[Tom Walsh]

First of all, much of what I know of golf course architecture I owe to this site.

Second, my exposure to the great courses is extremely limited. I live in St. Louis and to my mind there is St. Louis Country Club as the singular golden age design in this area.

There are a handful of Foulis designs from the golden age, but most of the "good" courses here are post WW2 (Old Warson, Bellerive, etc)

Anyway I was attempting to explain to a non golfer colleague (I've taught high school history for over 20 years)  the importance of the classic design to a colleague. I got about a minute or two into my explanation when i realized a short explanation was impossible for me.

Is golf course architecture an art? Where does golf design lie in the context of art history? If you were attempting to explain to the non golfer why it's important what would you say?

I say to my students that anything worth studying cannot be learned in 10 minutes, or 1 period. Interesting things are often complicated and require study and contemplation.

[RSLivingston_III]

I think you did an outstanding job of answering your own question.
I will have to borrow that last line.

[Rick Shefchik]

I think the answer lies in the word "architecture." People understand the aesthetic difference between, say, their state capitol building and the latest high-rise office tower. The capitol buildings in the U.S. would probably look like the high-rise office tower if we were just now organizing and constructing our units of government.

In GCA, the differences between the 100-year-old course and the modern CCFAD may not be as obvious, but it should be fairly clear that modern courses often feature bells and whistles that the old classics don't. Office towers are more efficient than rotundas, and may even be more sleek and sexy, but they lack a sense of romance. We are fortunate enough to have golf course architects working today who are trying to put that sense of romance back into their courses. The same is unlikely to happen with state capitol buildings.

[Jason Topp]

One similar analysis that hit home for me was from the movie "Cars."  In the movie the female car bemoans the loss of great old two lane highways that moved with the land in favor of freeways.  Freeways are more efficient at moving one from point a to point be but they destroy rather than work with the land.  As a result, much of the soul and interest associated with the journey is lost.

Of course, golf is all about the journey rather than simply getting from point a to point b.  During the Golden Age architects worked with the land rather than fought it.  What makes the era special compared to earlier eras is that architects also applied concepts of strategic challenge and natural beauty to courses within those limitations. 

By contrast, between the 50's and 80's scientific progress was more highly valued in american society in general, including golf.  The result was analagous to differences between freeways and Route 66.

[TEPaul]

"Is golf course architecture an art? Where does golf design lie in the context of art history? If you were attempting to explain to the non golfer why it's important what would you say?"



Tom:

I think most anyone would say golf course architecture is considered to be art or an art form. If that's true the next logical question should probably be when did it become that?

I would say it began to become that when golf architecture went from the clearly utilitarian (with man-made features) and began to merge into the art and art form of landscape architecture with its accepted "art" principles of Harmony, Proportion, Balance, Rhythm and Emphasis.

Of course the chronological reality is Landscape Architecture had already evoloved in some numerous and pretty sophisticated ways up to hundreds of years before man-made golf architecture even began and certainly before it began to utilize many of those accepted Landscape Architecture art principles.

The English School of Landscape Architecture probably had the greatest influence on golf course architecture. Its most notable and probably its best practicitioners were such as William Kent, Lancelot "Capability" Brown and even Humphrey Repton. Brown is thought to be perhaps the most siginificant user of what was called the "Serpentine" line which eventually became pretty standard in golf course architecture in one way or another.

However, those notable Landscape Architects were all dead and gone when golf course architecture really began to use some of their art principles that arguably took golf course architecture into the context of art or an art form. But their landscape architecture is certainly still there and it is very notable for sure!

[Mac Plumart]

I found this article to be a pretty good one for a beginning student of golf course architecture.

http://www.isteve.com/golf_art.htm

But in the end, I think explaining golf course architecture to the novice always comes down to how much interest the novice truly has regarding golf course architecture.  Given that the novice tag might still apply to me, I think I have some valid experience in this regards.  I think a lot of intereaction with knowledgable people helps facilitate the education process and a study of history.  Cornish and Whitten's book is a pretty good starting point for the self-study portion of the process.

[Mike_Young]

Guys, I have come to the conclusion that for 99% of golfers, architecture is almost at the bottom of the list of their thought process when it comes to golf.  Most associate maintenance level with quality of architecture and they assume that huge marketing efforts equate to premium golf experiences...my home club has just been "remodeled" and what was is gone..never to be replaced...all because the average memebr on the committees did not even go and look at other clubs or projects...why???...it just did not matter that much to them...they could always call it Donald Ross no matter what and if the cart paths were good then we were moving in the right direction.....now this site may not like the position that golf design plays in the overall scheme of golf but it is what it is....
Golf itself has not been the driving force behind "signature designs and the prominence of particular golf projects....in most cases it has been the housing industry or resort development.....golf was much better off when it had to thrive on it's own and it will be better off now that it has to do it again....
So....do not waste your time trying to explain any golf architecture to the non golfer or novice....they could care less and you will not change their mind....

[Mike Policano]

Mike is right about 99% of golfers. But every once in a while an opportunity will arise. I hosted three experienced players (read over 50) this weekend on a course that has a fair amount of architectural interest. One was a 20 handicap and the other two were single digits.

The 20 said he was very intimidated to play the course. I told him not to worry, the course would be very playable for him. By the 15th hole he commented that he couldn't believe how much fun the course was. So I asked him why he thought is was fun.

Without every mentioning the word "architecture" he said, "even though I hit a weak slice, there is a way for me to play every hole. It seems like I have a decision to make on every hole. Should I go left or right, should I try to carry the bunker or go around it, should I chip the ball, putt it or lob it on the green. There are even options on the green. I am constantly thinking."

I replied, "so you are saying you need a strategy for every hole and every shot." he replied, "now that you mention it, I did need a strategy."

I asked him what he thought about the 17th hole on his home course, a par 5. He said he really liked the hole because the tee shot was very challenging. I asked him,  what about the second and third shots which cover an absolutely straight, level fairway with no hazards. He replied he just tries to hit the ball as far as he can on the second shot.

I said, "what would happen if there was a cross bunker coming into the fairway between you and green?" He replied, "it would be a more interesting hole. I would have to make a decision whether to layup or carry the bunker." And the light went on.  He then said, "Wow, the hole would be so much better." I told him that was the art of golf architecture.

I said now imagine how good the architect of this course is, you're a 20 and you said it was a lot of fun and the two single digits think it is very challenging. You have to be really good to design a course that is fun and playable for a 20 and challenging for better player.

Over drinks the three guys started talking about how their home course could be more interesting with several relatively minor changes.
So in hindsight, most guys could care less until there is an opening to spark their interest. In absence of such an opening, guys will walk the other way when they see you coming if you are speaking about golf architecture unsolicitedly.     

[Mike Nuzzo]

So....do not waste your time trying to explain any golf architecture to the non golfer or novice....they could care less and you will not change their mind....

Mike
were you born with (or do you have) a love and understanding of golf architecture?

[Tom MacWood]

I agree with Rick, architecture is the easiest and most apt comparison, there are a lot of parallels. Attempting to meld their design with the site; using materials that are natural to the site; individualism in design, often evolving over time; regional influences; modern technology's affect on design; cultural and economic influences; distinct aesthetic periods.

[Tom MacWood]

And I'm not sure everyone agrees on what is the 'golden age.' There have been a number of important aesthetic periods. I think our definition or classification of the 'golden age' might be little over-simplified.

[Adam Clayman]

Rather than explain, perhaps it more important to plant seeds?

If you get someone thinking about the design, when heretofore they never considered it, that is all you can really do. Otherwise you'll find that you'll be preaching your preferences versus allowing that person to explore the subject on their own.

[BCrosby]

MY -

It always takes two to tango. Unless the other party is interested in the topic - whether it is snowmobiles, goldfish or golf architecture - you will find yourself in a one way conversation. But I don't think that is particularly troubling. That's just the way the world works. What's the Dorothy Parker line about "You can take a whore to culture, but you can't make her think," or something like that. (Not to suggest that people not interested in gca are somehow lower forms of life. )

But when you run across someone who is interested and has the brains and background to absorb architectural ideas and the arguments they have spawned over the years, that's a wonderful, exhilarating thing. It's a relationship to treasure. But it's not the kind of relationship that scales up to big numbers very well. But that's o.k. You dance with whomever comes to the party.

Bob   

[Gary Slatter]

Sorry for the question if it is not relevant,  but is there a difference between golf course architecture and golf course design?
IMHO many of the great manufactured golf courses (Sawgrass, CB, Sagebrush) are golf course architecture whereas many of the more minimalist courses are golf course designs.  i.e. architecture: features built;  design: designed around features

Tom: good questions!  You mentioned everything you know about golf course architecture was learned from this site.  It is a great site but keep looking as there is more out there!   the guys don't reveal all their secrets on CGA.  and there were some fine courses designed and built during the previous "dark ages".

[Mike_Young]

So....do not waste your time trying to explain any golf architecture to the non golfer or novice....they could care less and you will not change their mind....

Mike
were you born with (or do you have) a love and understanding of golf architecture?

Mike,
Hmm..I think I cultivated a love and understanding of golf architecture and as I did I also cultivated an instinct for calling BS on much of it...I have walked a course where someone on this site that would consider himself an expert was explaining old bunker sites to me when I knew they were just old holes where large trees had been removed during construction.....I have seen guys on here think about a hole on some course a hundred times more than the original architect....I have heard ground game, air game....and all the hype...and thru all that I have acquired a good understanding and appreciation.....and enough knowledge to know that each period had it's good stuff.....BUT at the same time I understand that we all have different taste...while mine leans toward the courses of the old dead guys I still think that most of them didn't understand their courses nearly as much as some guys on here....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()