Did Seth Raynor have an artistic bone in his body?

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, of all the Raynor golf courses I've ever seen the most natural looking of all of them that he probably got no assistance design-wise from Macdonald would be Fishers Island!!

Part of the reason for that is he obviously had a whole lot to work with in the way of natural topography and other natural features and assets.

[BCrosby]

The first Raynor course I played was Yeaman's Hall. I was shocked. There was no pretense to naturalism. Heck, they had even squared off the edges of greens and tees. Bunker boundaries were perfectly straight lines. Mounding was geometrical. Not even a passing gesture at blending architectural features with the Low Country surrounds. Yeamans mocked the 'naturalism conceit' of every course I had played up until then.

I still don't like the look as much as a good old Ross course.

All of which brought me to the conclusion early on that the least interesting aspect of golf architecture is whether or not it is natural looking. Unnatural, even ugly courses can be very good golf courses if the truly architectural features, rather than the landscaping, are well done. Getting the routing, the arrangement of bunkers, hazards, tees and greens right is vastly more important than blending them into their surrounds naturalistically. It's also a lot harder to do.

If you can blend great architectural features with their native terrain, more power to you. But 'naturalistic' is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to a course being good. Other things ultimately matter a lot more.

So I give Raynor his due. His courses make for interesting, challenging golf and that is much more important than whether I like the look of them.

Bob

 

[TEPaul]

Bob:

A number of posts on here seem to basically make the same point you are----eg if a golf course plays fun, interesting and exciting the look of it begins to cease to be important------and therefore there seems to more and more merit to this dynamic between playability and naturalism or some natural aesthetic or should I say there becomes less and less merit to that dynamic?.

It's probably not much different than when I began playing PING irons about 20+ years ago. When I first saw them they just looked shockingly bad to me with their bizarre angles and size compared to the incredibly beautiful (and actually delicate) classic clubs I used to use.

But it sure didn't take long at all to see how well those PINGS worked and after that I pretty much forgot about what they actually looked like.

[Sean_A]

The first Raynor course I played was Yeaman's Hall. I was shocked. There was no pretense to naturalism. Heck, they had even squared off the edges of greens and tees. Bunker boundaries were perfectly straight lines. Mounding was geometrical. Not even a passing gesture at blending architectural features with the Low Country surrounds. Yeamans mocked the 'naturalism conceit' of every course I had played up until then.

I still don't like the look as much as a good old Ross course.

All of which brought me to the conclusion early on that the least interesting aspect of golf architecture is whether or not it is natural looking. Unnatural, even ugly courses can be very good golf courses if the truly architectural features, rather than the landscaping, are well done. Getting the routing, the arrangement of bunkers, hazards, tees and greens right is vastly more important than blending them into their surrounds naturalistically. It's also a lot harder to do.

If you can blend great architectural features with their native terrain, more power to you. But 'naturalistic' is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to a course being good. Other things ultimately matter a lot more.

So I give Raynor his due. His courses make for interesting, challenging golf and that is much more important than whether I like the look of them.

Bob

 

Bob

All of what you say is true with the exception of the "least interesting aspect".  I have great admiration for guys who take the time to make sure a course looks like it belongs.  When I talk about the details of a course much of it is down to this sort of thing.  For instance, one of the things which impressed me most about YH was the rough.  It was perfect in its randomness and this in effect made it look as though it belonged on the landscape.  Personally, I am much more apt to really like a course if looks more natural and/or is beautiful in some way.  Sure, it doesn't really enhance the shotmaking, but it most certainly boosts the joy to be alive factor.  Its  not important to some such as Mucci, but it most certainly is to me.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Did he ever create or did he just use the same holes over and over....I don't know ..just asking....

#15 and #13 at Shoreacres are not templates but are two of my favorite holes he's done, template or not.

And I would argue that he does have an artistic bone in his body as shown by the way he used the surrounding environment to enhance his golf holes, geometric or templates aside.

Pat (and Ian):

The best hole here at North Shore (the par 5 sixteenth) is obviously the same template as the 15th at Shoreacres.  I don't know if it was an original design at North Shore, used again at Shoreacres, or whether he actually got the idea from somewhere else, but it's the same basic hole, though the ravine at North Shore is much deeper.


Mike:

I think the answer to your question depends on your definition of "artistic". 

I don't think that Raynor paid much attention to aesthetics (backgrounds, etc.).  I do think he had a great sense of proportion and composition, but that is something that can be approached from an engineering / numbers perspective instead of an art-major perspective.  I also think that the various iterations of the Redan [especially the one at Shorecares] and the Short hole show some interest in tinkering with the details for effect, instead of just trying to make every version of a template the same.

[Mike Hendren]

When it boils right down to it, there is really very littlle natural about a golf course.  I like the fact that Raynor and Banks dropped the pretense and find their work to be among the most bold and artistic of any architect.  I'm committed to seeking out their work and have become biased toward it.

Mike

[Gary Daughters]

Mike Y,

Good book for you:  Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.  

And here's a question to go with it.  Can a golf course not "play" artistically?  Most of this discussion seems to have focused strictly on the visual, but the Raynor courses I have played certainly ask the golfer to play creatively.  Is that part of the allure, this contrast:  engineered look, artistic result?  Am I talking out my ass again?

[Mike_Young]

I just posted this thread to instigate
But I got some good answers so far...

[TEPaul]

"I just posted this thread to instigate   
But I got some good answers so far..."



Don't worry about it MikeyY. Just give it a little time for the usual suspects to show up and it's bound to disintegrate into screaming and gnashing of teeth like the others on here that try to discuss Macdonald and Raynor. But we have all kinds of useful historic information on this website such as the board of North Shore said in 1914 that Seth Raynor was the best architect in America and Charles Blair Macdonald was a first class construction man.

"Hello Mr. Macdonald."

"No, I'm Mr. Raynor. This is Mr. Macdonald."

"I see. Which of you is the architect and which is the construction man?"

[Mac Plumart]

I find this thread to be incredibly interesting.  Perhaps Tom Paul nails why with this comment, which quite frankly is Biblical in nature and importance…

“(D)o golfers actually enjoy the natural looking OR the artifical and man-made looking in golf architecture and WHY?
In other words, might there be some very fundamental, inherent, even if subliminal REASONS why various people enjoy one rather than the other? Reasons perhaps such as MAN's fundamentally different perspectives of his inherent and perhaps primaral relationship with Nature itself----eg does one enjoy more preserving Nature itself or manipulating it and essentially feeling he has finally conquered and harnessed it, in fact or in some psychological manner?”

And awhile back in an older thread, I asked the question, "In all seriousness, why do we care so much about natural appearance if the golf shots are fun?"  This thread was quite interesting to me as well and I had a “WOW” moment courtesy of Tom Doak.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45781.0/

Also, to answer Pat Mucci’s questions as to the "unnatural" look, what golf courses do you find that have natural and unnatural looks ?  Not just to the ordinary golfer but to the discerning architectural eye ?

I think that above thread answers those questions in the following posts…
Post 16;
Post 21.

Super-duper amazing thoughts guys.  And to think Mike Young, The Architect as Genius guy, got it all started!!!  

[Mike_Young]

Mac,
I'm just a little instigator

[Chris Cupit]

OK, here's what I hope is not a thread killer:

I was reading a book on my new iPad and this was in the Preface by the author:

A work that aspires, however humbly, to the condition of art should carry its justification in every line.  And art itself may be defined as a single-minded attempt...to find in its forms, in its colours, in its light, in its shadows, in the aspects of matter and in the facts of life what of each is fundamental, what is enduring and essential--their one illuminating and convincing quality--the very truth of their existence.

So I read this and think, of course, Raynor is an artist as he is seeking in his different iterations of his work those "enduring and essential" qualities of "golf art".

And then I continue:

The artist, then like the thinker or scientist, seeks the truth and makes his appeal.  Impressed by the aspect of the world the thinker plunges into ideas, the scientist into facts...They speak authoritatively to our commonsense, to our intelligence...not seldom to our prejudices, sometimes our fears, often our egoism--but always to our credulity.

It is otherwise with the artist.

Confronted with the same enigmatical spectacle...his appeal is made to our less obvious capacities...His appeal is less loud, more profound, less distinct, more stirring--and sooner forgotten.  Yet its effect endures forever. 

(The artist) He speaks to our capacity for delight and wonder, to the sense of mystery...;to our sense of pity, and beauty, and pain; to the latent feeling of fellowship with all creation.

Whew   Here is what I took from some of this--Raynor may not have been an artist in this author's purest sense but he certainly could recognize and produce...art.  He maybe wasn't the "creative" genius that we think of when we thinks of "artsy" and "creative" people but he was on to something universal and appealing in his template creations.  His pursuit (and some may say perfection) of many of the lines, forms, shapes of his holes may have been some of golf's greatest art created by a non-artist.

How's that for straddling the fence



   

[Patrick_Mucci]

The first Raynor course I played was Yeaman's Hall. I was shocked. There was no pretense to naturalism. Heck, they had even squared off the edges of greens and tees. Bunker boundaries were perfectly straight lines. Mounding was geometrical. Not even a passing gesture at blending architectural features with the Low Country surrounds. Yeamans mocked the 'naturalism conceit' of every course I had played up until then.

Bob, I understand what you mean, but, is it really relevant ?
Isn't the challenge that the architect produces the critical and PRIMARY factor ?
Is it not the primary purpose of "ARCHITECTURE" ?
Everyone seems to say that Raynor courses are fun to play, enjoyable, and, we know that they present a substantive challenge.
So, at the end of the day, do you reflect back on how your game was tested and how you responded, shot for shot and hole for hole or do you reflect on the conflicts you perceived assaulted your eye ?

I still don't like the look as much as a good old Ross course.

All of which brought me to the conclusion early on that the least interesting aspect of golf architecture is whether or not it is natural looking. Unnatural, even ugly courses can be very good golf courses if the truly architectural features, rather than the landscaping, are well done. Getting the routing, the arrangement of bunkers, hazards, tees and greens right is vastly more important than blending them into their surrounds naturalistically. It's also a lot harder to do.

I completely agree

If you can blend great architectural features with their native terrain, more power to you. But 'naturalistic' is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to a course being good. Other things ultimately matter a lot more.

We're in perfect harmony

So I give Raynor his due. His courses make for interesting, challenging golf and that is much more important than whether I like the look of them.

I happen to like the look of them.

Perhaps that's because I appreciate how he structured and presented his challenge to me.

[Mike_Young]

OK, here's what I hope is not a thread killer:

I was reading a book on my new iPad and this was in the Preface by the author:

A work that aspires, however humbly, to the condition of art should carry its justification in every line.  And art itself may be defined as a single-minded attempt...to find in its forms, in its colours, in its light, in its shadows, in the aspects of matter and in the facts of life what of each is fundamental, what is enduring and essential--their one illuminating and convincing quality--the very truth of their existence.

So I read this and think, of course, Raynor is an artist as he is seeking in his different iterations of his work those "enduring and essential" qualities of "golf art".

And then I continue:

The artist, then like the thinker or scientist, seeks the truth and makes his appeal.  Impressed by the aspect of the world the thinker plunges into ideas, the scientist into facts...They speak authoritatively to our commonsense, to our intelligence...not seldom to our prejudices, sometimes our fears, often our egoism--but always to our credulity.

It is otherwise with the artist.

Confronted with the same enigmatical spectacle...his appeal is made to our less obvious capacities...His appeal is less loud, more profound, less distinct, more stirring--and sooner forgotten.  Yet its effect endures forever. 

(The artist) He speaks to our capacity for delight and wonder, to the sense of mystery...;to our sense of pity, and beauty, and pain; to the latent feeling of fellowship with all creation.

Whew   Here is what I took from some of this--Raynor may not have been an artist in this author's purest sense but he certainly could recognize and produce...art.  He maybe wasn't the "creative" genius that we think of when we thinks of "artsy" and "creative" people but he was on to something universal and appealing in his template creations.  His pursuit (and some may say perfection) of many of the lines, forms, shapes of his holes may have been some of golf's greatest art created by a non-artist.

How's that for straddling the fence



   

Well...sounds like your quote above was the foreword to one of your cake decorating or floral arranging books...  I know you read them because the best man in your wedding told me you did the flowers

Anyway..sounds good to me...all I did in this post was ask a question...didn't say I didn't like his stuff...I was just looking for a n education..

[Chris Cupit]

Joseph Conrad--a man's man if there ever was one and not in the Piedmont park man's man way...not that there's anything wrong with that

And the flowers were fabulous BTW

[Mike_Young]

well I will order that now on my Ipad....BTW as an Atlantan...have you read A MAN IN FULL...interesting points in there...

[jeffwarne]

The first Raynor course I played was Yeaman's Hall. I was shocked. There was no pretense to naturalism. Heck, they had even squared off the edges of greens and tees. Bunker boundaries were perfectly straight lines. Mounding was geometrical. Not even a passing gesture at blending architectural features with the Low Country surrounds. Yeamans mocked the 'naturalism conceit' of every course I had played up until then.

Bob, I understand what you mean, but, is it really relevant ?
Isn't the challenge that the architect produces the critical and PRIMARY factor ?
Is it not the primary purpose of "ARCHITECTURE" ?
Everyone seems to say that Raynor courses are fun to play, enjoyable, and, we know that they present a substantive challenge.
So, at the end of the day, do you reflect back on how your game was tested and how you responded, shot for shot and hole for hole or do you reflect on the conflicts you perceived assaulted your eye ?

I still don't like the look as much as a good old Ross course.

All of which brought me to the conclusion early on that the least interesting aspect of golf architecture is whether or not it is natural looking. Unnatural, even ugly courses can be very good golf courses if the truly architectural features, rather than the landscaping, are well done. Getting the routing, the arrangement of bunkers, hazards, tees and greens right is vastly more important than blending them into their surrounds naturalistically. It's also a lot harder to do.

I completely agree

If you can blend great architectural features with their native terrain, more power to you. But 'naturalistic' is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to a course being good. Other things ultimately matter a lot more.

We're in perfect harmony

So I give Raynor his due. His courses make for interesting, challenging golf and that is much more important than whether I like the look of them.

I happen to like the look of them.

Perhaps that's because I appreciate how he structured and presented his challenge to me.

"Naturalness" (whatever that means) is great if you have a great natural site. if you're at Bandon or Sand Hills. Bent grass and/or other fine northern grasses cut to 1/4 inch and less are hardly natural, so let's get a grip here.
If you're located next to or on the site of a dump,or dead flat land should you try to be natural?
I haven't played many raynor courses (Yeaman's hall, CC of Charleston, Southampton, westhampton,Fisher's Island) but I think they are all really good to great and never faill to provide fun. All have limited topography change yet are varied and well routed.
Heck, I love the look of the old turn of the century courses with the geometric mounds and coffin bunkers -they look like the courses I used to build in my backyard

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Westhampton's a pretty flat site, but, it's one heck of a golf course.

Am I going to give it demerits because of the way the Redan, Biarritz, Short, Punchbowl and other holes look ?

If it's an architect's responsibility to provide a thorough examination of the golfer's skills, then I love the tests that CBM, SR and CB crafted.

[Mac Plumart]

Chris C...

nice post.  Who knew you were so in touch with your feminine/artsy side?   

Seriously nice work.


And to Mike Young's original question...yes, I am totally convinced that Raynor did, in fact, have an artistic bone in his body.

I would add on, I am wondering if Patrick Mucci's question in his last post is indeed spot on...

Is a golf course architect's responsibility to provide a thorough examination of the golfer's skills?  If so, I totally agree that the Raynor/CBM/CB crew nailed it.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mike the answer is likely no. I work with geologists and engineers everyday and that is the one quality that seems to separate them. it used to amaze me but it is in the education and thought processes. Landscape architecture is artistic at the fundamental education level as well. I often find a wonderful quality to certain holes at mountain lake like the 18th  which while completely ray nor seem to work with the land. yet most really do not like the punch bowl 15th.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

Westhampton's a pretty flat site, but, it's one heck of a golf course.

Am I going to give it demerits because of the way the Redan, Biarritz, Short, Punchbowl and other holes look ?

If it's an architect's responsibility to provide a thorough examination of the golfer's skills, then I love the tests that CBM, SR and CB crafted.

Ummm, Pat-I think we agree.
CC of Charleston is dead flat too and is every bit as good as Westhampton
In case I wasn't clear, I've loved the Raynor courses I've played

[Mike Hendren]

I can enjoy his courses and the strategies but sometimes they just don't fit....

This from the man who designed the 17th at Longshadow?

Mike

[Jim_Kennedy]

If Raynor didn't create a pleasing aesthetic his courses would not have stood the test of time, no matter how well crafted the challenges, and they would not have attracted the tens of thousands of members that have joined them over the past 90 years.

[DMoriarty]

". . . some modern improvers have mistaken crookedness for the line of beauty, and slovenly carelessness for natural ease; they call every species of regularity formal, and, with the hackneyed assertion, that "nature abhors a straight line," they fatigue the eye with continual curvatures."
- Humphry Repton, 1805.

[Kevin Pallier]

Anyone that can come up with the routing like he has at Fishers Island surely has a creative side.