Brian Silva on Classic Architecture

[Peter Pallotta]

Lloyd - thanks, another good one. A few quick points, not even rejoinders for the most part:

I am taking liberties with the language when it comes to "meaning", and that's why I wanted to explain. I do mean "meaning" and "essence" to be almost interchangeable, but not quite. In other words, I didn't use "meaning" to imply a relationship (to god or anything else). The word has resonance for me used that way, but I can't explain why.      

Please do wait for Shackelford's book, as what you're getting from me is surely not Behr himself but Behr-filtered (much like Woody Allen thought his mother put all their food through a de-flavourizer). If you got lost, it's my fault, not yours.

I do understand the idea of using the word "meaningless" without a negative connotation. In fact, I think I got to my current way of thinking by that very route.

I've come to believe that if a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, it still makes a sound. It will also decompose and provide nutrients for other life, all on its own and unobserved by human consciousness.

Finally, I found this particularly relevant: "I cannot see how one tract of forest, while logically inevitably unique, is discernably different, in essence, from it's immediate neighbor to the extent that the designer should lose sleep over said difference."

Yes, but I think that begs the question, Lloyd i.e. the architect is not losing sleep over it because he begins from the assumption that it's not discernably different; and he can feel comfortable beginning with that assumption because his primary goal (and primary focus) is to build a golf course on the land by representing its features (broadly) instead of intepreting its features (subtly, no matter how subtly); Bill Coore's "subtle contour" you quoted in another thread comes to mind.

To take a chance with a musical analogy: How many notes in a guitar solo does it take to make one solo appreciably (or meaningfully) different from another? Might one single blues note do the trick? Might one phrase left unresolved create a different impression?

I think it's a slippery slope. That is, it may be that the belief that pasture land in the mid-west is not appreciably different from pasture land in the north-east is the reason that two courses separated by 2,000 kilometres can end up looking almost exactly alike, their natural features being represented in short-hand as it were, and with handy and popular signifiers thrown here and there.

Peter      

[Lloyd_Cole]

The word has resonance for me used that way, but I can't explain why.      


To take a chance with a musical analogy: How many notes in a guitar solo does it take to make one solo appreciably (or meaningfully) different from another? Might one single blues note do the trick? Might one phrase left unresolved create a different impression?

Peter

Fine by me on all points except the crux.
That the word meaning has a resonance for you is fine, but that resonance is not communicated with the word in its common usage at, for example, a discussion forum, therefore it is meaning different things to different people and that can only confuse matters. Differing connotations for proper nouns are to be expected, but for nouns, aren't they like our mathematical principles? A door is a door. If language is our medium for communicating ideas this type of usage undermines our discussion.

On the guitar front, absolutely. It's tiny nuances which tend to elevate the good to the really great, I'd say.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Post #77 is probably the most important, at least to me, I've ever seen on Golfclubatlas in almost nine years on this site. It took me probably 45 minutes to read it and read it and read it again. At first I thought you may've gotten some words or thoughts in the wrong place which may've almost turned around your meaning to the opposite but I don't think so now.

Perhaps you may be on some spiritual journey or even quest without knowing why, it probably doesn't matter but you seem to be doing it which is great to see and hear and read about.

You told me some time ago I taught you something but you've gone beyond my permutations in this stuff and you are teaching me something now. Lloyd Cole is talking to you well and bringing it out.

I know this kind of thread and these posts aren't for everyone---that doesn't matter because I'm sure this game and its architecture has enough levels of meaning to serve any client or consumer.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

It's probably too early to ask or expect but how do you think you'd fare if you were put on a site and asked to design or even consult on the concepts of holes and a course?

Some of the architects on here might say you couldn't do it because you have no technical experience.

That may be true to some degree but the deal is to find out from them why some of your concepts can't be fitted into technical considerations.

If they then tell you even that is not possible, then I think they are just talking total bullshit out their ass!  

[Bill Brightly]

No doubt this thread has started Mike Cirba on a frantic search of his basement for his college bong.

Find it yet, Mike?

[wsmorrison]

I have enjoyed this thread immensely.  Thanks to all.

Peter wrote,

The architect, Behr might be saying, should strive first and foremost and as much as possible to seek out and honour the meaning and essence of the nature (i.e. the natural site) he is working on.  The forms necessary for the game of golf and golf course architecture that we’ve invented should come second, and even then should ideally spring out of that essence instead of being imposed upon it.  In other words, the art of golf course architecture is about trying to interpret what a natural site’s features might mean in terms of the game of golf, not what that game of golf requires/demands that site become.

The art of golf course architecture lies in discovering new and uniques holes (that fulfill the requirements of the game) in the land itself, even if those holes don’t fit our preconceived or tried-and-tested ideas of what a golf hole must be.  The art does not, or should not, lie in arriving at a site with a handful of shot-testing formulas that are then forced onto the land (whether that forcing requires a lot of earthmoving or not.)

In short, the art is not about representing/recreating the forms of nature most suited to our golfing needs, but about interpreting natural forms to see what they might be suggesting to us about those very needs.      

If this well written account accurately reflects Behr's philosophy (as it does my own), I wonder if Behr wrote about his thoughts on the work of Raynor, Banks and Langford and to a lesser extent Macdonald?  Their architectural style seems to be at odds with the philosophy of Behr and other classic era architects.  

Peter, what are your thoughts regarding the architectural aesthetic of Raynor and Banks?  

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

Max Behr did not criticize the architecture or the aesthetic of NGLA, at least early on, and probably never. Macdonald had him and a bunch of other top players of the day to NGLA for a tournament before the actual opening of the course, and Behr had good things to say about the course.

Matter of fact, it was pretty interesting what Behr did say about the place at that time. Despite the fact the course was really raw because it hadn't grown in (they had some real agronomic problems early on----eg you know, Macdonald was pretty much trying to grow grass on straight sand the way Crump tried to a few years later ).

Behr said he and the others liked that and that they could see the essence of greatness despite how raw it was at that time.

As much as I love many of the ideas of Max Behr I really don't know his own particular architectural modus operandi very well because I've never seen any of his courses.

It certainly is possible that he may not have been a "minimalist" in the generally accepted meaning of that term---ie moving very little earth. It very well may've been that he was willing to move massive amounts of earth simply to go the last mile to make a course look natural and "site-natural".

I mean look at some of the best "natural" looking courses ever like CPC and Pebble in the late 1920s and those things that were referred to as "imitation sand dunes". Those things looked incredibly natural but to make them they sure as hell didn't just move a couple of tablespoons of earth!  

But they most assuredly did not look "engineered" at least not to my eye. If anything they may've gone too far the other way and made the whole thing look a bit too "artistic".

Peter Pallotta has talked about a few recent courses where he thinks the architects may've gone so "mimimal" that some golfers might think those courses are boring.

That is interesting indeed because most people think the look of a CPC on opening was so incredibly natural looking. But the way that course was enhanced architecturally to look natural was one of the most remarkable visual feasts ever produced in golf course architecture.

There was definitely not a single thing about it that one would say was boring looking. Matter of fact, it was so visually stunning that when Hunter reported to Mackenzie (who was in England at the time) about peoples' opinions of it on opening day, Hunter said they were all totally overwhelmed by the magnificent look of it and that actually pissed off Mackenzie because he figured the visual drama he'd created actually cloaked the planned "controversy" he was hoping for in the play of some of the holes!  

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - thank you.  To answer your question, I'd say that realistically all I could offer is a point of view. That point of view (i.e. an ideal for and a vision of what golf courses might be) probably wouldn't come as a surprise to many of the architects here; but it probably would fly in the face of what the profession and the standards/parametres of golf course architecture have nearly always been, and continue to be.

It reminds me of a question that's often been asked around here, ie. why is TOC so revered, and if so revered why hasn't it been copied elsewhere?  

Wayne - I'm not sure how close I'm getting to what Behr might've be exploring and saying, and almost all of what I know about Raynor and Banks has come from the threads you've started or participated in. But on one of those threads, Patrick Mucci said to you something like "It's about shot-testing, not poetry"...and my reaction was "Why couldn't it be about shot-testing AND poetry?"

Yes, I'd like to see and feel more poetry on a golf course, and believe that the poetry is inherent in the nature/the natural site. In other words, I find the Banks-Raynor approach interesting mainly from an historical perspective. And I'd like to see (and perhaps Behr did too) an expanding of the traditional concepts of shot-testing such that an architect could be more inclined to intepret what the natural site is offering in this regard (first and foremost) instead of representing aspects of nature only so far as they fit into pre-conceived or conventional ideas about what makes a golf hole a test of golf.

Peter

[wsmorrison]

Behr's view of NGLA is interesting to me as regards the use of template holes.  Macdonald did so in a manner that, to me at least, was far better looking than the approach taken by Raynor and Banks.  Perhaps Macdonald gave up some originality and other sections of property that may have yielded a different result in his quest to find sites suited for some of his template designs.  However, Macdonald utilized original concepts very well and the overall result, though man-made in appearance, was far less so than those designs by Raynor and Banks.

I wonder what he would say about their fixation to make template holes even if there was nothing about the land that lent itself to such hole designs, somewhat in contrast to Macdonald's approach.

I don't know if Behr was a minimalist or a naturalist (use of natural features and/or a mimicking or imitation of natural features in the architecture--such as the imitation dunes you alluded to), but I suspect he'd find less to criticize about the aesthetics of the nature fakers in relation to the manufactured look and template dependencies of Raynor and Banks.

[Kirk Gill]

Forgive my intrusion into what is a most interesting thread.

Could it be that Behr's words quoted by Mr. Morrison are themselves a reaction to, or a criticism of, the highly engineered style of a Raynor, Banks, or Langford, in a gentle and positive way?

Am I making an obvious point, or missing one?

[TEPaul]

"Wayne - I'm not sure how close I'm getting to what Behr might've be exploring and saying, and almost all of what I know about Raynor and Banks has come from the threads you've started or participated in. But on one of those threads, Patrick Mucci said to you something like "It's about shot-testing, not poetry"...and my reaction was "Why couldn't it be about shot-testing AND poetry?"

Peter:

That's essentially the question Wayne has always asked when he talks about the engineered look and style of the National School compared to the far more natural looking architecture of, for instance, the Monterrey School about fifteen or twenty years later.


"It reminds me of a question that's often been asked around here, ie. why is TOC so revered, and if so revered why hasn't it been copied elsewhere?"  

Peter:

Honestly, that question has not just been asked around here, it's been asked by architects for probably close to a hundred years now.

In my opinion, that question has never been completely answered and maybe it never will be. And I think that very question is probably the fundamental/base-line question of everything the entire history of golf course architecture, and maybe golf itself too, is and is about.

IF AND WHEN, anyone EVER fully answers that particular question I really doubt there will be much more to know or for us to talk about on the entire subject of golf architecture, or, at least I should say where this art form began and has come to at this point.

If that ever happens, if that question ever gets really answered the result may be pretty remarkable.

I sense that the effect of it may be something for us and others addicted to golf architecture someting like what Martin Luther King said in that emotion roiling speech in DC:

"Free at last, free at last, Thank God Almighty, we're free at last".

And then he said how all colors and creeds can be released from the preceding shackles and bonds and prejudices to climb those high American mountain tops.

If that question ever gets its total answer we may all be free to scramble up over those mountain tops and see and understand what lies in the future for this odd and unique business and art form.

God only knows what it might be. I for one sure have no clue!



 

[TEPaul]

Peter:

The question of why TOC has never been more completely copied if so many refer to it as the prototype of all golf architecture is something I won't try to get into now.

But, as to why golf architecture should not be all shot-testing AND poetry, assuming "poetry" means that type and degree of architectural naturalism Wayne is talking about, I think the answer to that is pretty simple really, and I think that question has been answered.

You and I have talked about this.

I believe a guy like Behr came to the conclusion that if golf architecture could become so natural in appearance that Man and the golfer would not see that it was not wholly natural it would then quiet all criticism.

His premise was that Man is not inclined to fuss about things that Nature puts in front of him to trip him up, including in golf. Behr felt Man is inclined to fuss about something he recognizes is man-made that's put in front of him to trip him up or make him look foolish or inadequate to himself and others.

Those were Behr's beliefs; that was his premise that lead to his conclusion about natuaralism in golf architecture.

I think, and I've told people like you and Shackelford and others, that I feel the ensuing 80 or so years have basically proven to us that Behr's conclusion was something of a mistake---in other words it really isn't true, at least not of and about all golfers, although it certainly appears to be with others.

The fact is the ensuing 80 years since he began to write those things has shown us that some golfers, perhaps even most of them, just don't really care. They either don't notice or they don't care or they don't even think about it, or maybe they even like artificiality and the obviously man-made.

But the real question is what if you gave them a whole lot more of it (really natural looking and seeming architecture)?

Would they care more then or would many of them not even notice or think about the difference?

The fact is a whole lot of golfers seem to really like that engineered or manufactured look in architecture.

Maybe they like the fact that it shows some kind of evidence of Man's ability to control and dominate nature and they feel good about that.

For me, and for you and maybe for Wayne too, and certainly for Max Behr, that kind of thing shows either a certain amount of arrogance on the part of Man or an inability on his part to truly appreciate enough the natural world.

Hasn't it always been this way? Don't you think so? I do. In the context of this subject of golf Behr called it "the game mind of Man". It's probably Man's original and everlasting dynamic with the natural world around him---eg whether to continue to try to control and dominate it or whether to totally respect it and try a lot harder to leave it alone.

[Bill Brightly]

I wonder what he would say about their fixation to make template holes even if there was nothing about the land that lent itself to such hole designs, somewhat in contrast to Macdonald's approach.

I don't know if Behr was a minimalist or a naturalist (use of natural features and/or a mimicking or imitation of natural features in the architecture--such as the imitation dunes you alluded to), but I suspect he'd find less to criticize about the aesthetics of the nature fakers in relation to the manufactured look and template dependencies of Raynor and Banks.

Wayne,

Once again, you go too far and you have to be reeled back in. Just because Raynor left "an engineered look" at some green sites, which you do not like, does NOT mean "there was nothing about the land which lent itself to such hole designs." That is crap. Raynor and Banks certainly looked for the best spots for their template features. They most certainly did not just start plowing and building template holes.

Banks, in particular, found beautiful, natural spots for his Redans. Both Raynor and Banks used the land exceptionally well with their Road holes. The backdrop of their Short Holes were particularly exquisite. Cape Holes, by definition, require good use of the land and water.

It is just WRONG and unfair for you to imply that "if it's a template, it's unatural."  Like most stereotypes, the statement is based in a modicum of fact, and then distorted in an effort to be harmful to someone else's character or work.

No matter how much you dislike the look, it is obvious to me that Raynor and Banks left the look they wanted on their green complexes. (My personal theory is that Raynor wanted to impress Macdonald, and Banks wanted to impress Raynor, by making the features more noticeable.) They never WANTED to be naturalists, they wanted to build fun, challenging playing fields for the game of golf, and they CLEARLY succeeded. They suceeded in the short term because the demand for their product was so strong and their business niche clearly established. They succeeded in the long run because their courses remain so much fun to play, and their niche is still unique.

[wsmorrison]

Peter,

Thank you for your reply.  I am of a similar mind, why not have shot-testing and poetry?  Some architects delivered both.  Raynor, Banks and to a lesser extent, Macdonald chose not to.  Is it because it was only about shot-testing to them or because they did not consider a more natural aesthetic or were less capable of delivering it?  Still, the flat bottom bunkers go beyond an aesthetic and provided a standardized shot value and not a variable stance and shot that other, more natural styled bunkers, provided.  Was it because Raynor and Banks weren't golfers so their design philosophy was more imitative and/or compartmentalized?  I don't know, it is possible.  I am glad we've gotten past the indignation of some of their supporters and can address the specifics of this fascinating topic.

[Bill Brightly]

Peter,
 I am glad we've gotten past the indignation of some of their supporters and can address the specifics of this fascinating topic.

Not quite... Just stop slandering, and we can get past it...

[wsmorrison]

Bill,

If you cannot admit that there are times that Raynor and Banks made template holes that had nothing at all to do with their surrounds, there is absolutely no reason to discuss this with you.  I never stated or let alone implied that their templates are universally without a harmony to their surrounds.  That is your distortion, not mine.  

I never said that if it is a template it is unnatural.  While often the case, I do not make universal statements about golf architecture.  Even Flynn built a Redan hole popping out of the ground.  That was an extremely rare occasion and it was replacing an existing Redan that the membership likely enjoyed and requested.  Flynn made his variation several feet above the Macdonald original that just so happened to lie on a natural right to left cant.

There are some cases where Raynor and Banks tie their templates and non-template holes in pretty well to the surrounds.  Are you telling me that other of their templates and non-templates don't pop out of the ground and have nothing at all to do with their surrounds?  I think it is pretty evident that they tend to be far more unnatural in appearance more often than not.

I get it.  You like the work of Raynor and Banks.  You belong to a Banks course and I applaud your enthusiasm and appreciation for their work.  Yet, their style is what it is.  I don't know why this style would impress Macdonald.  It can be characterized as almost a caricature of his work.  Macdonald was in the middle ground between naturalism and the man-made look.  Raynor and Banks were skewed heavily towards the man-made look.  That cannot be denied.  Neither can be the enjoyability of their work.  That is not what is being discussed yet you bring it up all the time.

[wsmorrison]

"Just stop slandering, and we can get past it..."

Do you really think anything I've posted is slanderous?  I take it you are kidding as that is an extreme reaction (and erroneous) if you are not.

[TEPaul]

"Raynor, Banks and to a lesser extent, Macdonald chose not to.  Is it because it was only about shot-testing to them or because they did not consider a more natural aesthetic or were less capable of delivering it?"

Wayne:

In my opinion, the answers to those questions have been pretty well answered on this site.

Here's probably a pretty appropriate question for you with this whole subject;

Do you suppose if Macdonald had started in architecture in America in 1917 or in the 1920s instead of when he did he would've done the same thing he did with NGLA and that Raynor and Banks et al would've continued with that look and style for the rest of their careers?

[Peter Pallotta]

"Hasn't it always been this way? Don't you think so? I do. In the context of this subject of golf Behr called it "the game mind of Man". It's probably Man's original and everlasting dynamic with the natural world around him---eg whether to continue to try to control and dominate it or whether to totally respect it and try a lot harder to leave it alone."

Tom -

This question (and related ones about naturalism in golf) is what I keep coming back to again and again; I can't help but think it is THE fundamental issue in terms of the development and future of golf course architecture.

And all I can say with any kind of certainty is that, as with all of humankind's creations and modes of living, nothing in golf course architecture is or should be seen to be inexorable, i.e. we are not talking about a fixed and immutable law of gravity, but about a moveable feast of (potentially) changing wants and desires and capacities and hopes. The shame, it seems to me, is for us to simply throw up our hands and say that the way things are is the way they must or were meant to be. No good and worthwhile change in this world has ever come about through that kind of thinking.

Behr might've over-extended himself in speculating about what the golfer wanted on a golf course; but what he was hoping for, I think, was to engender fields of play that enriched and deepened and broadened the 'experience' of golf, i.e. to engender golf courses that allowed for the gaming/competitive aspects of the game but that also brought the whole of man into a closer relationship and interaction with nature and natural forces and natural beauty. How can that possibly be a bad goal? How can that possibly be less important now than it was 80 years ago?    

You know, I used to fish as a kid, and what I wanted most of all was to catch fish, a lot of them. And it's easy enough to do if you use 20lb test line with a spinner and a worm in a shallow, weedy lake teeming with little rock bass and sunfish. But after you've caught (and/or maimed) a hundred or a thousand of them, you begin to see or want the added beauty and elegance and peace (and SKILL) of fly-fishing, and you begin to understand how standing in the middle of a large river with a thin line and a tiny 'fly', waiting for or trying to sense the presence of a trout that, even if he takes the fly will be a challenge to reel in, is a much more 'complete' experience. It doesn't negate anything of what the other kind of fishing is about (though you do catch less fish) while encompassing so much more.

Peter        

[Peter Pallotta]

Kelly - thanks much. You zeroed in very succinctly on a key part of what I've been wondering about, i.e.

"There is a utilitarian component to the game that must be satisfied by the land to some degree."  It's this utilitarian component that I think could use some questioning, i.e.

1) What do we assume is the bare minimum 'utility' a gca can express in his course, and

2) Have the 'forms' in which this utility is now (and has traditionally been) expressed become too fixed?

I'd really appreciate your thoughts, if the questions make any sense that is

Peter  

[wsmorrison]

"Do you suppose if Macdonald had started in architecture in America in 1917 or in the 1920s instead of when he did he would've done the same thing he did with NGLA and that Raynor and Banks et al would've continued with that look and style for the rest of their careers?"

No, I don't suppose that Macdonald would have designed the same way nor would Raynor and Banks exaggerate that style.  

The question is, why in the face of some criticism of their methods (acclaim was not universal after NGLA) and a determined movement away from their design aesthetic towards naturalism did they stick to their methods through the 1920s?  
I don't believe that question can be answered but it sure is an interesting one.  I wouldn't be surprised if Macdonald's personality weighed into it.  The reasons for Raynor and Banks are harder to guess.  

After NGLA, when the template model was evident to most architects and national players (but not to all golfers), there was criticism.  It probably bothered Maconald who saw himself as the father of American golf (and had statues to prove it).  The clear fact throughout was they did not lack for clients despite their unique approach.  The "in crowd" in many regions wanted their work.  I don't know of cases where they directly competed for work with classic era architects with a different aesthetic.

[TEPaul]

"Behr might've over-extended himself in speculating about what the golfer wanted on a golf course; but what he was hoping for, I think, was to engender fields of play that enriched and deepened and broadened the 'experience' of golf, i.e. to engender golf courses that allowed for the gaming/competitive aspects of the game but that also brought the whole of man into a closer relationship and interaction with nature and natural forces and natural beauty. How can that possibly be a bad goal? How can that possibly be less important now than it was 80 years ago?"


Peter:

Oh no, I never meant to say that Behr's goal was a bad one, or that it's less important now than it was 80 years ago. All I'm saying is it seems like he overestimated back then the concerns of golfers with the man-made and/or lack of naturalism.

If I thought his goal was a bad one I doubt I'd have anywhere near the interest in the man and what he said as I do. I don't think his message is less important now then it was 80 years ago, it's probably much more important now.

It is certainly not lost on me that both Behr and his message is back, after being relegated to the dustbin of history for a good number of decades.

You know as well as I do that I want to see both Behr and his message be given another change in the future. That's why I talk about him and his messages as much as I do, I'm sure.

But even with all that it's not been lost on me that not all that many seem willing or that interested in listening.  

I'm pretty much the eternal optimist, though, and I like to think that maybe it's just because it hasn't been explained to them well enough.

   

[Kirk Gill]

"The question is, why in the face of some criticism of their methods (acclaim was not universal after NGLA) and a determined movement away from their design aesthetic towards naturalism did they stick to their methods through the 1920s?"

It's obvious that Mr. Brightly appreciates "their methods." There was, apparently, others who felt the same way, since those methods were used to build a number of courses. Is it so hard to believe that they didn't change their methods because the results they got were exactly how they liked them? Or is that too simplistic? Was or is there something so compelling about a "naturalistic" approach to GCA that all practitioners must fall in line with that method?

"Indeed, if golf architecture is to be what it should be, we must finally come to realize that golf is as much an aesthetic experience as it is one of skill."
                                             -Behr

Perhaps a naturalistic approach provides a higher quality aesthetic experience to more people than an obviously engineered approach does. But it is a "Big World."

[TEPaul]

"Perhaps a naturalistic approach provides a higher quality aesthetic experience to more people than an obviously engineered approach does. But it is a "Big World.""

You got that right Kirk---it sure is.

Haven't you noticed that much of the problem with all this stuff including just about everyone on here is they look at and talk about almost every single issue as an "either/or" thing?

But it's not an "either/or" thing. It can be both or many things at the same time.

Just not exactly on the same golf course!  

[Peter Pallotta]

Kirk, TE

Yes, I agree that a Big World can encompass both a naturalistic and a more engineered look. But I'm not sure if that's the key or important dividing line/dichotomy. (By the way, Tom, I hope you know that my "is that a bad goal?" question was rhetorical).  

In line with the questions I asked Kelly earlier on, I think that maybe the real issue is what an architect believes MUST be there on a golf course he designs for it to fulfill even its minimum utilitarian functions AS a golf course.

And that question/issue seems to me to be independent of whether one tends to move a lot of earth or very little earth, or whether one tends to like an engineered shot-testing look or a naturalistic shot-testing look.

I'm theorizing that maybe the FORMS from nature that architects have chosen to represent on golf courses in order for those golf courses to fulfill their utilitarian function as shot-testers have become rather fixed, and TOO fixed, i.e. too established and set in stone. (And again, I think that's true whether those forms are sought primarily in the land itself or created by a lot of earthmoving).

In other words, the utilitarian aspects/demands of the game have taken on too much importance across the board, at the expense of the experience of the game being tied much more intimately to the site itself.  

I'm theorizing that Behr might've been calling for a broad expansion in what is considered utilitarian, and of what is considered shot-testing, and was suggesting that architects should delve more deeply into nature's (and the natural site's) own inherent essence to discover brand new ways of thinking about this utilitarian aspect, and for brand new ways of expressing it.

In short, Behr was suggesting that there are far more golf holes out there waiting to be found than are dreamt of in our philosophies.

After all, someone like JES or John Kirk would beat me badly over 18 holes whether we were playing at Firestone or Bandon or Augusta or at a brand new course sprung from the very soul of nature that had fairways a hundred yards wide and not a bunker in sight and greens that were sometimes as flat as a pancake.

In other words, I think this shot-testing talk has taken on way too much importance. It's the "game mind of man" I guess....but it's very interesting and telling to me that the man who coined that phrase could play shot-testing golf with the best of them. I guess he'd had his fill of that, and was searching for more, and certainly not less.    

Peter