[Terry Lavin]

Several threads about recent openings of the Prairie Club and Chicago Highlands seem to beg this question.  Is there any reason to think that minimalism in golf architecture is not subject to overexposure?  Will there come a time when these courses tend to blend into each other?  Put another way, if Arthur Hills and others are going to churn out minimalist designs that openly imitate the style popularized by the leading minimalist architects, will the golfing public tire of the "look"?  Just because we seem to kneel at the altar of minimalism doesn't necessarily mean that it won't go out of style.  Doesn't everything?

[Jon Wiggett]

Terry,

I think it is a question of taste and as there are so many people playing golf all with their own differing tastes there will be enough people who appreciate any particular style of GCA. I think you are right that to much of any style and it becomes bland but I don't think any particular style is anywhere near saturation point.

Jon

[Adam Clayman]

Terry. As improperly as the term 'minimalism' is being used, the answer to your question was one that Behr tackled. His point was basically that nature never goes out of style. Several years ago Forrest Richardson asked the same question you are. Even going so far as to state that the movement had run it's course. With the current works coming online and an expanding work force that is learning "How to do that" I suspect the future for over constructed whims of the day designs will be dead for a long time, before what you're calling minimalism, jumps the shark.

[JESII]

From my understanding, there is minimalism and there is naturalism...whichever one most embraces the idea of managing maintenance costs will thrive in the coming years...in my opinion.

[Emil Weber]

Since the earliest architects the art of golf design has probably seen every trend.
From the Golden Age strategic school  over long repetitive Trent Jones courses to waterfall and bunker clustered modern Fazio courses.
I believe now that we've seen every trend, we are looking at all those periods and think about what has worked best. That is the renaissance minimalist/strategic/playability approach that evolved in the early 90s with Coore/Doak/Hanse etc.
So if it's the best thing for the game, why let it go out of style?

[Tom_Doak]

Styles come and styles go.  Golf is already hungering for something different.

But, I thought the expression "jump the shark" meant doing something outlandish and out of character in order to get attention.  If that's the definition, then that's not the nature of minimalism as I understand it.  I guess you could try to build a course with a bad routing on terribly severe land without doing any grading and call it minimalist ... if that hasn't been done already ...

[JESII]

Tom,

I think "Jump The Shark" taking something too far...like The Fonz waterskiing and literally jumping on a shark...Happy Days was all downhill from there.

Not sure what the architecture equivalent could be, but if you're already feeling the market pull towards something different that says enough.

How many courses worldwide could honestly be said to be modern minimalist?

[Rick Shefchik]

Tom,

You must have actually watched the episode of "Happy Days" that inspired the term "jump the shark": the one in which Fonzi, clad in his black leather jacket and motorcycle boots, dons water skis and attempts to jump over an actual shark. It was outlandish, out of character, and obviously done to get attention.

But the expression "jump the shark" evolved from that episode to describe something that was once popular, but in a moment of foolish excess, becomes laughably out of style.

I think that gets closer to Terry's point. Personally, I don't see any sharks on the horizon for minimalism.

Edit: Sorry, Jim. I was too slow.

[Jeff_Brauer]

If the definition of jump the shark is taking it too far, then in minimalism, it would be doing nothing, no?  Or perhaps it would be the sheep ranch, which is next to nothing.  The only problem is, that in the right situation, that, or Jim Engh's NB course or Keith Fosters personal course all seem to work.

[JESII]

Wouldn't it have to be a really high profile project (like Happy days!) that didn't work for it to have the impact. If Old Macdonald (is OM minimalist, naturalist or something altogether different) collapsed and fell into a sink hole because of something the architects did, it might kill the concept...but if the Sheep Ranch develops drainage issues, or whatever, I don't think the impact will be there if mainstream minimal projects do fine.

[Brent Hutto]

Then there was the episode of "Arrested Development" in which Henry Winkler's character literally jumps (more like skips) over a dead shark on a beach. Followed by that character's departure from the show to be replaced by a character played by Scott Baio.

[Ronald Montesano]

I think that some of y'all are reading too much into the expression "jumped the shark."  I avow that it simply references the point when something that was great, has peaked and is now headed down the descent into never as great again.

[Rick Sides]

I think minimalism will be around for awhile because of the economy.  It seems minimalism requires less to maintain the course.  With larger waste areas and more native grasses, minimalism supers can probably spend less on upkeep and limit man hours a bit more than a course that's wall to wall green with very refined bunkers.

[Ally Mcintosh]

It's all perception...

You are talking about an aesthetic style, not a design philosophy...

Agreed, they are not unrelated, but because Tom Doak and Coore & Crenshaw have been highly successful using a natural looking style with ill-defined edges and native grasses, everyone is trying to copy them... It doesn't mean all minimalism looks the same... Look at Common Ground for starters... or even The Renaissance Club...

[Peter Pallotta]

Terry -

I don't think minimalism can EVER jumped the shark.  Like many other terms (e.g. fiscal conservative, god, independent film), it has now been around long enough and is being used by so many people to describe so many different (and sometimes mutually-exclusive) elements/ characteristics/ attributes that it has become forever SAFE from ever jumping the shark, given its amorphous and innocuous nature/definition.  It CAN'T be analogous to any situation involving The Foz - in that case, we all knew (or thought we knew) exactly who the jean-and-leather-jacket-wearing little hoodlum known as Arthur Fonzarelli was, and we knew (or thought we knew) that he only ever rode a motobike. The whole world, collectively, was in agreement on this, and it was crystal clear. So when the Foz donned shorts and got on water skis to jump a shark, we were all, understandably, shocked and dismayed. Unlike minimalism, which no matter what it becomes, can't shock us (or most of us anyway) anymore....

Peter

[Jim Colton]

Terry,

Is Chicago Highlands being billed as a minimalist design?  I've only seen a few pics and have seen the mounds bordering the property from 294, but other than that I don't know much about it.

There is a public course near Chicago that opened recently with the furried-edge, jagged bunkers that looked somewhat out of place. I thought to myself that maybe that style of bunker had jumped the shark.

Personally, I hope I never get to the point where looking at a wide open landscape with natural blowouts at a place such as Prairie Club or SH doesn't Immediately get the heart pumping.  

[RJ_Daley]

I don't think that the broad concept of 'minimalism' can go beyond its authenticity, because the whole origin of golf was based on the laying out of a golf course on natural and receptive land to route and design a certain game upon it.  Golfers know the kind of land that the origins evoke.  Most recognise the same lightly tread upon the land, routing and use of a natural piece of property resembles those original looks and feel of golf.  So, when an architect gets the kind of natural land tract that allows for a lightly placed and routed upon it, and approaches it in that way, then it doesn't go out of style or beyond its authenticity.

Then, the notion of whether it goes beyond taste of the golfing consumer is up to the relationship between the archie's vision and the golf consumer.  Some minimalism interpretations may make more sense in the presentation of the golf game's many ideals of play, (penal, strategic, heroic, etc.)  Some minimal presentations, while being laid lightly upon some land, may be routed and presented in a way that is beyond authenticity in sensible golf as a pleasurable experience, and thus 'jumps the shark' leaving what most real golfers know is the authentic game, for an extravagant or extreme experience that isn't all that pleasurable.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Minimalism jumped the shark…

When minimalism became more about making it look like you did less work than actually doing less work.

When “naturalism” became an excuse for doing more than needed to build good golf courses.

When the cost to build a minimalist course hit 8 figures. 
 
When almost every architect in the country found a way to work the word into their marketing plan. Yet the only real changes they made was to broaden the scope of their work in the never ending pursuit of perfect, seamless, and invisible tie ins.

[Tim Nugent]

Don's post got me to thinking about Tom D's comments about the spoil mound on the left of #2 green at LD.  Because it felt artificial, someone once told him he didn't care for it.  Tom's reply was "it was there, I just used it".  Then it was okay.

Much of what is minimalism results in leaving landforms alone and just playing over/around them instead of modifying them to conform to a more pedestrian approach.  When architects begin to modify landscapes to include these 'against the grain' features to make the course "look" like ia minimal approach was taken when, in reality, a great deal of transformation work was need to produce that look, I guess that's when we know the pedulum has swung too far.

[Greg Tallman]

Minimalism jumped the shark…

When minimalism became more about making it look like you did less work than actually doing less work.

When “naturalism” became an excuse for doing more than needed to build good golf courses.

When the cost to build a minimalist course hit 8 figures. 
 
When almost every architect in the country found a way to work the word into their marketing plan. Yet the only real changes they made was to broaden the scope of their work in the never ending pursuit of perfect, seamless, and invisible tie ins.

Chicken Taco Dinner

[Carl Nichols]

Then there was the episode of "Arrested Development" in which Henry Winkler's character literally jumps (more like skips) over a dead shark on a beach. Followed by that character's departure from the show to be replaced by a character played by Scott Baio.

Bob Loblaw.  Always makes me chuckle. 

[Tim Martin]

Don`t you really have to be blessed with a superior site and the proper native vegetation to truly achieve minimalism? Its seems to me that certain sites just don`t provide the architect with the luxury of keeping the land`s natural character intact and also providing a minimalist design. Athough Doak, C&C and Gil Hanse are champions of this style of architecture they are rarely given a site that is not condusive to it. 

[Tim Nugent]

Don`t you really have to be blessed with a superior site and the proper native vegetation to truly achieve minimalism?

Don't forget about OWNER

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tim Martin,
I think you do need a superior site to build a superior minimalist golf course.
However, what is wrong with just building a good low cost golf course on good, but not great land?
I would think minimalism would be about doing that exact thing.

Low construction costs, lower maintenance costs and more affordable golf. I actually think there are many people in the US who would love to do that. Problem is everyone is trained to think it has to cost 8 million to build a golf course so when you want to raise 2-3 million to build something decent but not great, you get looked at like you’re crazy.

[Mike Cirba]

I think the common definition of minimalism morphed unrecognizably and jumped the shark when it became about fuzzy-edged, rough-hewn bunkers and elaborate tie-ins and "the look", and less about what it was intended to be originally;  that is, an architectural "philosophy" where you only do what you need to do as a last resort when leaving things as is is the preferred first choice.

It was about "finding" holes, and recognizing each site as unique, and celebrating those individual attributes.  It was about minimal maintenance practices, with grasses and architecture that would keep things low-cost, and low-key, and hopefully firm and fast.    It was about each man-made hazard having a very specific strategic purpose, and made to blend, not to call out "look at me!"  (a good friend calls it "bunker porn")

When a course in NJ looks like a course in CO, looks like a course in CA, looks like a course in MS, I'm not sure those original idealistic goals are being adhered to, without pointing at anyone in particular.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()