Are we critics or are we fans?

[Bill_McBride]

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.

John, I'm proud of you walking Stone Eagle!  Did you hike up to some of those way up top tees?

[Rob Bice]

Wouldn't it be great if we could have all of the critics/fans play several courses without knowing who the architect is?  Kind of like a wine tasting where all of the bottles are covered with brown paper bags.  Would love to see the comments.

Great concept.  In a way, what we're doing here, as amateurs, is what some of us attempt to do when getting knowledgeable about tasting wine.  You keep exposing yourself to a bunch of different wines (or golf course architects' works) and develop a language to describe your likes and dislikes.  I'd like to think that I've gotten fairly good at that with wine, but I've never exposed myself to the paper bag test, probably because I'd wind up preferring a $10 Malbec to a $100 Cabernet!  

I recommend the paper bag test - it might save you some money!!

[Rob Bice]

Pat/Terry/et.al.:

The problem with your brown bag test is that most of us are knowledgable enough that we can stand on the first tee and recognize a Nicklaus course, a Fazio course, a Smyers course and a Jones course on the first tee.  And for a lot of people, that's what immediately turns some people off and what makes a lot of people like the course.

Isn't that the point?  Most who are knowledgable enough to stand on the first tee and recognize the architect have already made up their mind before playing the course?

I bet you would be surprised by how many who believe they are knoweldgeable actually couldn't determine the architect on the first tee.  I realize we are dealing in hypotheticals but you get the idea.

[JR Potts]

Pat/Terry/et.al.:

The problem with your brown bag test is that most of us are knowledgable enough that we can stand on the first tee and recognize a Nicklaus course, a Fazio course, a Smyers course and a Jones course on the first tee.  And for a lot of people, that's what immediately turns some people off and what makes a lot of people like the course.

I'm not so sure.  I think that people would sometimes confuse a Fazio for a Jones or a Jones for a Nicklaus or a Fazio for a Nicklaus.

On the other hand, I can see some people conflating the work of Doak vs. Coore & Crenshaw.

Now if you want to talk about Fazio vs. C&C or Jones vs. Doak, then I would tend to agree with you.

Give yourself some credit.  I played a little game when the GolfWeek best resorts came out where I tried guessing the architect based on the picture.  Now I'm not as well studied on this topic as you or a lot on here but I was right 9 out of 10 times.

And remember, I'm just a fan.  But not a fan of Les Miserable.

[PCCraig]

Pat/Terry/et.al.:

The problem with your brown bag test is that most of us are knowledgable enough that we can stand on the first tee and recognize a Nicklaus course, a Fazio course, a Smyers course and a Jones course on the first tee.  And for a lot of people, that's what immediately turns some people off and what makes a lot of people like the course.

I'm not so sure.  I think that people would sometimes confuse a Fazio for a Jones or a Jones for a Nicklaus or a Fazio for a Nicklaus.

On the other hand, I can see some people conflating the work of Doak vs. Coore & Crenshaw.

Now if you want to talk about Fazio vs. C&C or Jones vs. Doak, then I would tend to agree with you.

Give yourself some credit.  I played a little game when the GolfWeek best resorts came out where I tried guessing the architect based on the picture.  Now I'm not as well studied on this topic as you or a lot on here but I was right 9 out of 10 times.

And remember, I'm just a fan.  But not a fan of Les Miserable.

Ryan/Rob/Terry:

This may not be as hypothetical as you think. Sure it's nearly impossible to have most players play multiple courses by multiple architects in a short period of time without knowing the actual GCA. But couldn't you just print out 10 photos of random golf holes and have the viewer randomly select which ones he likes or dislikes. Could you imagine the horror of a GCAer liking the look of a Fazio hole and disliking a Doak? **gasp**.

And yes, Rob, that is a major point Ryan made. If a GCAer stands on a first tee and can tell it's a Nicklaus course, and immediatley writes it off as "typical" Nicklaus...then how can you take their opinion with any sort of grain of salt? They haven't even played the course yet they already have an opinion!

[George Pazin]

There's plenty of people who have supported/defended/whatever you want to call it Fazio and Nicklaus on here. Look for threads about Dallas National, Mayacama, Cabo del Sol (or whichever one is the Nicklaus course down there), among others.

There's also plenty of people who say "typical Doak", though many of those mean it as a compliment.

My experience on here is that people tend to remember only the posts that serve to bolster their own opinions/arguments. There's tons of stuff out there, all colors, shades and varieties.

I will admit, it is interesting to ponder the theses that if you think you are a critic, you are overvaluing your own opinion, yet being a rater automatically makes you a critic. I guess it's not surprising given John's view of raters.

Me, I'm a fan. I make no pretense at being impartial, so if that's a criterion for being a critic, I'm definitely a fan. Don't much care what anyone labels me, however.

PP -

Many of us face the merciless critic known as the client on a daily basis, so the slings and arrows on here don't seem so pointy...

[John Kavanaugh]

George,

Do you realize how critical the majority of your post are?  You were the only person who took the time to be negative on the Sand Hills/Riviera thread. What do you think motivates your attitude?

[Peter Pallotta]

George (and Ryan, Jim, Jeff) -- I was not asking if we in our own professions get criticized, but whether (or how often) we think that criticism justified.  

I think critics fall into two camps -- those who judge the work in terms of what THEY want to see, and those who judge the work on its OWN merits, i.e. in terms of how succesfully the work accomplished what it set out to accomplish.

I think the latter approach the better kind of criticism; I think the former approach predominates around here.

Sure, we can have our likes and dislikes -- but let's not glorify/elevate that to the status of 'criticism'.

Peter

[Melvyn Morrow]

Are we critics or are we fans?   Or is it simply all about Constructive Criticism

Does it matter as some will be ignored because their opinions are not considered worthy by some – Can disenfranchisement of democracy be so easily undermined by open and honest debate?

It would appear so on GCA.com.  Yet constructive criticism must always be accompanied by alternative options/opinions otherwise you are not much of a fan, just seeking to criticise.

I am a critical fan of constructive criticism which I believe GCA.com actually stands for among the free radical members.

Melvyn   

[Sean_A]

I think critics fall into two camps -- those who judge the work in terms of what THEY want to see, and those who judge the work on its OWN merits, i.e. in terms of how succesfully the work accomplished what it set out to accomplish.

I think the latter approach the better kind of criticism; I think the former approach predominates around here.

Pietro

Yes, which is why I think proper critcs have an obligation to get to know the details of a project before they offer any sort of personal opinion.  Then of course, the ultimate goal of any new project is to sign up members or make money.  Sometimes, that sort of thing is completely at odds with what a good course is and not knowable for many years.  Given that I think it is potentially a world of difference between good architecture and a good course, is it bad architecture because a course financially fails? 

Ciao

Ciao

[George Pazin]

George,

Do you realize how critical the majority of your post are?  You were the only person who took the time to be negative on the Sand Hills/Riviera thread. What do you think motivates your attitude?

Interesting take, I'll have to think about it a bit more.

It's funny you considered my posts on the SH/Riv thread negative. My recollection is that I simply offered the observation that your match was halved - don't consider that negative - and then I complimented you on your thread. When you made your pithy observation relating your thread to Tom's, I merely reminded you of your criterion and posited there was room enough for both. I suppose that could be construed as negative, though if it is, then I'd ask what that makes the majority of your posts.

[PCCraig]

George,

Do you realize how critical the majority of your post are?  You were the only person who took the time to be negative on the Sand Hills/Riviera thread. What do you think motivates your attitude?

I suppose that could be construed as negative, though if it is, then I'd ask what that makes the majority of your posts.

No difference.

[John Kavanaugh]

Pat,

If you are saying there is no difference between me and George, I agree.  I wish I could be less negative but for that to occur people will need to be less stupid.

[Ian Andrew]

I think critics fall into two camps -- those who judge the work in terms of what THEY want to see, and those who judge the work on its OWN merits, i.e. in terms of how succesfully the work accomplished what it set out to accomplish.

Wow … well said Peter
I definitely fall into the first camp.

Peter,

Do you think the change in modern journalistic style where news is most often presented with an opinion has influenced all of us to be much more provocative and opinionated in our own writing?

[George Pazin]

Pat,

If you are saying there is no difference between me and George, I agree.  I wish I could be less negative but for that to occur people will need to be less stupid.

I was content to let this thread die... but I can't say I can leave this unanswered.

There may be no difference in a literal sense, in that we are both commenting critically - and in my case, I would say I am highly critical of John - but we are world's apart in where we are coming from. I have worked hard here to develop a sense of community where everyone feels he can say almost anything that is substantively critical and the response will be to address the substance, not call people names, call them stupid, call them idiots, whatever. One can disagree that I've made any progress in this way - and I in fact have stated several times that I do NOT think I have - but that's where I'm coming from.

John, well, he says it all in the above quote.

Since John seems a student of modern culture, I'll put it this way:

John's view: Hate the critic, not the criticism - or hate both, it's your choice

My view: Hate the criticism, not the critic - or hate neither, it's your choice

I will also say again that there is room for both. But I think it's wrong to equate the approaches in some sort of metaphysical "all criticism is criticism, all negative comments are negative" way. If you choose to believe that, fine, don't expect me to agree. that exhibits a lack of perspective and judgment that I do not abide.

I know I would be better off ignoring John's posts, but I guess that's a failing of mine, much like John can't fail to attribute the worst motives to everyone.

-----

Interesting post, Peter.

[JMEvensky]

George (and Ryan, Jim, Jeff) -- I was not asking if we in our own professions get criticized, but whether (or how often) we think that criticism justified.  

I think critics fall into two camps -- those who judge the work in terms of what THEY want to see, and those who judge the work on its OWN merits, i.e. in terms of how succesfully the work accomplished what it set out to accomplish.

I think the latter approach the better kind of criticism; I think the former approach predominates around here.

Sure, we can have our likes and dislikes -- but let's not glorify/elevate that to the status of 'criticism'.

Peter

Peter,wouldn't a (the?) difference between the two camps be a result of one's "professional-ness"?

Maybe the difference between critic and fan is where one sits on the bias versus knowledge scale.The lower bias/higher knowledge guys would be the critics,the higher bias/lower knowledge guys the fans.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - when I was writing (and trying to sell and/or interest producers/editors in that writing) I often encountered criticism/feedback of the former kind, i.e. people reacting to my writing not in terms of what was there and what I'd intended to write but in terms of what THEY wanted to see and what they WOULD HAVE INTENDED if they were writing it themselves.  Now, please understand - I believe that editors/producers/clients have every right to ask (and PAY FOR) exactly the kind of writing they want to see; but my point is that, much more often than, I found that most would be editors/critics weren't even AWARE of what they were doing, i.e. they weren't conscious of the fact that they were not judging my work on its own terms but on their own, nor did they seem even aware of this distinction.  Could my work have been better, and be made better? Of course it could -- but that could only happen if producers/editors provided their feedback/criticism in the context of the WORK ITSELF, not some imaginary work-in-progress of their own devising. Of course, that presupposses that they had the ability and talent and desire to do just that, which -- to be honest -- I think is very rarely the case. And it pressupposes that people actually want to celebrate and honour the work of ANOTHER instead of always trying to glorify THEMSELVES (which again I think is fairly rare, given human nature and human tendencies).  I think the kind of writing/criticism that you mention, along with the literal explosion in the number of blogs and websites and twitter accounts and avenues of expression now available, has magnified these very human tendencies a hundred fold.

Peter

Hi Jeff - just saw your post/question. I think my post to Ian my be in line with what you're asking.

[Terry Lavin]

I think the kind of writing/criticism that you mention, along with the literal explosion in the number of blogs and websites and twitter accounts and avenues of expression now available, has magnified these very human tendencies a hundred fold.

Peter

This is a very sage observation, and not just in the narrow area of golf course architecture, but across the entire "journalistic blogosphere".

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Can I be a fan with an opinion...does that count?
I am not sure I am truly qualified to class myslef as a critic on golf course architecture, but I do believe I am entiltled to an opinion based upon my likes, dislikes and limited knowledge.

Does that appear fair?

[John Kavanaugh]

Can I be a fan with an opinion...does that count?
I am not sure I am truly qualified to class myslef as a critic on golf course architecture, but I do believe I am entiltled to an opinion based upon my likes, dislikes and limited knowledge.

Does that appear fair?

Is if fair if people lose their jobs because a course gets poor magazine rankings.  I guess everyone lost their job at the Prairie Club this year.  Is it fair that Golfweek ranked them 28th best new.  Of course it is not fair.

[Mac Plumart]

My dictionary has a couple of definitions for 'Critic'

1. One who forms and expresses judgements of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter.

2. One who tends to make harsh or carping judgements; a fault-finder.
 

The definition of a critic has no mention of someone being educated or informed enough to have a sound background when making their judgments.  This is why I said many of us are critics on this site.  The title of the thread isn't "Are we expert critics or are we fans?"...it is simply "Are we critics or fans?".

If we harp on Nicklaus work for certain flaws, that is critical...finding fault (definition #2).  If we give a GCA Top 100 list, we are forming an opinion and expressing judgement...that is definition #1 of a critic above.  No one has to agree, no one has to say we are right...we are critical, by and large, therefore, by and large, we are critics.

  

[John Kavanaugh]

The problem is that nobody likes a critic.  That of course does not include professional critics because everybody loves a con man.

[Mac Plumart]

John, I disagree with the first point of your post.  People love critics, if said critic is critical of something the people don't like. 

Think Jon Stewart ripping President Bush or Dick Cheney...viewers of his show eat this stuff up and LOVE Jon "The Critic" Stewart.

Fans of minimalism loves critics of Rees Jones, Fazio, and the like.

[John Kavanaugh]

John, I disagree with the first point of your post.  People love critics, if said critic is critical of something the people don't like. 

Think Jon Stewart ripping President Bush or Dick Cheney...viewers of his show eat this stuff up and LOVE Jon "The Critic" Stewart.

Fans of minimalism loves critics of Rees Jones, Fazio, and the like.

Sure, the same people who love a gossip.

[Bart Bradley]

The problem is that nobody likes a critic.  That of course does not include professional critics because everybody loves a con man.

I agree with Mac...lots of people like a critic.  John, nobody likes a cynic.

Bart