[TEPaul]

In the "Humor in Architecture" topic there are a few photos of modern architecture of the "geometric" style--one photo of Muirhead in the Far East and another one of Bob Cupp called Palmetto Hill(?).

In a post in that topic Tommy Nacarrato makes reference to  early 20th century American "geometric" architecture regarding the Cupp photo.

There's a very representive photo of that early 20th century American "geometric" architecture in the beginning of GeoffShac's "The Golden Age of Golf Design". The photo is of the Annandale G.C., Pasadena, California, circa 1900.

Is there anything in any of those photos worth seriously studying architecturally in golf design? I don't really know, except to say that I don't really like it personally. But there probably is something worth studying.

What might be worth studying is why it was initially used in early American architecture, presumably the first examples of its use. But was that actually its first use in architecture? Maybe not! It may have evolved out of the beginnings of architecture itself in the mid to late 1800s due to the man-made basically "geometric" shapes and construction techniques of early architecture and feature construction like greens or particularly bunker supports!

Another reason it might be worth studying is because it seemed to make a concerted comeback in the later stages of "modern" architecture towards the end of the 20th century!

Basically this type of architecture uses very stark or at least readily identifiable rectilinear and curvilinear lines in the creation and look of many golf architectural features (greens, tees, fairways, bunkers etc!).

Anyone who saw The Tour Championship at Dye's TPC could easily see that the course is a blend of various random architectural shapes in combination with very identifiable "geometric" shapes!

Even NGLA itself has architecture that seemed to use somewhat identifiable "geometry" in its engineering and manufacturing here and there, although today the years and maintenance may have softened it significantly.

MacDonald clearly wanted to break away from that highly "geometric" style of early 20th century American design that he found so obnoxious but how much did he break away from it with the creation of NGLA which was at least representative of what he found and admired in the European architecture of that time?

He broke away from it a lot, in my opinion, but not completely! He may not have broken with it completely because what he copied from Europe might have had some geometry applied to the construction of some of its features in a sort of a rough manufactured way! He may not have broken with it competely simply because to do so at that early time was very difficult to do given the available construction methods and the expense involved at that time.

The ones who seem to have departed from "geometric" application first and completely and taken architecture to the completely "natural" look in design and construction may have been MacKenzie, or at least MacKenzie and Colt and some of their later collaborating contemporaries.

So is there anything worth considering in "geometric" architecture of any form or any era? Are there any interesting distinctions that could be made with the various "looks", applications or functions of it from early architecture in Europe, to the early 20th century American style, to even MacDonald/Raynor, Muirhead, Cupp or even Pete Dye?

There certainly are distinctions between "geometric" applications of those architects but what are they? Are the distinctions only in degree?

Should "geometry" be used at all in golf architecture? And if it is used does the fact that a golf course plays great, plays strategically and thoughtfully and testing despite this "geometric look" make it acceptable? Or should architects strive to rid architecture of it as an obvioius vestige of the unnatural and manmade?

I certainly have plenty of feelings about why it was used, maybe even why it came back and also if it should continue to be used, but I think I'll wait to see what others feel about it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
The Muirhead hole shows the possibility of golf transcending its boundaries. This hole could stand alone in a park, a museum courtyard, at a corporate headquarters, etc..
I think it has a serene beauty that borders on the spiritual and golfers playing this hole might do it very quietly, with an almost church-like reverence.

The Palmetto photos really show how the game is played, with angles. These are stark and sharp but function the same as those that are rounded and eased. This could be a great teaching course, players would  see the effect of angles on their shots and get a better understanding of the ground game. This is one of the reasons I love Raynor's stuff. There is a feeling of understanding what is going to happen to your ball that is comforting, yet randomness is not sacrificed.      

I might not want a steady diet of either course but I think they do a good job of exploration.

[TEPaul]

JimK:

You actually do an excellent job of describing the possibilites! But personally, the look of it would hurt my eyes! I already know a number of corporate headquarters that look like Muirhead's hole. Maybe it could be called corporate headquarter golf. They could probably remove the green and bunkering after golf and make the thing look more like the Taj Mahal.

Cupp's might work well in the front of a modern art museum. I actually know a guy who used to get bored in New York City and devised a game of playing a ball out of his apartment, down the hall, into the elevator, around the lobby for a while, into the street and out to Central Park.

He's actually the current President of Gulph Mills and says he much prefers our course to the vertical architectural one he played in NYC that reminds me a lot of some of those photos.

[Bradley  Anderson]

This is one of my favorite subjects.

Consider how much of nature occurs on right angles:

Trees grow vertical, with branches on right angles. Prairie grasses grow vertical. Stone outcroppings often have a rectilinear form. Bodies of water lay perfectly horizontal. Cloud formations often stack up on rectilinear lines. The most curvilinear form in nature is a flower, but the panaroma of nature, which is what one looks at from the tee box, is often a very square thing.

Perhaps Raynor and MacDonald, and Langford and Moreau built on these configurations because they were easier for the eye to connect to the surroundings ? They actually looked more natural ?

In either case, the superfluous movement of so many architects can be just as rout and formulaic as the classical lines were.

The arts and crafts movement sought to move away from the formal greek revival colonades, and formal gardening. There's where Tillinghast and MaKenzie, and Ross come in; they made the departure from the formal, in advance of any other branch of architecture. Golf course architecture may have been at the vanguard of the departure, but then it went too far to the other extreme.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

Good post but it went too far in which extreme?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Bradley, Really great post! You too Jim Kennedy!

And of course, Tom Paul would start a thread like this to really get it going! Much better then thread on Phil Mickelson!

This is a subject I could really dig into. I have yet to see a Raynor or MacDonald design. However, I do think that Bradley really hits it in much regard.

The majority of my experiences in Golf architecture relate to naturalness. and yes, there were many architects that did practice this in much regard to the non-perfect lines of nature which is where character is built.  But.......then you have the quirkiness and certain aspects called man-made features.

To research this further, lets go back to the Old Course. One of my favorite topics!

Certainly Mother Nature didn't build the "Dyke" or old stone wall that pretty much influences play on the majority of the back nine. It is a man-made feature that dictates strategy. certainly the Old Course Hotel was never in Alan Robinson's original ideals either.   How about traveling a little further down the hole and come across that piece of asphalt road?  Once again, a man-made feature that is dictating strategy on one of the most natural pieces of land the game knows.

Where this all comes together is the two are perfectly "melded" (As in Tom Paul Melded) and work as one in the environment of things. And they work VERY well!

This is the beauty of Golf Course Architecture. The meeting of what is natural and evolved and that can be used to its fullest. Unfortunately these items were never conceived to be in play or part of the strategy for which tey were built. In many cases, they were built innocently and for purpose other then golf.

When an architect like Desmond Muirhead has put thought or feeling into the mind of a Jim Kennedy, from an artistic standpoint Desmond has hit his mark and just like in Art, not everyone likes that paticular style. But in actuality it is Art, no matter how sterile or passive.

I'm going to have to think about this one further, and I have to say thanks to all so far--you have succeeded, just like in Art, to put questions and thought into my mind!

Yikes!

[TEPaul]

Things that can be used in architecture to create strategy or create some benefical influence on a golf hole like the road or hotel on the "Road hole" are one thing but as TommyN says they are not actually part of the architect's architecture!

But if the question is naturalness or not in architecture itself from when it began or even whether or not the very first architectural expression of architecture was even intended to be natural looking, it might be best to go back to the very beginning of an architect's architecture.

And TommyN is on the correct hole to do that--the "Road Hole". Was the green constructed by Robertson? I don't know but they say the "Road Hole" bunker may very well have been the first bunker constructed by man (Robertson). Was it naturally looking when he built it? Was it intended to be? Is it now? I don't know but I don't really think so. Did it function well back then and does it function well now? Definitely it did and definitely it does!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bradley suggests:
"Perhaps Raynor and MacDonald, and Langford and Moreau built on these configurations because they were easier for the eye to connect to the surroundings ? They actually looked more natural ?"
I feel this connection is identifiable and therefore comforting to a golfer, whether they are aware of it or not. They start on the tee, a very recognizable form. After traversing a "natural" landscape, one in which all kinds of disguised shapes foster randomness, the player arrives at the green where the hand of man once again presents itself in more recognizable forms and it is soothing, i.e., I am now back in the land of the predictable.

 
  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Lest we not forget that The Old Course CAN break all of the rules,all of the time.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Bradley
while i agree the A&C movement was opposed to the formality and symmetry of Classicly inspired design. I don't believe that it ever promoted the curve or was opposed to geometry. It sought designs that utilized the evolved style of the region, using the materials of the region, that worked in harmony with nature. It was movement without any defined rules or particular style.

A good example are the two most influencial garden artists of the movement William Robinson and Gertrude Jekyll. Robinson promoted a very naturalistic view of gardens - almost wild, where as Jekyll promoted a combination of Robinson's wild and more traditional which included some geometry. They both were successful in merging the gardens with their environment and with the man-made.

The same is true with A&C architecture, there were many differing expressions where obviously geomtery played a role. The best example might be the Prarie style of Chicago and the Midwest - a low slung geomteric style. This style seems to meld very well on the flattish land and low hills found in the region. And may partially explain why the designs of Macdonald, Raynor and Langford seem to work so well.

[Richard_Goodale]

This thread seems to be thankfully and mercifully dying a "natural" death, but I must thank the participants for the highly amusing rationalisations which have been made regarding the post facto influence of the 1960's Old Course Hotel on the "architecture" of The Old Course!  I also very much liked the statements that tree branches grow at right angles, which most assuredly they do not, and that the sea, which is the surface of a globe in macrocosm and extremely random in microcosm, is "flat."  Thank God Christopher Columbus was not lurking on this web site in 1492, which was about the time that Tom Paul "definitely" determined how the Road Hole bunker played, even in those days before (or after) he and Alan Robertson had been born.

Thanks again, lads!

[Mike O'Neill]

Rich,

You are correct in that most tree branches do not grow out of a trunk at a right angle. But some actually do. Take the Pin Oak for example. There actually is perceived horizontalness (new word?) in nature. But good for you for factoring in the curvature of the earth.  That shows you have a level head. On large scale surveying projects, that curvature is actually factored in.

[Richard_Goodale]

Mike

I know nothing about this "pin oak" you mention.  Does it shoot out of the trunk at "exactly" 90 degrees?  Does it maintain that exact angle as it grows, regardless of the influences of gravitation, photosynthesis, weather and nearby pin oaks?  Were there any pin oaks on the Old Course in Alan Robertson and Tom Paul's day?  Was that where we got the word "pin" when referriing to a flagstick?

Constantly learning,

Rich

[Mike O'Neill]

Rich,

So much in art is "perceived". The water on a still pond appears flat, horizontal if you will. The branching on a Pin Oak often does emerge from the trunk at 90 degrees. And people recognize the strength of that branching (it is the strongest branching angle on a very hard-wooded tree). That is the way art is in my opinion--a matter of perception. Some like it straight and some like it curved. It is all in the brain of the beholder. It just all depends on what brain you want to hang your hat on.

[Richard_Goodale]

We'll said, Mike.  I hang my hat on the whole brain (that is, I would, if I had a hat).

[Richard_Goodale]

Mike, et. al.

Just had a brainwave!

Travelling on the M8 between Edinburgh to Glasgow is a series of very interesting sculptures that have been comissioned and built over the past 5-10 years to perk up the monotony of the drive through the "central belt" of Scotland.  One of these, which is on the right as you approach Bathgate travelling west, just before the Motorola plant, is a series of grass pyramids, about 100 feet high.  Conceptually, they were meant to mimic the hills and mountains which rise naturally somewhat to their north.

Shortly after this sculpture had been "commissioned", sheep began to appear.  The pyramids are now hoaching with them.  What the sheep have done, among other things, is "soften" the geometirc lines of that sculpture:  firstly from their mere presence; secondly from their tramping of the ground and thirdly from the effects of their bodily functions and urges.  Weather also factors into the equation.

I wonder how those "pyramids" will look even 20 years from now?  If they look different (which they surely will), has the architect's "design intent" been violated, or vindicated?

I know where I stand on that fence...........

[Mike O'Neill]

Rich,

The design intent will be vindicated!

[Mike O'Neill]

Well Rich,

Did I guess right?  

[Mike O'Neill]

TEPaul,

I posted what I am about to write once before. There once was a neo-classical poet, literary critic, landscape gardener named Alexander Pope. Being neo-classical, he liked to write in very formalized verse. He wrote in iambic pentameter. One day I came across one of his poems regarding landscape gardening. In it he criticized harshly the use of formal design in landscaping. He suggested it was unnatural and he took shots at the use of topiary in the gardens of the day. Bottom line, he did not like the formality. Funny thing was though (funny at least to me), he was writing his critique of formalism using formal verse. I had to scratch my head over that one for a short while.

What I concluded was this: it is okay (and maybe even preferred) to use formality in art AS LONG AS you are not working directly with nature. If your paint brush is actual plants and earth, Alexander Pope had no use for formalism. Formal architecture? Okay. Formal verse? Sure. Formal nature? No way. Now, I really don't believe that Pope recognized the irony that I found in his use of formal verse to criticize formality. But that is my theory based on my interpretation of what might have been going on. It is really the only way I could explain the use of formal verse in that situation. That and the fact that it was convention at that time.

Just something to think about here in this thread.

[Richard_Goodale]

Mike

There is no right and wrong in the question, but you came down in the same side of the fence as me!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
It would be interesting to see what they'd look like if the sheep had bulldozers.

[Richard_Goodale]

Jim

Sounds like a Monty Python sketch.  With John Cleese, as Ian McAllister, shepherd turned architect, perhaps........

[Doug_Nickels]

Here goes another attempt to post a photo...



This Sequoyah Country Club pre 1920.  Notice the geometric shaped bunkers.  I have seen photos of the original Claremont that has triangle mounding.

[Gib_Papazian]

Doug,
Which hole is that, exactly? I'll bet I can guess.

As far as this thread is concerned on geometic architecture is concerned, the dividing point between the two perspectives may have began with Robert Hunter's snide remarks obviously aimed at Raynor's formalized "look" and approach to architecture.

Look, golf is a GAME first. It is all well and good to try and avoid forms obviously disconnected to their immediate surroundings within the context of the playing area, but as articulated above, some of the best holes are obviously engineered with strategy and functionality the most important goal. If the land forms can be blended together in a pleasing arrangement to the eye, all the better.

But it is still a game of hitting a ball into a hole with a stick. The Double-Plateau at NGLA is the most artificial looking thing I have ever seen, but might be the most interesting green on the golf course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()