Well - to use another metaphor. You can look at most modern films with a magnifying glass and still not get a hint of any shadows, any play of light and shadows. That's because they light the f--k out of the whole damn set and then add even more (spot) lights to make sure the audience never forgets for one second who the star is of the movie -- and then, just for good measure, in post production they drench/pump up the whole ugly unnatural thing in neon colours (because, "after all, the kids today are used to playing video games, and so they want that high-definition look"). Compare that to a film like the Maltese Falcon (I think it was) -- where the cinematographer had the set decorator put wall sconce lighting fixtures all around Bogie's apartment (to serve as the notional 'light sources') so that the various and varied shadows produced by the human beings moving and interacting with eachother that enrichen the scene would 'make sense' to the viewer's eye. In short, they wanted the shadows back then -- and so found a way to make them work. So, yeah, we have a lot of ways to avoid quirk these days and there are always ways to tweak the land 'just a little' to make for a'better golf hole' and for 'safety reasons'. But what the hell is wrong with shadows?! Where is the 'humaness'? (Or do we really want to agree with the film producers and say "after all, the young golfers today have grown up playing EA Golf on high-definition monitors and expect pristine conditions and Augusta-like forms"?) To paraphrase Don's post "Who says shadows aren't great?". They built Fenway the way they did because they had to, yes -- but it was allowed to be built that way in the first place because they weren't afraid of 'casting shadows'. Maybe it's because they weren't afraid of their own shadows. Hey - call it what you will; believe me, I understand the concept of working/creating within the 'conventional norms of the day', and of being creative within acceptable/traditional limits, and of giving people something that is within their 'comfort zone'. But I think it's important to be clear about the fact that this is what we're doing, i.e. we are working within conventions, and enforcing acceptable limits, so that the customer can be comfortable. Good - that's good. It's a good and valuable thing, worthy of respect. But it isn't transcendent, and will never be -- because we have set our sights too low; we have chosen to 'play in someone else's ball park' as it were, and to honour the collective taste and ideal instead of our own. How often in the last 80 years has a Marion Hollins-type driven a ball 220 yards over the ocean and had a golf courser architect say, "Yup, that's going to be a fine par 3"?. If you want to have the 16th at Cypress Point, you have to break a few eggs/forms.
End of rant and ramble.
Peter