread that might bear discussion. I told him that early architects back then had "a lack of self consciousness about their architecture."

In other words, I sincerely doubt that they were thinking we were going to be discussing it 100 years later.  They needed a golf course and they just did it, predating Nike by a century.  Of course, there were fewer great courses to be compared to, and lower standards in general, even with a few top courses out there.  I doubt most courses intended to be compared to the top, whereas nowadays, everyone seems to shoot for the top of one list or another, and every hole needs to be a signature hole, not to mention more limitations with construction.

I know I felt very self conscious in designing Opryland - my first big time resort course, esp. knowing some of the guys we beat out.  I feel the design is very "self conscious" in the fact that I caught myself wondering what the other guys might do, and trying to match some of the spectacular things being done at the time on what was pretty flat property.

These days, its pretty easy for me to just analyze the site, and do what I think is right, having had some success.  I rarely wonder if this or that makes a better photo, or makes it a more likely candidate for awards.

So, are there any examples of self consious architecture you are aware of, where it seems the gca might have been trying just a little to hard?

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff, Aren't most of the mis-placed desires to be highly ranked heaped onto the GCA by the principle?

Springtime for Hitler comes immediately to mind as the counter intuitive nature of life and golf.

Try implies can't.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Not sure exactly what you are trying to say there, but then again, I wasn't sure exactly what I was trying to say either.  I got the Srpringtime for Hitler joke though!

But yes, I think striving for an award or ranking is a bit of self consciousness.  You design for a specific reason that has little to do with the end user enjoying the course, perhaps by placing a bunker or water hazard that looks fabulous but can't be negotiated by 98% of the players, or grading a fw for just a little more visual emphasis where it drained and functioned well otherwise.

I am not sure trying implies can't.  But, I was thinking of something a lot of art teaches say - it takes just one too many lines to ruin a pencil sketch.  Once you put that "one too many" line on the paper, and the drawing is overdone, there isn't anything you can do to bring it back by adding more lines and more lines.  You have to start over.  Even with bulldozers, when you can start over, somehow the final product when changed numerous times, rarelly comes out as well as a genuine first effort.

Sometimes, its kind of like taking a test - most times, the first answer is correct.

Thanks for responding. I know this is a difficult topic to conceptualize.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - it's a fine topic. I think I see self-conscious architecure all the time in modern courses. It lacks that quality of creatve 'authority', a clarity and directness and confidence of vision. I think that's because it's hard enough to achieve that clarity even in a perfect situation, let alone in the context of golf course design today where the architect is forced to handle/juggle so many other (and sometimes competing) factors, e.g. the client's wishes (and fantasies); environmental restrictions; the quality of the site; the need to promote oneself for the next job/client etc. So many factors that take the thought process away from "How does this work?" and shifts it to "How will this be percieved?".... the latter being the hall-mark of self-conscious creativity. I'm not sure I agree with your opening thought that the architects back in the old day were less self-conscious in regards to swinging for the fences -- although the ones who had work had a lot of it, and in that sense were more easily able to take each job/site as it came. But I think that maybe many of the courses built back then that didn't work (i.e. that were too self-conscious) have disappeared, and so we have an innacurate picture of the times.

Peter

[Joe Hancock]

On a less serious note, I was hoping no one would respond to this thread, just to see......

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Next, Joe's going to start a thread on self-referential architecture. Dan Kelly will contribute by quoting Joe's opening post; Joe will then use an emoticon to respond to Dan, and Dan will later take Joe's last post and make it his signature line. And then I will comment, adding nothing....

Peter

edit - I've edited this post.

Peter

[Mike Hendren]

Jeff,

Speaking of Opryland, they have replaced the sandy waste area on the 5th with a pond.  I think it's a shame, but it's attractive and likely requires less maintenance.   They also added a wooden retaining wall to the former beach bunker right of the 6th green.  Those are the only changes I saw from the road on a recent business meeting at the clubhouse.

Mike

[TEPaul]

Jeffrey:

I agree with PeterP---it's a fine subject; super fine actually.

"They lacked self-consciousness in their architecture."

This is so true of the best of those novice amateur/sportsmen architects, particularly Wilson and his committee.

Just yesterday Wayne made a remarkable find. He found behind a really old toilet in the basement of the Merion clubhouse a sketch of a hole for Merion East. It was signed and dated March 33rd, 1911 but I can't make out yet if it was Wilson, Francis, Lloyd, Griscom or Toulmin but it so much has that lack of self-consciousness you speak of inherent with those talented novice amateur/sportsmen architects of that early time.

It looks like the hole concept and strategy of the hole was remarkable and it looks like it may've been an iteration where the first part of #15 is today. It looks like it was before Francis figured out his fix for those final five holes and took his scooter ride over to Lloyd's house in the middle of the night.

I'll get into describing the concept and strategies of the hole later but for now whoever did it wrote a bit about what to name the hole. It might be really unique because it may've been the only named hole in the world with a question mark attached to it. Whoever drew it was thinking of calling it the "Who Cut the Fart?" hole.

Just another good example of their lack of self-consciousness about their architecture, don't you think, Jeffrey?

[JESII]

If you were really good you could have wrapped that up in two sentences...brevity and humor etc...

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - does this post make me look fat? Be honest...

Peter

[Joe Hancock]

Jim - does this post make me look fat? Be honest...

Peter

This one of those rare times I almost want to stray/ betray Dan Kelly and refresh my signature line......

 

[JESII]

Forget that, just help me with a response...only your skills/wit will do...

[paul cowley]

I tend to agree with Jeff/y'awl.

Restraint has become one of my design parameters, a check feature of most anything I produce.....I think some of my better works are the ones with lesser budgets, because restraint becomes one of the 'givens'....aim small, miss small.

The work becomes a more pure effort....not a 'look at me'.

I would rather cobble together three of these than do one of the big boys.

I guess.....because I'm working hard to finish two of these big boys....one in Mexico and another in Texas....and both should garner their share of notoriety considering the times.

[Adam Clayman]

I suppose in 100 years someone will write an in my opinion piece entitled " The missing places of Merion".
 Afterwards there will be a civil war started over the one simple question... What was Wayne'o doing looking behind that toilet?

[Sean Eidson]

Jeff, I think it's really interesting that you posted this, and I'm curious about your thoughts related to designing Cowboys GC in Dallas.

The Cowboys football team generally, and Jerry Jones specifically are very image conscious.  In fact the design premise of being the first "NFL themed" golf course seems to be based on the idea of look at me.  And I think you'd have to concede that there's at least one gratuitous design element in the star on #4.  I thought there were a couple situations where the bunker displacement seemed excessive and a bit showy, as with the greenside bunker on #8

However, I find that whenever I read reviews or play with people for the first time at Cowboys, people mention that the showiness is more restrained than they expected.  I recently played with an Englishman whose primary reaction was that it's just a big course.  He noted the huge greens, huge bunkers, and huge fairways.  The scale of the design seems to match the site, seems to match the town, and the team with as much humility as the design premise would allow.  The holes that I enjoy most, like #14, and #16 don't strike me as postcard holes, but really encourage me to hit good shots.

It was seeing the big, deep, red bunkers at Cowboys that made me save my nickels to play there while playing Grapevine muni.  And I have a standing wager with my wife where the winner gets $200 of judgement free discretionary spending.  When I've won (rarely), I've used the winnings to play 36 at Cowboys.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I would certainly agree that Hugh Wilson was not self-conscious in what he was designing; nor Old Tom Morris.

I am not sure the same is true of Macdonald nor of MacKenzie.  Certainly, by the 1920's, golf architecture was a competitive business and architects started thinking of their own brands, even if nobody called it such.

Today, of course, we can try too hard with bigger equipment.  I thought Loxahatchee was a prime example of that back in the mid-1980's.

As to self-consciousness, there are two possible definitions, though:  the common one (with the hyphen) is about someone afraid to call attention to himself.  I think I've done some work on that end of the spectrum, as well, when I had a really great piece of property to work with and was very conscious about not messing it up.

[Eric Smith]

So, are there any examples of self consious architecture you are aware of, where it seems the gca might have been trying just a little to hard?

I would think the guys who put out the replica courses in the 90's would have to be somewhat self-conscious of their designs knowing the golf courses were promising to deliver to the public golfer holes from Augusta, Oakmont, Winged Foot, etc...

How about a course that many on golfclubatlas seem to enjoy - Purgatory in Indiana?   Creating a golf course in the style of MacKenzie at Cypress Point (bunkering, greens, etc...) out in a field in the countryside would seem pretty bold.  It appears to be a commercial success as well as winning over many here in the treehouse.  I look forward to playing it in a couple months on my way up to Michigan.

Q: Wouldn't Pete Dye be the antithesis of a self-conscious GCA?  Granted he's been around the block a few times...