I don't know Tom, you and I on this subject may be closer than we realize. I can't really recap this subject as Dan Kelly recommended someone do--I'm incapable of explaining anything on here briefly.
But I still see you saying things to me that are very black and white! Like if one feels Raynor's engineered look is ugly and visually unappealing there is no paradox. And conversely, if one feels geometric and artifically engineered earthworks are inherently pleasing aesthetically there is no paradox. I very well might not feel either!
I don't think I have those expectations or those sentiments, and if I do, they may not be half so strong as yours are. I tend to look at golf architecture in more of an evolutionary sense and I may not have a universal preference for a type of architecture, or a style, or even a specific principle, particularly if one tries to lump the entire history of it into a single ideal or a single principle or set of principles!
I very well may have learned that from Bill Coore himself! Not to say there aren't courses and architecture he finds extremely obnoxious, and others he finds extremely magnificent but in all of this he also finds a wide variety of things in the architecture of courses obnoxious and also a wide variety of things about the architecture of courses that're magnificent.
And ultimately, I think he finds, as do I, that the best of all in golf architecture is the vast differences of styles and looks and playabilities and maybe even principles too that can be magnificent somehow.
I do use "somehow" recognizing that to try to categorize and define the hows and whys of it all can probably seem paradoxical somtimes. But I don't think I feel the need to go there or the need to be that extreme in black and white.
I don't think this means I'm not discriminating in my tastes either. I think I can look at a model T and appreciate it for what it is and look at a 2002 Ferrari and appreciate it for what it is too. I can also look at the Edsel or some of the styles of the early 1960s and be very turned off by them.
But a model T is not a 2002 Ferrari and doesn't look anything like it except for the four wheels. I don't know how much the design, focus, architectural principles and construction methods are the same or the same ideal or principle either--not much I would suspect.
But if you put them in their eras they become more clear and understandable and maybe even more appreciated and enjoyable. And I don't mean just put them in their era, I mean understand their era too, the focus of the era, the limitations of the era, etc--it's important to do!
We have talked a great deal on here about naturalness, the use of nature and natural aspects, untouched by man. And also how important it is to try to mimic nature as best as can be done when other things need to be made.
I think MacKenzie, for instance, did this much better than MacDonald and Raynor with most of what he did, but he came later and from them he may even have learned some of the first possibilities of what actually could be made by man to create things that were so much more interesting for golf! But he clearly went beyond that early manufactured look and made those construction necessities look more like nature.
I like what Gib said about MacKenzie that he may have even gone too far or in a bit of a misdirection and made those constructed features look almost like a fragile representation of nature in sort of an artistic sense. I agree with Gib on that!
But I feel that although its important to look at these things evolutionarily and in their eras, you can also look at this entire history of architecture in the context of what looks most natural or is most attuned to nature, And if you do the likes of Pacific Dunes and Sand Hills may very well be the best that have ever been done in that context! I believe I really do feel that way.
What I do not like are the highly stylized golf courses and their architecture and also things in their designs that requires extreme manicuring that looks nothing like nature to me.
In that way you and I are probably alike in our tastes, in that we like architecture that combines the pure untouched beauty of nature and many of its dimensions and lines, even its rough lines and aspects too--sort of warts and all-- into the courses and their playbabilities!
That may be why I really don't much like the look of some desert courses and some of their architecture although some might play well! Probably why I don't much like the thought of Shadow Creek too. Even with NGLA just the way it is architecturally, I would not like it half so well if they decided to highly manicure it! I realize that does not really effect the inherent architecture but still I would not like it half so well!
So I don't know Tom, maybe there is a paradox, maybe not, but as you said maybe it's just you. I don't think that I necessarily find the manufactured and engineered look of NGLA appealing or unappealing!
I do find it very fascinating though, but probably because I recognize that it's very much of an era and what it was in that era. Despite the engineered look, and understanding that that look came before the era of attempts at more naturalness, I think I apprecate it for all that it is in the evolution of architecture, and also, and most importantly, it still plays so very well!!