"Scientific architecture!?"

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

You're listed quotations on Posts #65-68 and 73-74 are some good stuff. I think the trick, though, is to suss out and find the earliest development of this term, idea and philosophy of "scientific" or "modern" architecture. I say that because I think at this point it is more interesting to discover both when and why and even how it was first developed, utilized, mentioned and written about----not really when it was in full flood into the 1920s and 1930s and on.

[TEPaul]

"Are there any references to the methods employed by Macdonald, Raynor or Banks as "Scientific?"


Kyle:

That is a question that has been on my mind for close to a decade now and I have been actively on the lookout for anything that might have been said BY Macdonald and about his architectural philosophy BY him or ABOUT him and his architectural philosophy BY others, and I think the last thing he embraced was this idea of the "scientific." He may have thought of the over-all connotation of it fairly differently than most of them did back then or we do today, but Macdonald, in my opinion, was embued in GCA, and perhaps other things, of and with the ideas and the terms of such things as "classical," "traditional" and I think he abhored ANYTHING that smacked of modernity, innovation etc in GCA and he actually said so and said so quite passionately and vociferously, and in print!

So, again, to your question----are there references to the methods of Macdonald, Raynor, Banks as "scientific?" I would say, absolutely NOT!

Matter of fact, to prove that point, I would say we probably need to come to grips with a very misunderstood and very famous quotation by Macdonald------"It makes the very soul of golf shriek."

We generally believe that by that remark he was condemning the rudimentary, steeplechase, geometric style, type and idea of golf course architecture that prevalently preceded his NGLA, and that he made that remark before he built and finished NGLA (in the first decade of the 20th century).

I think not. I believe he actually made that remark in 1926 in his autobiography and he combined it with a description of architecture that had the look of things that he described as greens looking like "Marcel waves." I think he was describing his abhorence not to the type and style and look of architecture that precede his NGLA that we call "geometric" architecture; I think he was describing his abhorence to a type and style of architecture that we know of as "scientific" and even architecture of the curvilinear variety (perhaps GCA first attempts towards the "natural" look) that is essentially the definition of the "marcel wave" that, by the way, was named after a famous French hairstylist who only became popular in the 1920s in that era of ladies that were famously known as "flappers." Macdonald used that term ("Marcel Wave") first in 1926 as an example of what he felt made 'the very sould of golf shriek' so there is no way he could have said or written that remark before NGLA because the term (Marcel wave) would not even exist for almost another 10-15 years!  

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

You're listed quotations on Posts #65-68 and 73-74 are some good stuff. I think the trick, though, is to suss out and find the earliest development of this term, idea and philosophy of "scientific" or "modern" architecture. I say that because I think at this point it is more interesting to discover both when and why and even how it was first developed, utilized, mentioned and written about----not really when it was in full flood into the 1920s and 1930s and on.

The idea that 'scientific' is synonymous with 'modern' is clearly an oversimplification.

[TEPaul]

"The idea that 'scientific' is synonymous with 'modern' is clearly an oversimplification. "


It would be most interesting to me if you could explain in something approaching a modicum of intelligent detailed analysis why that might be so! But I fear experience tells me only too well you either will not or can not do that! 

[Sean_A]

Tom MacWood:

You're listed quotations on Posts #65-68 and 73-74 are some good stuff. I think the trick, though, is to suss out and find the earliest development of this term, idea and philosophy of "scientific" or "modern" architecture. I say that because I think at this point it is more interesting to discover both when and why and even how it was first developed, utilized, mentioned and written about----not really when it was in full flood into the 1920s and 1930s and on.

The idea that 'scientific' is synonymous with 'modern' is clearly an oversimplification.

Tommy Mac

Personally, I don't think it much matters about when the term "scientific" was actually employed.  I think it is quite clear that once the heathland architecture started very thoughtful and deliberate planning adhering to particular beliefs went into designing and building courses.  The actual use of the word "scientific" is just a label to explain (poorly I might add) modern architecture.  Lets face it, Park Jr stuck hazards in the middle of the park not by accident, but by design.  Paton and Low created bunkers and greens by design.  This is clearly "scientific" by any definition of the word I know even though it is poor way to describe what was happening either then or 25 years later.  If folks are really hung up on that exact term, then I would suggest its meaning shifted more from modern design to "penal" or "equitable" design over the years.  Usually when I have seen the word used it usually is in context of difficulty.  All that said, its a foolish goose chase to worry about the term because we already know that as American archies evolved, so too did the idea of penal architecture. 

Ciao

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

TEPaul:

I apologise for joining this thread so late in the day (only 7 years after it was first posted; better late then never). As someone who has studied science for many years, I just felt the need to get involved in this thread. This is a difficult topic and I cannot claim to be as eloquent as some of the previous contributors, but I will try my best.

I have read this thread from start to finish and I'm a little confused with the expression "Scientific architecture". I have not read Behr, so I only base my opinions on what you have posted on Behr in the previous contributions (replies #18-#20), but these replies relate to minimalism, don't they? Where is the "scientific" element?

In your first post you mention that it was "developed" and its "proponents" wrote about it. What did they develope? Were there studies carried out, and if so, what did they study and did they produce or publish results?

Is this discussion about the term "scientific" and when it was first mentioned, or about whether the term is used correctly with regard to architecture of that era? It's a fact that the terms "scientific" and "mathematical" were used, but were these the correct terms to use?

My interpretation from reading the examples (replies #65-#69) posted by Tom MacW is that scientific was just another term for predictable and fair. Judging from the quoted examples in replies #73 & #74, the term "scientific" appears to have been thrown about willy-nilly without much thought.

I find it extremely difficult to accept the term in relation to the planning of bunker locations. Of course science (botany, biology, chemistry, fluid dynamics, meteorology etc.) plays a role in vegetation, wildlife, drainage, flight of ball, etc., but surely not the planning of bunkers.

Of course, much of this discussion depends on your concept of science. In my opinion, it's about studying behaviour (natural, human), proposing a theory to describe the observed behaviour and making predictions.

The study of the end result of a golf shot is not science in my opinion (unless your concerned with how the ball impacts the turf), but the study of the thoughts and decision process (human behaviour) prior to execution of the shot may be.

Dónal.

[Tom MacWood]

Over the years I think the meaning of the term may have changed slightly, but I think was always related to scientific stroke making or precise stroke making (the use of that term predates scientific course-making). A scientifically designed course requires precise stroke making - good shots are rewarded and poor shots are punished. There is also an element intelligent thought that is required. Golf architecture was being looked upon or studied for the first time, where proper design ideas and elements are promoted and archaic ideas are discarded...that is where the idea of fairness come in. For example the cop bunker placed at formulaic intervals from the tee is not an example of a scientifically bunkered golf course - it does not challenge the expert while overly punishing the average golfer. Also blind shots are something to be avoided on a scientifically designed golf course; OB is another unscientific element.

By the late teens and twenties modern American golf architecture (the American Movement) really promoted the idea of scientifically bunkered or laid out golf courses, this in contract to the British model, which was less penal leaning. The epitome of American scientific architecture were heavily bunkered courses like Pine Valley, Oakmont, Inwood, Lido and Hollywood. And as Americans began to dominate competition a theory developed that the American scientifically designed golf course produced a superior golfer. This domination eventually resulted in pressure within Britain to adopt a similar American architectural model in order to compete.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

With all respect we can only judge if we use the tools (equipment of the day). It is so easy to make statement after the event and assume that this and that was or in this case was not done.

You are discussing a term when perhaps you should actually be looking at how the results came about. You dismissed my point earlier, which is fine as its your topic, but in fact scientific is the result on controlled experiments and tests and is not related to a whim of a phrase which is difficult to clearly define over the time frame you and Tom have mentioned. As for claiming its American, well do so if that floats your boat.

If you are both seeking just clever phrases to promote your ideas, then go fill your boots and enjoy yourself but when tests were undertaken on the humble worm and golf Greens, an in depth study was undertaken and results noted and recorded – that in my book relates to scientific study and explained why many 19th Century designers and green keepers cultivated worms which were predominately used upon or under the Greens. That I feel is part of the design process relating to Greens and was the result of a detailed study (which was published) and to my mind would certainly be defined as ‘scientific’ and most certainly related to ‘GCA’, but then I believe it was not American so I suppose some may well want to discount it after all we do not want scientific carp messing up this decision.

Melvyn 

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

I don't think I could agree more with your Post #79.



Tom MacWood:

I also couldn't agree more with what you said in Post #81, except, personally, I might transpose what we often refer to today as "shot values" for your use of the idea of scientific stroke making. This really has been an excellent thread; thanks for reviving it after a seven year hiatus.

[TEPaul]

Donal:

I think your Post #80 is wonderful----eg a lot of good thoughts and questions strewn through it and I'd love to get into them over some time.

But for now.

You said:

"My interpretation from reading the examples (replies #65-#69) posted by Tom MacW is that scientific was just another term for predictable and fair. Judging from the quoted examples in replies #73 & #74, the term "scientific" appears to have been thrown about willy-nilly without much thought."



For perhaps a far more involved treatment and understanding with what you touched on above, particularly the part about predictable and fair, I would highly recommend you read and carefully consider Bob Crosby's excellent "In My Opinion" essay on here entitled "Joshua Crane." That essay essentially deals very comprehensively with just these type of things (some of these same terms, ideas, philosophies) and Bob even coigns a new term in it called "Equitable Architecture" which I believe definitionally takes many of these things we are discussing on here and arguably explains them much better and more clearly than they ever have been before.

[paul cowley]

Well, its taken a while to boil this thread down to it's essence...but, by Jove I think you all have it!

And it's good to see that for a change. 

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

For perhaps a far more involved treatment and understanding with what you touched on above, particularly the part about predictable and fair, I would highly recommend you read and carefully consider Bob Crosby's excellent "In My Opinion" essay on here entitled "Joshua Crane." That essay essentially deals very comprehensively with just these type of things (some of these same terms, ideas, philosophies) and Bob even coigns a new term in it called "Equitable Architecture" which I believe definitionally takes many of these things we are discussing on here and arguably explains them much better and more clearly than they ever have been before.

Tom:

Thank you for the kind words. I will certainly read Bob's essay.

Here are some examples of the term, and all relating to Princes interesting enough:

Henry Leach (1911): "Certain it is that some of these new  courses are really very perfect from the scientific point of view. Good shots get their reward, bad ones are punished, and the golfer is tested at every point of the game and made to learn all the different ways of doing the same thing."

H. Mallaby-Deeley (1914): “No course, however difficult, can be a good one if it is unfair and I notice that the latest tendency is to make things difficult by making them unreasonable in respect to hazards and the position of the hole to the green. This may produce high scoring, which seems to be the object of many golf architects, but it is not scientific course construction.”

I suppose the above writers were students of classical Newtonian mechanics where an object continues in a straight line unless an external force other than friction acts up it. They obviously did not appreciate the more unpredictable nature of courses such as Royal St. Georges (a quantum mechanical course where Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies).

I can now see the next topic posted on the DG;

"Quantum Mechanical Golf Courses Top 10"

[Niall C]

Tom MacWood:

You're listed quotations on Posts #65-68 and 73-74 are some good stuff. I think the trick, though, is to suss out and find the earliest development of this term, idea and philosophy of "scientific" or "modern" architecture. I say that because I think at this point it is more interesting to discover both when and why and even how it was first developed, utilized, mentioned and written about----not really when it was in full flood into the 1920s and 1930s and on.

The idea that 'scientific' is synonymous with 'modern' is clearly an oversimplification.

Tommy Mac

Personally, I don't think it much matters about when the term "scientific" was actually employed.  I think it is quite clear that once the heathland architecture started very thoughtful and deliberate planning adhering to particular beliefs went into designing and building courses.  The actual use of the word "scientific" is just a label to explain (poorly I might add) modern architecture.  Lets face it, Park Jr stuck hazards in the middle of the park not by accident, but by design.  Paton and Low created bunkers and greens by design.  This is clearly "scientific" by any definition of the word I know even though it is poor way to describe what was happening either then or 25 years later.  If folks are really hung up on that exact term, then I would suggest its meaning shifted more from modern design to "penal" or "equitable" design over the years.  Usually when I have seen the word used it usually is in context of difficulty.  All that said, its a foolish goose chase to worry about the term because we already know that as American archies evolved, so too did the idea of penal architecture. 

Ciao

Sean

If you make a decision to place a bunker in a certain spot, that is design. If you decide to make the bunker 5 yards wide rather than 7 yards then that is design. You have made design decisions. You may however have made those decisions because they seemed right without any real logical idea or thought process having been involved.

I have come across the term scientifically laid out courses or scientifically placed bunkers in a lot of early newspaper reports without any explanation of quite what it means. From reading those reports in volume I get the impression that the term relates to the thought process, and adopting general principles, not formulas as such, but ideas on what made a good course and what was good design eg. what constituted the proper length for a good 2 shot hole or a 3 shot hole, how the hazards showed be placed round a green, fairway bunkers how there placed and ease of getting out of them.

I suspect people have been talking about what constitutes good design since the early days of golf literature and that it might have reached its fruition with MacKenzies Golf Architecture. MacKenzie might not have recognised his principles as being scientific but surely they involved the same design process of using and adapting pre-conceived ideas.

Niall