"The Golf Architect of Light"

[SGD]

The number one selling artist in America for the past four years is Thomas Kinkade, who has trademarked the title "The Painter of Light".  He has taken his art into corporate America with a publicly-traded company which sells Thomas Kinkade lithographs, coffee mugs, puzzles, throw rugs, screen savers, etc. which are sold by Franchise stores located in every mall in America.  

Kinkade delivers a new painting to his corporate office every three weeks to keep up with the production, and there are now over 300 Kinkade "originals" in existence.

According to the Wall Street Journal, 1 in every 20 households in America owns a Kinkade piece of art.

I think that this type of approach to art has also been practiced in golf architecture.

For example, RTJ, Sr., more so than any golf architect, "branded" his name in the 1960s and 1970s, created the "signature" golf course (his signature at the bottom of every depicting of a route plan or photo of one of his courses) and opened nearly 500 courses over his career.  They had a distinctive look characterized by long, runway tees, large, sprawling bunkers, and large, elevated rolling greens, with water used as the hazard of choice.  

After seeing Tommy Naccarato's photos of Shady Canyon in a separate thread, I'm seeing the same look, the "perfect" Fazio look, if you will, at course after course.

I don't want to promote another negative Fazio thread, what I really want to address is:

Is there a point when an architect, AND THIS CAN MEAN ANY ARCHITECT, has so many projects going on at the same time and has built so many successful courses, that the creativity and risk and soul fades, with the results ending up being predictable on every project?  

[brad_miller]

Tom Fazio and his organization build, to quote a friend builds "SOLID" golf courses! IMO his business method is rock solid, if thats what one is after. I don't believe this method can produce a masterpiece, there isn't the  talent in the dirt. But isn't this what makes a market and allows us to enjoy the work of C&C, Doak, Hanse, Derives.....etc. The longer this list becomes and the more etc's that there are the better. Clearly there are more, many that seem to post on GCA.

Might be interesting to look at the modern archie family tree so to speak, how many have relationships both direct and indirect to Fazio, Nicklaus, Jones, who and how many to Pete and Alice Dye. Thank you Pete and Alice!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

SGD, Lets get together for some talk and some golf.

Email me at tommy_n@earthlink.net

[redanman]

To compare Fazio to Kinkade isn't fair to Fazio.  Kinkade's "work" is uniformly, abysmally, nauseatingly bad.  Fazio has done some decent work.  He really has.  Kincaide is so bad I  would be loathe to try to compare any architect's golf course work to it.  But I see what you're trying to get at.  What sells well isn't a mark of greatness, just mass production, and in that regard, Mr Fazio has built some banal stuff. I am with Mr Cirba regarding those pictures on the Shady Canyon thread, after this post I am ready to return to bed and sleeeeeeeep.

Kincaide at no time ever had any quality at all to any of his work.  It is utter, complete garbage.  Senior Mr Jones never approached this level of commonality devoid of talent, either.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

While browsing in the bookstore if I run across a Kincaide calander I am not offended. He creates very pleasant stuff that is extremely popular. I'm not sure I consider what he does art - but perhaps it is. I'm not inclined to pick up the calander and look through it because the idylic scenes - like you say - are all pretty much the same.

I think the danger for some modern architects who are not inclined to work with Nature - flaws and all - is that their designs become too similar and predicatable. And it is only when they have an extremely interesting site as a backdrop that they create any interest (for me anyway) and even then it doesn't always work. I wouldn't single out Fazio, although he is the most prominent and has been outspoke about the problems/limitations of nature. I wonder if the courses of Engh, Ken Dye and Rees Jones are also guilty of this approach? Do they also have a heavy handed approach of shaping where Nature is merely the backdrop outside the field of play?

It might appeal to some when given a spectacular site but it looks all the same to me and I think it might lead to a Kincaide like syndrom - unless its the rare occasion when they work with mother Nature. Still very popular with the masses, but less so to the connoisseur or the art lover.

[Mike O'Neill]

Where does Donald Ross fall into this discussion?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Where do you think he falls?

[Mike O'Neill]

Tom,

I am not a Ross expert so that is why I ask. He built so many courses in such a relatively short time that it seems like a fair question to ask in this thread. He admits in his book GOLF HAS NEVER FAILED ME that he came to America when he realized that he could make more money over here. Is that someone who is primed to build a lot of courses rather than several "works of art"? I have no doubt that he built those "works of art", but this thread suggests that building too many courses can take the soul out of the course. Did that happen with Ross? Should he stand along side the "modern" (whatever that is) designers in this thread? Did he build any soul-less courses? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know so that is why I ask.

[David_Elvins]

If I may offer my rather amatuerish way of looking at things as follows:

A lot of people knock the work of RTJ, Fazio, and Nicklaus because the work has a sameness to it and a lack of variety.  What I think people have to realise is that this is deliberate.  What they have done is created a brand, or as you say, a signature design.  And creating a brand is a very good way to make money.  Because although I suspect most people on this site love to play varied golf courses or seek out hidden gems, this is not in general, human nature.  Human nature generally leads people towards what they are familiar with.  Afterall, "McDonalds" have made alot of money, not from offering a variety of food to suit local produce, but a homogenised menu that -although most people would admit is shite- offers a comfortable familiarity.   Similarly a golfer who plays a Nicklaus course knows that it will contain certain features and will also have a generally high level of facilities and maintanance to match.  THis along with the marketed "experience" attracts a lot of "middle of the bell curve" golfers.

[Mike O'Neill]

David,

Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw have a style also, just to add to what you are saying.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
Ross built some great courses, many very good courses, some fairly ordinary courses and a few disapointing ones. From my experince the very best courses are blessed with interesting sites, the most ordinary courses usually not so great sites. But from what I've seen the great majority are quite stimulating both from strategic view point and also from a site specific view point. Franklin Hills isn't Oyster Harbors which isn't Pine Needles which isn't Seminole which isn't The Sagamore which isn't Canton Brookside which isn't The Broadmoor. They share certain Ross philosophies - solid strategies and natural green sites - but they are also very different from one another and are reflections of their local.

Maybe I miss understood the point of this thread. I didn't think that it was necessarily trying convey the evils of making money or being popular or even being prolific - but the problem with producing the same basic piece of art over and over. That Kincaid has a very specific formula that is quite popular but he is simply repeating the same formula with every piece he creates, resulting in the same basic scene with every work (the backdrops may be differ, but no matter the scene, the compositions & lighting are identical) The result is lovely, popular, but less than stimulating.

[Mike O'Neill]

I am wondering if Ross, for reasons of money (the thread opened with a reference to Kinkade being the number one selling artist, etc.) or whatever, produced the same piece of art over and over. I am wondering if Ross ran into the danger of his works becoming too similar and predictable. I guess really I am wondering if Ross is any different than Fazio along those lines. He didn't mind new construction equipment moving things along. He did not limit himself to the best, Natural sites. And from the photos in the Fazio book that I saw last year, those courses varied quite a bit--certainly as much as the photos in the Ross book. Of course, I realize the danger of basing anything on photos. And that is why I ask the question.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
In my mind the more an architect utilizes the interesting natural features of a given site the less likely his courses will become similar and predictable. And the more the architect dictates or forces his ideal vision of nature on a site the more likely the result will be similar and predicatable. When you combine the site specific natural attributes with thoughtful strategy then you've really got something.

There is a certain simlarity to Ross's designs that I enjoy (as I do with other architects with distinct styles), but I rarely find his courses boring or predicatable - possibly due to thought provoking strategies and site specific variety.

What is it that you find (or precieve) that is similar or predicatable with Ross's work? What creative similarties does he share with Kincaid?

[Tom Doak]

I thought this was going to be about Robert von Hagge, who talks endlessly in interviews about light & shadow.

Tom MacWood was pretty good at singling out other designers who believe in shaping, with Nature as a backdrop.  I have only seen a tiny bit of Jim Engh's work or Ken Dye's, but that sure seems to be what they're about, and yet they are not getting bashed on this site like Tom Fazio.

I also think I've seen Tom Fazio go out on a limb several times in recent years -- such as his bunkering scheme for Pinehurst #4, which didn't meet with much critical success.  Perhaps he just knows he's not that good at that kind of design, and sticks not only to what's been commercially successful, but to the only style he's really comfortable with.

[Bob_Huntley]

Please, whatever anyone says, do not relate Kinkaid with ANY golf architect. Kinkaid's chocolate box art is pure crap.

Here is a man professing to be some sort Christian do-gooder who derides Picasso, stiffs his gallery owners and managed to whisk out close to ten million dollars last year from his near bankrupt company.

[Peter Galea]

Just in case you wanted to see what Kinkade is all about, try this if you dare.

http://www.kinkadecentral.com

BTW: He is quoted as saying he is "Divinely inspired to mass produce art."

[Rick Shefchik]

I just visited Kinkade's site. His work is ideal for jigsaw puzzles.

[SGD]

Tom MacWood:

You wrote: "Maybe I miss understood the point of this thread. I didn't think that it was necessarily trying convey the evils of making money or being popular or even being prolific - but the problem with producing the same basic piece of art over and over. That Kincaid has a very specific formula that is quite popular but he is simply repeating the same formula with every piece he creates, resulting in the same basic scene with every work (the backdrops may be differ, but no matter the scene, the compositions & lighting are identical) The result is lovely, popular, but less than stimulating."

In fact, you are right on where I was coming from with this post and expressed it better than I did.

[Dan Kelly]

Here's something to think about:

Name me an art form (or arguably-art form) in which the commercially super-successful artists (or arguably-artists) are NOT cranking out more or less the same work over and over again.

Don't all (or virtually all) of the commercially super-successful novelists, artists, musicians, movie directors, and golf-course architects repeat themselves endlessly -- so long as the market will bear it?

Is this not a true: The greatest artists are NEVER the most commercially successful.

Seems to me: If getting as rich as you can is what you're after, you can't AFFORD to be an artist! True art takes time! By definition, it can't be cranked out!

[Jeff_McDowell]

The only person I can think of that was prolific at his craft and created continually changing designs is Frank Lloyd Wright.

I don't know if he was financially successful.

[Bob_Huntley]

Joshua Reynolds was the greatest portrait painter of his age; although the genre demanded a similarity of design his subjects were most certainly unique.

He died rich.

[Geoff Shackelford]

I've been a big fan of Kinkades since Mike Miller started pointing his work out to me a few years ago. It truly redefines kitsch. I'm continually fascinated with his self congratulatory statements on Home Shopping Network or whichever one he's on, but the best was an appearance on 60 Minutes. Boy was it something to see him autograph the backs of lithos without looking, while he talked to Morley Safer and his handlers. He's becoming so pervasive, that while planning my Grandmothers funeral, one of the options for a guest book was a Kinkade book for just $75, filled with the cheesiest thing ever, like "Gateway to Heaven" with glowing light, flowers and a gate cracked open. It was so bad it at least gave us a smile during a tough time. And of course, there are the Kinkade furniture lines, the limited edition everything, and now a housing development in Northern California patterned after his, uh, work.

Some of his practices are also used to great effect by certain golf architects and I think it's the next big trend (seriously!). Talk of being inspired to design by Christian values instead of the actual design ideas, or talk of all of your charity work instead of the ideas behind the design philosophy. It's a wonderful tool for deflection, and people seem to love it.

The amazing thing with Kinkade is that it's all the same, cottages and lighthouses over and over again. Though Kinkade really hit a new low recently with the, uh, painting, of an American flag with New York city in the background, minus the Twin Towers. So he's even willing to capitalize on people's horrible misfortune, which is thankfully where no one in golf architecture has gone or will go!

But Kinkade has even recently made critical statements about older artists to justify certain practices of his, does that sound familiar?
Geoff

[SGD]

Geoff:

I'm still laughing after reading your reference to Kinkade being critical of older artists to justify his work and the golf design parallel!  Great observation.

With all due respect to Messrs. Bendelow, Watson, Morris...and for GCAers MacWood, maybe there's something with being named "Tom"...

[Tommy_Naccarato]

This is one of the most classic GCA threads of all-time.

Kincaid/Fazio=Fazio/Kincaid

[SGD]

Tommy:

Is that painting of Pelican Hill or Wild Dunes?  Can't tell which ocean it is...