The “Method of Modern Construction” of Henri Matisse

[PCCraig]

Yesterday I visited the Art Institute of Chicago to see the new exhibit “Matisse: Radical Invention: 1913-1917” and in taking a guided tour was amazed at how important the idea of constructing a piece of art had become to Matisse during that period. Each piece had multiple levels of paint, scratching, drawing, etc… Some pieces were created, then he would return to them after letting them sit for months or years to change them, sometimes drastically painting over them in a monotone.

The Institute had a quote from Matisse (that unfortunately I didn’t write down so I am paraphrasing) that said “No masterpiece can be created in one sitting, it must be constructed in levels over time.”

The following is taken from an Economist article (http://www.economist.com/culture/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15660864) which focuses on the inspiration of the exhibit:

ON A trip to Chicago to give a lecture, John Elderfield, then chief curator of painting and sculpture at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York, dropped in to see how conservation of Henri Matisse’s monumental painting, “Bathers by a River”, was coming along. He was hooked. The result, five years later, is an exhibition that dramatically changes established ideas about the artist’s work and working methods.

After studying the conservation of “Bathers by a River”, Mr. Elderfield felt that there might be much to learn if MoMA’s own 1916 Matisse masterpiece, “The Moroccans”, underwent a similar analysis. From there the project grew. Mr Elderfield, who reads detective fiction for relaxation, turned detective himself. Along with his co-curator, Stephanie D’Alessandro of the Art Institute of Chicago, the sleuthing began in earnest. Their discoveries form the core of a new show, “Matisse: Radical Invention 1913-1917”.

This is the first major exhibition to focus on the years between the painter’s last visit to Morocco and his departure for Nice. In that time he created many of the works that are now regarded as masterpieces. His sculptures included “Back”, a series of plaster reliefs cast in bronze. Among paintings there was “The Red Room”, “The Piano Lesson” and “Interior with Goldfish”. And, of course, there was “Bathers by a River” and “The Moroccans”, which Matisse considered “among the most pivotal works” of his career. Nevertheless, critics and art historians found his output perplexing, somehow “unMatissey”. Sometimes the artist seemed to be a cubist; sometimes not. He appeared to abandon colour. “Bathers”, after all, borders on monochrome. Ah, but then think of that explosive room of red. So it went.

What was he up to? “The practice of a genius is complicated,” Mr. Elderfield observes. The art historian set out to discover how the pictures were made. Archives were researched; fine needles inserted into tiny blobs on the surface of pictures removing minute cross-sections of the paint underneath. Stereoscopic microscopy, infra-red reflectograms and X-radiography were employed. New developments in software design were instrumental in making science useful to art history.

These examinations revealed that when Matisse created an image it was often only a starting point. In the case of “Blue Nude”, for instance, the canvas was wiped clean more than two dozen times before he was satisfied. Five other versions of “Bathers by a River” were discovered; three of “The Moroccans”. At times Matisse scraped the surface of his pictures, scratched them or made incisions as if they were clay.

It turns out that Matisse was not in a muddle. He had not lost his way. He was not painting like someone else; some alternative Matisse. Instead, he was pushing himself to his limits as he searched for his unique “method of modern construction”. The stages of his struggle have been uncovered and recorded; the glory of his achievements more comprehensively revealed.

So how does this relate to golf course architecture? Well I couldn’t stop thinking about the quote I read and the idea that a masterpieces can’t truly be created without time and reworking. So my question is this, can a golf course be considered a masterpiece of a golf course architect if that architect didn’t spend additional time reworking and tinkering with the architecture of the holes? Is this not how Pinehurst #2 became Donald Ross’ masterpiece? Can a modern course such as Pacific Dunes be considered a masterpiece of Tom Doak without years, the course’s natural evolution, and even some changes to the course? Is there such a thing as an untouched “masterpiece” of a golf course architect from any period?

[John Mayhugh]

I can't remember the last time I saw anyone work Matisse and The Economist into a single post....

Really interesting connection to make.  Certainly consistent with the idea of how important it is for the designer to spend on site.  And on how much some courses have benefitted from the original architect going back over the years and tweaking them - especially the cases where they lived there.

[PCCraig]

I can't remember the last time I saw anyone work Matisse and The Economist into a single post....

Really interesting connection to make.  Certainly consistent with the idea of how important it is for the designer to spend on site.  And on how much some courses have benefitted from the original architect going back over the years and tweaking them - especially the cases where they lived there.

Thanks for responding.

Good point that this is consistent with the idea that architects should spend considerable time on site during construction. And perhaps even more consistent with the assumption that rarely everything goes according to plan once on site and the ability to improvise in the field being such a huge asset.

Moving back to my original question, and I think one that is a little more consistent with Matisse and his "Method," can a course be considered a masterpiece if a golf course architect moves on and never touches the course again? Does a golf course architect need to spend time away from his creation and return to apply some of the things he or she learned elsewhere in order to be more complete?

And can a course that has been touched by someone else's hand be considered the original person's masterpiece? For example, can any course that has been "updated" or "renovated" by a modern architect with anything other than exact and original plans (and best intent) still be considered a masterpiece by the original architect? Is changing a greensite 100 years later the same as painting over a piece of art?

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

I was in Spain this past week for a meeting about a potential project, but before the meeting I took four days to go to Barcelona with my wife and see some of the work of the Catalan architect, Antonin Gaudi, a contemporary of Matisse [his work was done between 1885 and 1925].  It was a revelation ... he based his designs on both higher-geometry forms and organic forms, and let those structural elements lead to their own conclusions.  I have never seen anything like it at all, and nobody really has done anything like it since he died.  But a fair portion of his work is preserved to the present day [plus they are still working toward finishing his Temple of the Sagrada Familia] and it gives Barcelona a character of its own.

I am not one who believes that an architect's masterpiece should be continually refined.  I try to make each course a bit different, and I think that going back and painting over your old work twenty years later with newer ideas can destroy the continuity of the original.  I will admit that seeing Pete Dye do this exact thing to Crooked Stick has a lot to do with my thinking on this subject.

I do not know the answers to the questions in your last paragraph, except to say that a golf course continues to evolve through the hands of superintendents and committees if not other architects, so if this disqualifies a course from being a masterpiece, then the only masterpieces which survive are those which are brand new.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, You once explained to me that your crew and you are constantly re-working the golf course prior to seeding. Isn't this a similar technique Matisse used? Only you don't have the luxury of letting it sit for as long as he may have. 

[JESII]

If I were going to pay an architect to create a course for me I would insist upon a long term contract - ~10 years - the evidence is too strong not to.

Tom,

Would that reduce the number of architects otherwise bidding for the job?

[Niall C]

Pat

It has become clear to me from researching some of the early courses in Scotland, and ones that would probabaly deserve the term classic, that they evolved with continious tweaking through the ages as Tom D says. Whether or not they are disqualified from being a msterpiece because there was more than one hand on the brush I couldn't say. I think a good question would be whether a course has a better chance of becoming better with tweaking than being created/built in one go.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Niall:  Tweaking can improve a course, or have the opposite effect ... so part of the question is whether the new architect is better than the original one.  If a great architect did the original course, and spent time at it, the odds of the next guy improving it are less than 50/50.  As to the early UK courses, not to send Melvyn off on a rant, but it is clear that the people building courses in the 1920's had a bit more experience and practice than the guys who built courses in the 1880's, so most of the work done in that period should have constituted real improvement.

Jim S:  What do you mean to gain by signing a 10-year contract with the architect?

My approach has always been like Pete Dye's ... if there is anything the matter with the course, I'll come back and work on it without charging an additional fee, unless it's just to carry out a client's whim that I don't agree with.  So it is more of a lifetime contract; you just don't get to space out the payments over a lifetime.

[PCCraig]

My approach has always been like Pete Dye's ... if there is anything the matter with the course, I'll come back and work on it without charging an additional fee, unless it's just to carry out a client's whim that I don't agree with.  So it is more of a lifetime contract; you just don't get to space out the payments over a lifetime.

Everyone, thanks for the replies. I'm running out the door to dinner but I do have a quick question primarily for Tom as well as everyone else that I think gets back to what I was trying to get at with my first post. Tom, if you are willing to come back to work on your designs at any time in their lifetime at the owners request, have you ever thought about placing a clause in your contract that would allow you to come back to work on a design based on your own desire to rework something? Do you (or any other designer) feel that your past designs would gain from your going back and being tweeked by your own hand vs. the super or board of directors? I understand that what Dye did at Crooked Stick is one extreme example (one along the lines of don't fix something that's not broken), but what I am thinking of would be something along the lines of adding or moving bunkers, tees, mowing lines, green contours, etc...

Or perhaps another example would be a course like #2. If your course had "lost it's way" through it's fairway lines and look, would GCA in general be better if a designer would be allowed to come back and right its course?

Thanks again!

[Niall C]

Tom

Theres no doubt that tweaking a course could go wrong but then that could be tweaked out. And if it is obviously wrong it no doubt will. Basically if it doesn't work fix it. I would bet that a lot of the old classic courses which we love are in many ways unrecognisable from what they were like when first built.

Niall

[Steve Lang]

 

The Lagoon Hole



Sand Traps

[Richard Choi]

I would argues that Matisse's method is not modern at all. He is bit of an offshoot of modernism that relied heavily on organic form. More mainline modernists like Picasso, Kandinsky, Warhol, Lichtenstein, etc. emphasize capturing the "feeling" of the moment and much more immediate expression of their thoughts and would be leary of retouching their old works.

If you look at old masters like DaVinci, they were more likely to keep working on the same work for over many decades. So, I would say continual iteration method is probably not something I would label "modern".

But it is a very interesting discussion to talk about the pros and cons of the iterative method.

[JESII]

Jim S:  What do you mean to gain by signing a 10-year contract with the architect?

My approach has always been like Pete Dye's ... if there is anything the matter with the course, I'll come back and work on it without charging an additional fee, unless it's just to carry out a client's whim that I don't agree with.  So it is more of a lifetime contract; you just don't get to space out the payments over a lifetime.

It wouldn't be "if there is something the matter"...In my contract you would be obligated to come back regularly to review the course and make recommendations if necessary...and the payments would be spaced out over that period.

It seems to me that the numbers are there...

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, if you are willing to come back to work on your designs at any time in their lifetime at the owners request, have you ever thought about placing a clause in your contract that would allow you to come back to work on a design based on your own desire to rework something? Do you (or any other designer) feel that your past designs would gain from your going back and being tweeked by your own hand vs. the super or board of directors? I understand that what Dye did at Crooked Stick is one extreme example (one along the lines of don't fix something that's not broken), but what I am thinking of would be something along the lines of adding or moving bunkers, tees, mowing lines, green contours, etc...

Or perhaps another example would be a course like #2. If your course had "lost it's way" through it's fairway lines and look, would GCA in general be better if a designer would be allowed to come back and right its course?

Thanks again!

Pat:

I have been reminded once or twice that, as designer, I do not actually OWN the course, and that the people who actually paid for it can do what they want at the end of the day.  That works out for the better in some cases more than others.

I guess I am less likely than most to second-guess the work I've done.  I tend to think that my crew and I have spent so much time out there during construction, that we don't miss much, and we shouldn't expect the need to go back and change a bunch of greens after the fact.  Such work is incredibly disruptive.  It makes sense if you don't have the money at the beginning to do the job right, but if the money is there, it's a shame not to get it right, right out of the box.

[PCCraig]

I was in Spain this past week for a meeting about a potential project, but before the meeting I took four days to go to Barcelona with my wife and see some of the work of the Catalan architect, Antonin Gaudi, a contemporary of Matisse [his work was done between 1885 and 1925].  It was a revelation ... he based his designs on both higher-geometry forms and organic forms, and let those structural elements lead to their own conclusions.  I have never seen anything like it at all, and nobody really has done anything like it since he died.  But a fair portion of his work is preserved to the present day [plus they are still working toward finishing his Temple of the Sagrada Familia] and it gives Barcelona a character of its own.

Tom-

Great synopsis of Antonio Gaudí’s work. When you say “he based his designs on both higher-geometry forms and organic forms, and let those structural elements lead to their own conclusions” it reminds me of the golf course designs of Raynor, with his natural yet geometric shapes! Also it’s interesting to note that Gaudi also had a penchant for changing his mind often mid-construction.

As a side note, Gaudi’s work at the Sagrado Familia is an amazing site to see in person. Amazing to think that when they first built it they thought it would take hundreds of years to build as they at first had to carve the stone by hand, but now with modern computer milling technology they bumped up the opening date by a few hundred years!




When reading through the posts a little more carefully today I think that obviously there is a big difference between a painting and a golf course is that the course is a living and evolving piece of land. Not to mention the huge costs and undertaking it is to uproot a golf course and to move that land around, compared to painting, as well as those ownership issues you mentioned.

But what happens when you do have complete control over what happens at one of your own designs such as Pete Dye at Crooked Stick? Perhaps it’s just me, but how could you not want to try to tweak your own course over time? For better or worse is this a creative human’s nature?

Are changes essential to maintaining a “masterpiece?” However risky they may be? Did Pinehurst #2 loose it’s “masterpiece” title by the ownership standing pat with what they had? 




Tying together art and golf course construction has been fun and I though of another interesting (to me at least) topic. Despite having taking my fair share of art classes in school over the years (thanks to my ability to get terrible grades in Spanish and Latin) I never considering myself “constructing” when painting. However the Matisse exhibit helped me see that most great pieces of art are part creative and part engineering, construction, and design principals.

This leads me to my next question, how much of what a golf course architect does is considered an “art?” And how much of it is based on construction and design principals?

[Tom_Doak]

But what happens when you do have complete control over what happens at one of your own designs such as Pete Dye at Crooked Stick? Perhaps it’s just me, but how could you not want to try to tweak your own course over time? For better or worse is this a creative human’s nature?

Are changes essential to maintaining a “masterpiece?” However risky they may be? Did Pinehurst #2 loose it’s “masterpiece” title by the ownership standing pat with what they had? 

Tying together art and golf course construction has been fun and I though of another interesting (to me at least) topic. Despite having taking my fair share of art classes in school over the years (thanks to my ability to get terrible grades in Spanish and Latin) I never considering myself “constructing” when painting. However the Matisse exhibit helped me see that most great pieces of art are part creative and part engineering, construction, and design principals.

This leads me to my next question, how much of what a golf course architect does is considered an “art?” And how much of it is based on construction and design principals?

Pat:

Your question about Pete and Crooked Stick made me think about it a bit differently.  I've heard it previously from the members' point of view, which is basically that they have no way to stop him from doing what he wants and then being stuck with the bill for it.  But, I've never thought of it that it is probably the ONLY course Pete has done where he can just go back and do what he wants, and he cannot resist his one opportunity to tinker at will with his own work.  [Actually, perhaps there is one other similar situation -- at Teeth of the Dog, Pete actually used to welcome the occasional hurricane because it would give him a reason to go back and make changes.]

I personally do not think that one's masterpiece has to evolve over years.  Gaudi's architecture certainly did not.  The tinkering you describe is very much a part of the process, but in the case of a golf course the great majority of it is done over a 6- to 12-month construction window.  If you do enough of it at that time, you shouldn't have to be tearing it up again in 3-5 years to make a bunch of refinements.

As for golf architecture as "art," I've never been too sure about that.  A course is ultimately meant to be used, not just looked at, so perhaps it is more akin to commercial art [though I am not even sure what a wide range of things that encompasses].

[PCCraig]

But what happens when you do have complete control over what happens at one of your own designs such as Pete Dye at Crooked Stick? Perhaps it’s just me, but how could you not want to try to tweak your own course over time? For better or worse is this a creative human’s nature?

Are changes essential to maintaining a “masterpiece?” However risky they may be? Did Pinehurst #2 loose it’s “masterpiece” title by the ownership standing pat with what they had? 

Tying together art and golf course construction has been fun and I though of another interesting (to me at least) topic. Despite having taking my fair share of art classes in school over the years (thanks to my ability to get terrible grades in Spanish and Latin) I never considering myself “constructing” when painting. However the Matisse exhibit helped me see that most great pieces of art are part creative and part engineering, construction, and design principals.

This leads me to my next question, how much of what a golf course architect does is considered an “art?” And how much of it is based on construction and design principals?

Pat:

Your question about Pete and Crooked Stick made me think about it a bit differently.  I've heard it previously from the members' point of view, which is basically that they have no way to stop him from doing what he wants and then being stuck with the bill for it.  But, I've never thought of it that it is probably the ONLY course Pete has done where he can just go back and do what he wants, and he cannot resist his one opportunity to tinker at will with his own work.  [Actually, perhaps there is one other similar situation -- at Teeth of the Dog, Pete actually used to welcome the occasional hurricane because it would give him a reason to go back and make changes.]

I personally do not think that one's masterpiece has to evolve over years.  Gaudi's architecture certainly did not.  The tinkering you describe is very much a part of the process, but in the case of a golf course the great majority of it is done over a 6- to 12-month construction window.  If you do enough of it at that time, you shouldn't have to be tearing it up again in 3-5 years to make a bunch of refinements.

As for golf architecture as "art," I've never been too sure about that.  A course is ultimately meant to be used, not just looked at, so perhaps it is more akin to commercial art [though I am not even sure what a wide range of things that encompasses].

Tom-

Thanks again for responding.

After thinking about the topic again I think you are right in that I was looking at it from the wrong angle. I was wrongly under the impression that an artist like Matisse would complete a piece, then decide to change it after, when in reality that was more all part of the process of creation.

But I do have a question that somewhat relates to the topic at hand. Would you say that some of your more notable designs were the product of an increased creative process with more routings and discussion, or does the creative process become easier (esp. in creating a routing) when you have a more dramatic canvas (land) to work with?

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

Surely, most of my best-known work is well known first because we had a great piece of property to work with.

Undulating land gives you so many more choices of what portions to use and what to do with them ... it even makes earthwork easier, because you can find a place to tie in the old contours with the new in a manner that won't be obvious to the golfers.

I don't think that having a lot of time to plan a course is necessarily any better for the design.  To me, a simple design on a good piece of land is infinitely better than a complex design on a plain site.