[Michael Dugger]

Hey, get defensive if you want, fellas, the quick and dirty answer here is you guys don't like the style.

But I posit a lot of folks do, so whatever........

[David_Tepper]

For those of view interested in a "macro" view of Castle Stuart, I would encourage you to take the video tour of the course on its website. The pics shown were taken last year:

http://castlestuartgolf.com/course.html

George Peper on Castle Stuart in LINKS magazine: http://www.linksmagazine.com/golf_courses/international/scotland/castle_stuart_golf_links_george_peper_scotland_travel_courses.aspx


Sean A.  - Looking at the pics on this tour, your will see that the beach is not too far out of on for several of the greens on the holes along the Moray Firth.

DT

[David_Tepper]

Article on Castle Stuart by Tom Mackin at GolfCourseArchitecture.net:

http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/Article/Parsinen-chases-the-Open-dream/1575/Default.aspx

[Cristian]

I think the course as a whole looks great, thanks for the pictures!

The bunkering to me looks like a study of what has been built on classic links courses over the years. True, this amount of variety would not normally be found on one course let alone on one hole or even in one bunker(!).

I look at it as a bunker study of 150 odd years of course construction. It may be nauseating to some, but very interesting to others, perhaps even more so to those who have limited experience in links golf and can experience a sample of what is out there within just one round.

I would be interested in the discussion including more emphasis on the strategy of the holes.

[Emil Weber]

Michael

A lot of it has to do with context, and a lot of it has to do with tradition.

If you are really interested in "getting it" I suggest that you read the thread properly and that way you might appreciate what some people are trying to say, even if you don't agree with it. Otherwise I suggest you move onto another thread.

Quick answer to your question - Old MacDonald isn't in Scotland

Niall

Niall,

I appreciate your comments about the fake-style bunkers, but 'Old MacDonald isn't in Scotland' is not a very persuasive argument.

Apparently, most of us agree that GCA is a form of art. If a golf course and its GCA are art, then the country or area is like its museum.
My point is that a golf course shouldn't be regarded, viewed, ranked... in a different way depending of the country or area it is located.
A painting, for exanple, does it make a difference whether it's exhibited in a museum in London or Paris? It is the same piece of art.

So, you might feel that Castle Stuart  doesn't fit into it's museum. Like a modern painting exhibited in a museum of antique art, all right but the modern painting still looks great,IMO.
 
Sorry, I hope I found the right words to express myself.

Emil

[Mark Pearce]

Apparently, most of us agree that GCA is a form of art.

  I'm not sure most of us do agree with that.  Certainly there is an artistic element to it.  I have some thoughts I intend to post on Marty's thread, when I have considered longer, in the meantime I'll concede there is an artistic element to GCA but it is a stretch to say tha GCA is art.

If a golf course and its GCA are art, then the country or area is like its museum.
My point is that a golf course shouldn't be regarded, viewed, ranked... in a different way depending of the country or area it is located.
A painting, for exanple, does it make a difference whether it's exhibited in a museum in London or Paris? It is the same piece of art.

It may not matter where art is exhibited but it can matter where it comes from.  Many forms of art have geographic origins and their authenticity and meaning can certainly change depending on where they originate (or who originates them).  However, since I don't agree with your initial premise, I'm obviously not sold on the art analogy.

So, you might feel that Castle Stuart  doesn't fit into it's museum. Like a modern painting exhibited in a museum of antique art, all right but the modern painting still looks great,IMO.

And this analogy stinks.  A golf course is not a work of art.  Nor is it a museum.  It's a sports field, albeit a unique one, with significant freedom in its form and with (some) artistic input into its design.  It may be a work of craftsmanship (at least in part) but it is nothing without utility.  We do not visit golf courses to look at them but to play them.  Even when we do visit a course just to look it is meaningless without considering how the course would play.

Sorry, I hope I found the right words to express myself.

Emil

[Ryan Farrow]

Golf course architecture is an Art. That is not open for interpretation.

Have any doubts, go visit Friars Head. Still wondering, ask any architect.

[Emil Weber]

Mark,

I know the art- metaphor is pretty weak to support my idea ( ), but I stick with it. It wasn't meant to sound exactly the way I wrote those words.

It is just not comprehensible and ligical for me, that people have a different view towards a golf course only because it is in Scotland, simply because it is the same golf course. I assume some people here wouldn't have no problem at all with the bunkering if the course was in the States.

[Mark Pearce]

Golf course architecture is an Art. That is not open for interpretation.

Yes, it is.

Have any doubts, go visit Friars Head. Still wondering, ask any architect.

I'm a lawyer.  If I tell you that law is art, will you believe me?

As I said, I'm going to post my thoughts on GCA as art in FBD's thread.  But to argue that GCA is Art, rather than that there is art in GCA is, IMHO (and I'm entitled to one, Ryan, just like you), wrong.

[Niall C]

Emil

Thanks for your comments. Taking up your museum analogy for a moment, would the Elgin Marbles look better in a museum in London or adorning a building in Greece ?

To my eye (I have only seen photos) Castle Suart looks more akin to some of the recent American courses than to your typical Scottish links, although I appreciate that some on here (mainly American I note) don't see it that way. Would this course look out of place in parts of the US, or indeed elsewhere ?

Niall

[Ross Tuddenham]

Mark,

I know the art- metaphor is pretty weak to support my idea ( ), but I stick with it. It wasn't meant to sound exactly the way I wrote those words.

It is just not comprehensible and ligical for me, that people have a different view towards a golf course only because it is in Scotland, simply because it is the same golf course. I assume some people here wouldn't have no problem at all with the bunkering if the course was in the States.

On the video about the features used on castle Stuart they talk about the style of the bunker and say that where possible natural open sandy area are used as hazards.  It also mentions that riveting is used if; stability or erosion is an issue, heavy traffic is expected, on fairways, where the bunker is tight to the green.

So this would imply that they will go for a natural look where possible supplemented by structural rigidity to protect the course where it is needed.  This looks great and is a fair enough design philosophy to aim for.  Further it is in keeping with bunker design of the period around 1900.

The problem is however they deviate from this philosophy when in some of the bunkers sleepers are just laid in them very haphazardly with no real structural function within the bunker.  This is where the issue of faux or fake comes from, when the sleeper does nothing other than to look like it has fallen away from its original position.  Here is where it deviates from the design of the period they are trying to copy.  Would the bunkers constructed between 1890 and 1930 have sleepers in them that served no structural purpose?  Further more would they have attempted to place them as neatly as possible with the sleepers only becoming uneven over time?

So you can see that when the sleepers are used as per the philosophy set out by the designers of castle Stuart, natural with structural support where needed, they are a great original feature but when they are not serving a purpose they become falsified features.

The point is that in Scotland this seems not to be acceptable but is it possible that in other cultures or countries the “faking” of age or purpose is just seen to be adding charm that age gives?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Emil

With regard to your post to Niall, I feel I would like to add a comment.

I do not consider golf course design to be part of any art form whatsoever.  I cannot call it art because it was originally based upon Mother Nature with her shapes, contours and forms.

So many believe that we have moved from Nature (natural), to golf courses as a form of art. Well who am I to spoil other peoples dreams, perhaps that the problem with golf today, everyone wants to stamp a label on the game, yet golf will at its heart always be a game played with Nature.

I feel perhaps those who love our courses understand that, we do and certainly the small out of the way clubs that have been around for well over a 100 years do. It’s natural and Nature that was the basic of their courses with art (if any) being confined to the clubhouse lounge bar. Through this daily association with these courses, many feel that there is no need to dress any part, let alone the bunkers to make them look, well yes, poorly maintained and not much loved – sorry even if aged and mature was the intention.

Some talk of style, we talk of taste, yet for many of us there is not style in faking age, or making the course look poorly maintained. In fact, I would say it reflect the opposite to that which it was intended

Perhaps in the end we are mindful of what we have, how wonderful and lucky we are to have such landscapes formed for the most part by Mother Nature that we feel that small parts of a course just do not need to be treated in this way. Art, well if that is art it needs to be removed from our golf courses as certainly IMHO not the correct place to display it. Anyway, in this day and age can we afford to waste, ops sorry, spend money on art – I would rather see the money spent on finishing the bunkers into real playable hazards.

What has this art done, it has taken the emphasis off the quality of the course and onto some of the bunkers and the general usage of sleeper. In other words, a total distraction of the real purpose of the course, which is to enjoy the game of golf. Art, screw art, it has no place on a golf course, those who think it has perhaps should consider giving up golf as they may not be concentration on the game in hand.

Melvyn 

Ryan

If GCA is an Art, do you not think that we urgently need the get some architects into college pretty damn quickly as they do not (thankfully) seem to have realised it.

Next time I go to play I will say to my wife "Off to play some art love, catch you later"  No think not, its golf from start to finish

[Anthony Gray]

  Of course golf courses are art....Golf courses are DESIGNED not found. A course should be inspireing with out the club in hand. Take a walk at Pacific Dunes as the sun sets and tell me that is not art. Didn't Old Tom invent the walking stick/putter so he could use it on sundays when the course was cloed? Proof that he enjoyed the course without playing. Show me a course that has a minimalism design on a flat uninspired plot and I'll show you a financial disaster. So keep your chin up Castle Stuart and be proud of what you are...........a work of art.

  Anthony

[Mark Pearce]

  Of course golf courses are art....Golf courses are DESIGNED not found. A course should be inspireing with out the club in hand. Take a walk at Pacific Dunes as the sun sets and tell me that is not art. Didn't Old Tom invent the walking stick/putter so he could use it on sundays when the course was cloed? Proof that he enjoyed the course without playing. Show me a course that has a minimalism design on a flat uninspired plot and I'll show you a financial disaster. So keep your chin up Castle Stuart and be proud of what you are...........a work of art.

  Anthony

Anthony,

Congratulations.  Another post with no logical connection at all.  Tell me:

1) Is the computer I typed this on a work of art?  I imagine it must be since, if I follow your logic design=art, and this PC was surely designed.

2) Is the Grand Canyon a work of art?   I imagine it must be since, if I follow your logic looking good at sunset=art, and the Canyon looks fantastic as the sun goes down.

3) Are the Cheviot Hills a work of art?  I imagine they must be since, if I follow your logic being a nice place for a walk=art, and they're a great place to go walking on a Sunday.

Opinions are opinions and this would be a very dull discussion board without differing opinions.  If we want good debate, however, let's at least try to think through our arguments if we are going to be categoric about things.  I understand you think GCA is art.  I think it's more than that.

[Anthony Gray]

  Mark,

  I am not disputing your opinion and actually have great respect for it and from my travels can understand why a any new course in Scotland is not embraced by locals.

  But as far as my opinion not be logical. Who says art is logical? Do you have any photos or paintings or prints of golf courses framed in your legal office?

  Have you ever taken a walk on a golf course without playing?

  Are courses found or are they designed?

  Anthony

[Mark Pearce]

  Mark,

  I am not disputing your opinion and actually have great respect for it and from my travels can understand why a any new course in Scotland is not embraced by locals.

  But as far as my opinion not be logical. Who says art is logical? Do you have any photos or paintings or prints of golf courses framed in your legal office?

  I'm not saying art is logical, I'm just saying that your argument that GCA is art isn't logical, a rather different thing (and that's not to deny that a logical argument in support of the same proposal can't be made).  As to my office, no, I don't I have three pictures of family and one photo of Monument Valley which I took myself, so it can't be art!

  Have you ever taken a walk on a golf course without playing?

Many times, and very enjoyable it has been.  It doesn't make them art, though.

  Are courses found or are they designed?

A question better asked of the GCAs here, though my answer would be a bit of both, with the degree changing from course to course.  I know that buildings are designed, rather than found, as are cars and I'm not going to call either of those art.  Art is an element of design but the words are not synonymous.

  Anthony

[Melvyn Morrow]

Anthony

In the good old days, many early golf writers believed that a course was actually waiting there to be found. That the land would give up a course to the well informed golfer/designer.

I suppose if we look at most courses today that belief is probably more true that your comment about art. The Courses – perhaps with the exception of some, one that springs to my mind is The Castle Course - are formed from the Natural landscape and to a certain degree blend in with its surroundings.

Art on the other hand, well my opinion of art if it can apply to golf is seeking to make an impression, a statement, which I believe is totally irrelevant in golf. The format of the course is for the game of golf, art would be an expensive distraction.

Anthony do you see when you visit St Andrews an artful town or is it full of history entwined with living through the ages. Walk down to the Links and what are your observations, art, full of great scenes or is it the quality and beauty of Nature herself with some minor assistance from Man. Art, no just life on our planet.

Perhaps some input from a designer may be interesting. ON surveying a site what is the designer looking for, a blank canvas/scene or the potential to build a course on this site. Does the notion of art exist at this moment in time of selecting the site? I feel that most designers would love to be able to select the land for its total suitability (well they keep telling me this when I discuss Land fit for purpose). I wonder what would be must fulfilling for our designers today, to (A) be given a plot of land that has to be completely lifted, replaced and re modelled shaped and contoured for a course or be (B) given a site that 
has a natural leaning to being a golf course. To seek out the routing and work with the land to produce a course that is totally at home with itself, the land its and in harmony with the surrounding landscape.

Just perhaps the old guys may have a serious point that we dismiss too easily today.

Melvyn 

[Anthony Gray]

  Melvyn,

  Well written. Was Old Tom a designer or a finder? ............The answer is both. It is interesting to see the differences in golf cultures on this thread. Another one of the beauties of golf. Is it obvious that Castle Stuart was built mainly for tourists? I wonder what percentage of play at Kingsbarns is from outside the UK. And by all means Melvyn please visit us someday.

  Mark,

  Any good attorney's office in the US has at least one golf course print framed and displayed. In my waiting room I have a club from the Tom Morris golf shop mounted. It is not only old but also looks it.

  Anthony

 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Anthony

The picture of Old Tom is not art, its History

Melvyn

[Michael Dugger]

Melvyn,

The problem with your authentic position on golf courses being "found" not designed is there is not enough supply to meet the demand.  You cannot look at this issue in a vacuum, mister.

If golf courses had only been discovered/built on gorgeous natural linksland, with sand based soils, natural humps and bumps, and sheep borne bunkers; sadly we'd have far far fewer courses than today.

And then where would people play the game???

You do an injustice to the great game of golf with such a limited perspective.

Something I find ironic in all your theories is what is to be said for Heathland courses?  These great gems of Colt, Mackenzie and Abercromby??? 

Golf did not move inland when we 'mericans got ahold of it, it was your precious UKers, striving to meet a rising demand.   

[Anthony Gray]

Anthony

The picture of Old Tom is not art, its History

Melvyn

  Melvyn,

  Who found it?

  Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

Hey, get defensive if you want, fellas, the quick and dirty answer here is you guys don't like the style.

But I posit a lot of folks do, so whatever........

I'm with you Michael. I believe Tom Doak described the excessive concern over the "look" of bunkers as bunker slutism. As we all know the Slagman is the bunker slut extraordinaire. However, it appears we have some budding bunker sluts on this thread.

Truth be known, I think the real issue here is cost. If you don't put so much extra effort into the construction of these bunkers (and other unnecessary detaling in the course construction), your cost goes down, your green fees go down, and the stereotypical Scot is happy.

[Anthony Gray]

  What do ya'll think about the wooden laminated coke machine?

   Anthony

[Mark Pearce]

Bayley,

Did you just call me a stereotypical Scot?  That would be upsetting.  Stereotypical I could live with but Scot?  Too much.

[Anthony Gray]

Bayley,

Did you just call me a stereotypical Scot?  That would be upsetting.  Stereotypical I could live with but Scot?  Too much.

  Bayley, you wouldn't know a stereotypical scot from a peking duck.

  Anthony

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()