[Mike_Young]

Well I been on two threads mucho for the last few days....the ASGCA thread and been watching and a few comments on the Castle Stuart thread....
The ASGCA thread has come to a place where Jeff is standing there with his finger on a big hole in the ground...and a picture of his butt taken from a helicopter in a photo below it....
AND this CS thread where we are into this art thing....
I agree Golf Architecture is art....and the big bald headed  drummer dude is saying that truly great art is ORIGINAL which got me to thinking about this site and how it views golf architecture and maybe the architects that do it....and why it spews VITROL ....according to JB....

IMHO art critics can understand and appreciate many different periods of art....styles of art and methods/mediums of art.....and all understand that the word ORIGINAL style does not exist....art copies other styles and melds into what it is....
I am the first to admit that there are some GCA's that can "dork it up" and have little artistic ability....( I did not say who..so don't start anything)  I will say that I think engineering is a commodity but integrating engineering into an aesthetically pleasing design is a talent
Now having said all of this....I would say this about this site:
Most on here are so blind to one style of golf course that they cannot appreciate all the different eras, strategies and abilities over the life of golf design......Why is this?  Do you think a guy that likes Monet cannot respect Warhol etc.....I don't see it here for golf architects....It seems this site  slammed some so much that many have zero respect for the logic and opinions of this site....which hurts credibility here...
I just don't get the Castle Stuart comments....or some of the comments re other guys....especially lke a Rees J....I actually can appreciate much of his wok and can view it as a different style of art but usually a solid strategy....or a Brian Silva...that poor guy really catches it ....And even with some of the old guys that are praised here...i can appreciate the work but not impressed with the artisitic ability...an example would be Raynor.....I really like his basics and love playing his courses but in my book he is more "modern art" than some of the stuff you guys are saying has been copied from the past....
Anyway.....if this site really wants to be a GREAT architecture site...it needs to accept and appreciate golf architecture across the board....not just one region, one style, and one strategy.....
OT...a good friend of mine Steve Penley, has become "world famous" in the art world in the last few years...with paintings of presidents, and various other potentates etc....he used to live in my office for 3 years as a hermit....his style is unique but it is a good examle of an "evolved" art form....and he is killing it...check him out  www.stevepenley.com/

[Adam Clayman]

I will say that I think engineering is a commodity but integrating engineering into an aesthetically pleasing design is a talent
Now having said all of this....I would say this about this site:
Most on here are so blind to one style of golf course that they cannot appreciate all the different eras, strategies and abilities over the life of golf design......Why is this?  Do you think a guy that likes Monet cannot respect Warhol etc.....I don't see it here for golf architects....It seems this site  slammed some so much that many have zero respect for the logic and opinions of this site....which hurts credibility here...
Anyway.....if this site really wants to be a GREAT architecture site...it needs to accept and appreciate golf architecture across the board....not just one region, one style, and one strategy.....

 Mike, A few thoughts to get the ball rolling...Aesthetically pleasing to whom? And, When? The whims of the day cannot stand up to nature. That was Behr's analysis 80 years ago.

Also, This site has never slammed anyone. Participants in the DG are not this site. These generalization never ever are accurate. Let's cite Stranz as an example, or even Pete Dye as a modsern designer who shows his earth moving hand, yet still creates well regarded work. The site does not lose anything from frank commentary. Individuals can and do however. Mostly due to how they express their opinion.  But, if you are asking for universal acceptance from everyone about every gca in all eras, sounds a lot like a dreary death to open discourse and differing opinions.

Also, Do you think The C Guide would be worth more than a quarter if your premise were correct?

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - a big topic, art. But I've always thought that the true lovers of any given art form actually have broader tastes, not narrower ones i.e. they can recognize and praise excellence, but they also appreciate (to varying degrees) much of the rest, and can even find excellence in the most unexpected places.  I'm reminded of stories about the great artist, Charlie Parker, stopping at (and intently listening to) a sidewalk accordian player/busker who most of his fellow jazz-men would've mocked instead. It doesn't take an afficiando to agree that Ava Gardner or Grace Kelly were beautiful...

Peter

[Bill_McBride]

Mike, I'm with Adam on this one. The site is the forum, there are 1500 separate opinions and no consensus that I can see. There is a lot of enthusiasm for the ODGs but high regard for many modern architects including some from the South.  

My impression is that Brian Silva's work is highly regarded.  

I am never going to like some of Rees Jones' design and bunkers , not sure that makes me a bad person.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mike
How many artists have there been over the last 125 years?
How many of them were great and worthy of study on a percentage basis?
It is a lot easier to buy a canvas than to have someone hire you to build them a course.

[Carl Johnson]

the big bald headed  drummer dude is saying that truly great art is ORIGINAL which got me to thinking about this site and how it views golf architecture and maybe the architects that do it. . . .IMHO art critics can understand and appreciate many different periods of art....styles of art and methods/mediums of art.....and all understand that the word ORIGINAL style does not exist....art copies other styles and melds into what it is....

I agree.  Art is derivative, but that does not detract in any sense from those who derive from the past.  By the way, science is derivative.  If it weren't, we wouldn't be where we are today.

I am the first to admit that there are some GCA's that can "dork it up" and have little artistic ability....( I did not say who..so don't start anything)  I will say that I think engineering is a commodity but integrating engineering into an aesthetically pleasing design is a talent.  Now having said all of this....I would say this about this site:
Most on here are so blind to one style of golf course that they cannot appreciate all the different eras, strategies and abilities over the life of golf design......Why is this?  Do you think a guy that likes Monet cannot respect Warhol etc.....  Yes, he would, and beyond that, Monet would repspect Warhol and vice versa.

I don't see it here for golf architects....It seems this site  slammed some so much that many have zero respect for the logic and opinions of this site....which hurts credibility here...

Anyway.....if this site really wants to be a GREAT architecture site...it needs to accept and appreciate golf architecture across the board....not just one region, one style, and one strategy.....  Didn't realize that was an issue here.  Thanks for the insight.

OT...a good friend of mine Steve Penley, has become "world famous" in the art world in the last few years...with paintings of presidents, and various other potentates etc....he used to live in my office for 3 years as a hermit....his style is unique but it is a good examle of an "evolved" art form....and he is killing it...check him out  www.stevepenley.com/  OT, check out www.amyjohnsonstudio.com.

[Peter Wagner]

Mike,
I watched a really interesting TV show on building architecture a few days ago and it stirred thoughts very similar to what you have posted.

Compared with other forms of architecture*, are golf courses too similar?

(* I'll limit my comparison to building architects and automobile designers)

Mike has a good point when he says that an oil painter has nothing to lose if she tries something really weird or different whereas a golf course archie can burn through a lot of developer dough playing with new ideas.  A better comparison might be commercial or residential architecture versus GCA.  Both builders have tons of money on the line so the new design has to be right. 







The above 3 pictures are all well known museums.  The architects all had a lot on the line when they originally drafted their ideas.  Money, time, reputation... all on the line in measures at least equal to that of a present day golf course designer.  These were designed in different times but for very similar purpose.  The 3 designs are very different and I still like all three.







Here's 3 cars all built within 12 years of each other.  I know they each had a different design goal but look how different - I mean radically different - these designs are from one another.  Can anyone find me 3 golf courses all built within 12 years that are this different?

I'm not sure that I have a conclusion other than to support Mike's point that golf course design departures from the norm should be examined very closely and that these strong differences should be celebrated. 

If ever there was an opportunity to challenge GC design it would be now - the market might respond very favorably to a radical change.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Picaso painted/sculpted/printed the way he did because he chose to do it that way, not because he couldn't do it the "normal", institutional, or fashionable way. The guy was an absolute prodigy, worked for royalty as a child, but he sought to change the definition of art, and that he did.

I would say GCA is art. I think all GOOD architecture is art, at least in my experience (spent last 4 years studying arch, art, and working for an ASGCA!).

[Mike_Young]

Adam and Bill,
I did not mean to come across as the site slamming individuals.....Let me rephrase and say:  I wish more people felt comfortable coming on the site to discuss say a Rees Jones course ..BUT I feel they don't because there is an unwritten perception that the course would not fair well here....JMO

Carl Johnson,
Is Amy your wife/daughter...?  I looked at her site....the cast paper art??? she ever consider a golf hole cast in paper and suitable for a frame etc?  I enjoyed her site....lots of stuff.....

[Grant Saunders]

I totally agree that golf course architecture is in itself an outlet for artistic expression. I do however feel that artistic component is beginning to be weighted disproportionately in relation to the actual function of the course by some people on here.

Ultimately, a golf course is a physical creation on which we interact with via the game of golf. The characteristics of the course which directly impact on the way in which we play the game, in my opinion, should carry the most weight when judging a course. The indirect aspects help contribute to the overall experience and most certainly should not be discounted but I personally will opt for substance over style.

I am not implying that the details do not matter and I appreciate that when they are given consideration in conjunction with great architecture that the result is something special.

I am a huge fan of rock music and it is definitely my preference to listen to. I can also however respect the talent of great musicians that operate in a genre that isnt necessarily what I enjoy. My take on what Mike is saying is that it is cool to have your own tastes or preference but you cannot deny talent or ability in any field simply because it doesnt fit with your own ideals.

[Sean_A]

Well, I spose I don't really buy the premise that gca is mainly art and perhaps this sort of thinking is why we have some monstrous courses out there.  Nor do I buy that a course has to be original to be truly great.  GCA has a much more prescriptive use than many forms of art.

Ciao   

[Link Walsh]

Mike,

Thanks for your post.  I've had the pleasure of playing quite a few of your courses in Georgia over the years, including the underrated Lane Creek, Southern Hills, and the one near LaGrange.  My two favorites are Cateechee (awesome and just fun to play) and Long Shadow, which I would have never even heard about except for this website. 

I'm a new member, but a longtime follower.  So being able to read and learn about so many courses around the world has been awesome.  And I will gladly point out a few Fazio and Reese Jones courses that I have played and enjoyed.  I just played out at Cherokee Country Club in Sandy Springs today, a Fazio redesign, and had a great time.  I also really like the Frog out west of Atlanta (except for the drive).  I played the Reese Jones Oconee course out at Reynolds Plantation about 5 years ago, and thought Jones did a good job putting a course built for resort play together there.  And even though these two courses seem to generate a lot of negative comments here, there's also a lot about Bandon Dunes and Erin Hills that I like.  I like how Ran does his course reviews.  He focuses on the holes to note, the good holes, and usually leaves much of his criticisms to just how the holes used to play versus how they play now.   

So far, I haven't seen anything but positive remarks on this site about Brian Silva.  In fact, I'm thinking about volunteering at the Nationwide Chattanooga Classic for a few days in October just so I can get to play Black Rock.  By the way, do you still have your office out at Lane Creek?  I haven't been out to that course in quite a while.  Thanks again for the post.               




 

[Dan Herrmann]

One of my first posts on gca.com was golf architecture as art, and I'm thrilled Mike asked the question again.

Just as "traditional" architecture can create great art - hell, it IS great art, I've always felt that golf course architecture is capable of being great art.

From the obvious Pebble Beach to the type of art that grows on you like a course like Lancaster, there are many types of art.  The oceanside "wow" to the parkland "peace" to the rugged "primitive", GCA can inspire emotions of joy, peace, and happiness.

What other type of sports field* can give you that?

* - OK - there are some baseball parks that can do it too

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()