Are we critics or are we fans?

[PCCraig]

While watching Sunday Morning this morning on CBS, there was a segment on tonight’s Super Bowl halftime show: The Black Eyed Peas. When they were asked about their critics, the band’s leader responded with (paraphrased) “Critics are supposed to criticize, if they didn’t…they would be fans.”

That quote made me think about how GCAers study golf course architecture. The times I’ve spoken candidly with GCA participants in person, many times they generally favor the “minimalist” designs of Doak, Hanse, Coore and Crenshaw, etc… , love all things MacKenzie, Ross, MacRaynor, etc…  and despise the work of Fazio, Nicklaus, Jones, etc… 

I’ve honestly never heard anyone say something significantly critical about the work of Tom Doak or Bill Coore. I’ve heard design aficionados write off a Nicklaus course within the first 6 holes as “typical Nicklaus.”

So my question is: has GCA become a fan site? Are participants afraid to criticize the minimalist school of design due to the fear of not being included? Is GCA “group think” real?

Are we critics or are we fans? 

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

"Group think" would imply that Ran chooses the people allowed to contribute here based on whether they conform to a certain set of design beliefs.  I don't think that the site is evenly divided between my fans and Rees Jones', but neither do I think that Ran is screening out people who dislike my work.  Do you?

The difference between "fan" and "critic" is not whether you like someone's work or not, it's whether you are open-minded about all.  It is possible to be a critic and still admire particular architects.  It is also possible to constantly bash someone's work without being really critical in looking at it, just because you don't like them or their public persona.  I've had a small dose of that here, though not nearly as much as Rees Jones or Tom Fazio have had to endure, so I'm certainly not complaining.  And who could ever say a bad word about Bill Coore?  Sometimes, at least, a nice person deserves his accolades, and the game isn't rigged.

There are certainly many people here who are more "fans" than critics.  I think that's inevitable; after all, not nearly everyone on here understands the subject well enough to be an informed critic, although certainly anyone can vent about what he likes or doesn't like.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat -

Unfortunately, I think collectively the ethos around here is that of a critic -- and a harsh one at that.

I wonder how many of us would like -- or think fair and/or accurate -- to have the way we do our jobs critiqued with the same kind of enthusiastic and passionate amateurism and hard-edged idealism that we routinely aim at gca in general and certain architects in particular.

I dare say that if we did critique each other in the same way, more than half the writers (and accountants and lawyers and businessmen) who post on this site wouldn't pass the test.

Should the understanding we have of the practical realities and hard choices that the rest of us face every day in our own professions translate into a more understanding spirit when it comes to the way we judge gca?

I think so -- but I recognize that there is little fun in that, and that it is far easier (and in some sense more satisfying) to cast stones down from the mountaintop than it is to reside in the trenches and take the long slow journey to true learning.   

Peter  

[Mac Plumart]

I think by and large we are critics.  

In reference to people never criticizing Tom's work, that isn't true.  Recently, the unwalkable nature of Stone Eagle was brought up, the pond on the 8th at Sebonack, and another one as well...but I can't remember it.

Coore and Crenshaw gets criticized from time to time...I criticized the repetative greensites at Chechessee.  The 14th at Cuscowilla takes a lot of heat.  And the sameness of many of their courses get criticized as well.

Raynor gets criticized for his un-natural looking features and repetative uses of hole concepts.

But yet these architects are generally liked/loved by many on this site, because they do good/great work.

I've bragged about how much I like Dismal River.  That is Nicklaus design.  Sebonack gets some love around here.  

Regarding Fazio, Matt Ward, of all people, said that Shadow Creek it a top-tier Nevada course.  Galloway National gets some love around here.



On the groupthink stuff, I think you are right.  When the "herd" says how great x, y, and z are...it is hard to go against them...and it is hard not to be influenced by them.  On the not being included comment, maybe you are right...but I hope not.  The entire website is about frank and honest commentary.  But I will say that the Ballyneal is better than Sand Hills comment(s), caused a stir...as did the I like Dismal River thread.

Maybe we need more counter arguments to the "herds" accepted norms.

Good points, Pat.

[PCCraig]

Pat:

"Group think" would imply that Ran chooses the people allowed to contribute here based on whether they conform to a certain set of design beliefs.  I don't think that the site is evenly divided between my fans and Rees Jones', but neither do I think that Ran is screening out people who dislike my work.  Do you?

The difference between "fan" and "critic" is not whether you like someone's work or not, it's whether you are open-minded about all.  It is possible to be a critic and still admire particular architects.  It is also possible to constantly bash someone's work without being really critical in looking at it, just because you don't like them or their public persona.  I've had a small dose of that here, though not nearly as much as Rees Jones or Tom Fazio have had to endure, so I'm certainly not complaining.  And who could ever say a bad word about Bill Coore?  Sometimes, at least, a nice person deserves his accolades, and the game isn't rigged.

There are certainly many people here who are more "fans" than critics.  I think that's inevitable; after all, not nearly everyone on here understands the subject well enough to be an informed critic, although certainly anyone can vent about what he likes or doesn't like.

Tom:

I just want to be clear that I was only speaking to the work of the mentioned GCA's, not them as people. Obviously, your participation here, answering our questions, and being a nice guy sure makes you easy to root for. Same can be said to someone like Bill Coore, even though he doesn't participate here all accounts have been very favorable.

As for Ran, obviously he doesn't screen particpants other than for a love of architecture. But that's my point, in all the people that have signed up for the discussion board, why hasn't Nicklaus, Jones, or Fazio seen any defense? That is why I said there is some group think...which I think has everything to do with once someone has joined and made his or her first couple posts.

If a participant joined the board and in his first post defended Jack's work, would his viewpoint be accepted...or would we just scroll past to the next comment??

[JR Potts]

[quote author=PPallotta link=topic=47304.msg1055532#msg1055532 date

I dare say that if we did critique each other in the same way, more than half the writers (and accountants and lawyers and businessmen) who post on this site wouldn't pass the test.

Should the understanding we have of the practical realities and hard choices that the rest of us face every day in our own professions translate into a more understanding spirit when it comes to the way we judge gca?

I think so -- but I recognize that there is little fun in that, and that it is far easier (and in some sense more satisfying) to cast stones down from the mountaintop than it is to reside in the trenches and take the long slow journey to true learning.   

Peter  
[/quote]

I would argue that the writers on here get the same level of criticism in the comments section of their posts and the lawyers get the same each time they show up in court.  Most of us are subject to critiques each day - so I don't feel so bad for the maligned on here.

That said, I do think a large level of "group think" occurs on here.  I've been a supporter of Rees Jones and his championship renovation work on here much to the chagrin of nanyang on here and while few have publicly posted support, many have privately DMd support...for one reason or another.

I think the unfortunate thing on here is that there's a lot of fans disguised at critics as that juxtaposition furthers a personal interest and benefit...but I think that's to be expected anywhere.

[Jud_T]

It's an interesting question Pat.  It's virtually impossible for anyone to be completely impartial.  One can easily be critical on a relative basis within a given GCA's portfolio, even though one has a predilection towards enjoying a certain style of design.  It's when comparing Apples to Oranges that we end up with a fruit salad where most invariably end up picking out all the sweet berries and leaving the melon behind...I'd love to hear some of the more well traveled guys here discuss their known and unknown(?) biases and how they attempt to keep them at arms length for the purposes of impartial discussion...For instance, for years I've followed Robert Parker's Wine Advocate reviews.  I know he has a bias for big, bold wines with tons of fruit and a fair amount of tannin, and it's reflected in his numerical ratings accordingly.  However, having grown up drinking wines he recommends, I've developed a similar palate, although clearly not as well-versed and refined.  Now after collecting this stuff for the past 20 years, I find out he's passing on the reviewing of new California vintages to his lead associate.  Now I'm gonna have to recalibrate his biases to mine...

[JMEvensky]

I wonder how many of us would like -- or think fair and/or accurate -- to have the way we do our jobs critiqued with the same kind of enthusiastic and passionate amateurism and hard-edged idealism that we routinely aim at gca in general and certain architects in particular.

I dare say that if we did critique each other in the same way, more than half the writers (and accountants and lawyers and businessmen) who post on this site wouldn't pass the test.

  

Peter P,as usual,I find myself in agreement--the sweater thing must have been an aberration.

I think it's difficult,if not impossible,for most on here to actually critique gca intelligently as most of us are rank amateurs.Not every opinion is equally valid.For me,the opinions of guys who do this stuff for a living will always trump even the most well travelled,well read poster.

[John Kavanaugh]

Once you become an adult it is quite easy to simply be a golfer.

[John Kirk]

First of all, I walked Stone Eagle for time today.  Two hours and twenty-eight minutes, 82 shots.  I'm now tuckered out on the recliner ready to watch sports.

I have an idea for a very personal post titles something like "Inside The Mind Of A Critic".  Maybe I'll write that this month.

I think I'm a critic.  But a fan, too.

[Anthony Gray]

  I think this can be a critical site period.Usually more with each other than with architects and their work.The tie that binds is the love for the land golf is played on.Of which we are all fans.Good topic Pat.

  Anthony

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat -

Unfortunately, I think collectively the ethos around here is that of a critic -- and a harsh one at that.

I wonder how many of us would like -- or think fair and/or accurate -- to have the way we do our jobs critiqued with the same kind of enthusiastic and passionate amateurism and hard-edged idealism that we routinely aim at gca in general and certain architects in particular.

I dare say that if we did critique each other in the same way, more than half the writers (and accountants and lawyers and businessmen) who post on this site wouldn't pass the test.

Should the understanding we have of the practical realities and hard choices that the rest of us face every day in our own professions translate into a more understanding spirit when it comes to the way we judge gca?

I think so -- but I recognize that there is little fun in that, and that it is far easier (and in some sense more satisfying) to cast stones down from the mountaintop than it is to reside in the trenches and take the long slow journey to true learning.   

Peter  

PP,
I agree with treating one another more humanely, but architects and artists and songwriters and filmakers and winemakers, etc., create publically consumed products whose commercial success is joined at the hip with criticism.
That's not the same for others whose job performance is of a more private nature, and is critiqued within their companies.
 

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,
When I was new to the site I believed the group-think was more prevalent than I do now. I do think this site attracts a certain type of golf course enthusiast because the collective makeup tends to favor certain architectural principles and ideals.

At the same time I think you have to read each individual's posts to get an idea of whether they are really open-minded about different styles and different architects. Participants here have all kinds of viewpoints, so I think its dangerous to try to generalize about the entire group. I have one Fazio and one Nicklaus course each in my top ten, but I can also tell that certain participants wouldn't give one of their courses a chance at elite status based on some preconceived notions. The very vast majority are open-minded. In some ways the biggest arguments here come with course walkability. For some, a cartball course isn't even golf. For others, cartball courses can and should be among the elite. If we all agreed all the time this wouldn't be any fun, so the diversity keeps us on our toes.

[JNC Lyon]

I don't think 'critics' and 'fans' are mutually exclusive.  Most people are critics on certain topics because they are passionate and even fanatic about that topic.  The term "critic" just implies some degree of impartiality.  My favorite critic on any subject is Roger Ebert, and I always defer to his reviews because he is very impartial about his movies.  At the same time, he's not afraid to admit that he's a fan of a certain movie, such as his line that "films like Fargo are the reason I love movies."

Being a critic is being an impartial fan who is not afraid praise or criticize anything.

[Scott Warren]

Most people on this site are fans. I certainly am.

It doesn't mean we can't be meaningfully critical of features/holes/courses or discuss the topic with insight, but there is a large gulf between that and being a critic, in my opinion.

As with film, TV, music and other arts, I am certain that many people consider themselves legitimate critics despite lacking the requisite knowledge or experience to do so.

As with many threads of this nature, I suspect people's answers might be split by their definition of "critic".

Being a critic is being an impartial fan who is not afraid praise or criticize anything.

I think that's a solid statement, John, though I would add "educated and insightful" to "impartial". Impartiality isn't worth much without the ability to understand what you're seeing and relate it to the particular field of endeavour.

[David_Elvins]

Pat,

I am not much of a fan of coore and crenshaw, and would like to think I ask tom some awkward questions. Having said that, I don't think there is anything particularly noble or impressive about being a critic.

[Mac Plumart]

David...

I agree that it isn't "noble" or "impressive" to be a critic, but I think it is what many of us are. 

[Anthony Gray]

  We all have our likes and dislikes.Do our dislikes make us critics?

  Anthony

[Scott Warren]

David...

I agree that it isn't "noble" or "impressive" to be a critic, but I think it is what many of us are. 

Mac,

In your mind, what differentiates a critic from a fan?

[Mac Plumart]

I kind of like JNC's line about what a critic is.

[John Kavanaugh]

Once you are paid or take gratis for your opinion you are a critic.  It is how the universe of assholes remain in equilibrium.  You can not be both a fan and a critic.

[Gary Daughters]

Can you be a critic without having been a fan first?

Can you be much of a fan if you can't discern enough to criticize?

I'm not seeing a lack of clashing opinions here, but if certain common affinities do form and coalesce then maybe that's because certain fans/critics care enough to look closely and are recognizing the same attributes.  

[Tom_Doak]

As for Ran, obviously he doesn't screen particpants other than for a love of architecture. But that's my point, in all the people that have signed up for the discussion board, why hasn't Nicklaus, Jones, or Fazio seen any defense? That is why I said there is some group think...which I think has everything to do with once someone has joined and made his or her first couple posts.

If a participant joined the board and in his first post defended Jack's work, would his viewpoint be accepted...or would we just scroll past to the next comment??

Pat:

You are right that we do scroll past a lot of stuff these days, instead of discussing things in detail.  I think real "criticism" has diminished around here, and Nicklaus, Jones and Fazio courses are just as likely to be defended from it as my own.  Much like American politics, we've gotten to the point where no one even bothers to argue the merits; we have accepted the idea that there are two viewpoints for every reality, and that someone on one side is unlikely to be converted to the other, so why bother?

It is not often anymore that someone says something here that really makes me think.

[Gary Daughters]

If a participant joined the board and in his first post defended Jack's work, would his viewpoint be accepted...or would we just scroll past to the next comment??

I would read with interest to try to figure out what it is I've been missing.

[Kris Shreiner]

Are we critans or fantics? Certainly, one can be a fan AND a critic. A critic may also be"one who is inclined to find fault," according to Merriam Webster Dictionary. I can be a huge fan of golf, yet it isn't hard to to be a critic of the rampant greed and disregard for common sense exhibited by many that earn handsomely from the game while also damaging it's long-term health.

Cheers,
Kris