[Rich_Goodale]

Hi Mark.

Yo talkin' to me?!  If you want to use the nickname, I prefer that it be tyoped into Brian, as in "The life of..." with whom I identify far more than with Steven Hawking.  "Rich" however, remains #1 on my Top 100 listing of "Names I've been Called."

That being said I very much like the Doctor's statement--largely becaue it is a thesis rather than a prescription.

I agree strongly that there is such a thing as "beauty," and that things can be compared in terms of beauty.  Even though these comparisons may vary from person to person there is usually some sort of general consensus.  This is probably due to some sort of "hard wiring" in the collective and individual human brain, which was recognised at least as early as the Greeks in their identification of the "golden section" and continues to try to be explained in linguistic and other theory up to these days.  Whew!


One of the key reaons that I like the statement is that in it he does NOT try to assume that "naturalness" has anything directly to do with the "beauty" of a golf course, AS A GOLF COURSE.  This fits with my lifetime of observation, where beautiful courses can be built in areas of little natural beauty (e.g. TPC-Sawgrass) and relatively "ugly" ones in places of significant beauty (e.g. Pasadera).

One thing I am not sure of is when McK speaks of the "fundamental laws of balance, of harmony, of fine proportion."  I think this is a "true" statement, as said above, but these "laws" are still unable to be properly expressed by we humans, particularly when said in regard to such a complex, mutable and interactive "art" form as a golf course.  It is easy to speak of laws when there is not a law book for reference.  This is why there is so much fuzzy thinking in the area of GCA, IMHO--on this site and in the writings of the "masters."

I think we can talk and should about specifics of hole design, as Jeff Brauer stated so eloquently on one of this morning's posts.  However, when we venture out into the course-wide discussions, and routing, and attemtps to classify courses by degrees of "naturalness" I think we are in for a fun ride, but we are all speaking off the top of our heads, which is why I suggested a few weeks ago that those who really think they have answers to the question of "why is a golf course beautiful" ought to be lecturing at Harvard on physiological and or spiritual aesthetics.  That one is well, well beyond me......

Cheers

Rich

[John_D._Bernhardt]

The Good Doctor said it best and they are words and concepts to remember.

[TEPaul]

MarkH:

Here's an interesting quote that should be considered as a supplement to yours by MacKenzie. This one may go a bit beyond MacKenzie's about "the fundamental laws of harmony, balance and fine proportion..." and maybe into some the feelings of golfers as they react to things on a golf course, albeit subliminally, as to whether they are or appear artifical or natural! And this quote tries to touch on not just what a golfer might simply observe but how he might react even as to strategy or the criticism of it!

"What then is art in golf architecture? What are the values we should seek or the methods we should adopt to arrive at them?

If we examine our courses in general, we shall find that wherever the modifications of the ground have been so inwrought as to be inevitably a part of their surroundings, not only are they liable to manifest beauty, but we can be relatively sure the work promises to endure. Experience has taught us that courses constructed with no higher end than merely to create a playground around which one may strike a ball, present the golfer with little more than a landscape brutalized with the ideas of some other golfer.

We forget that the playing of golf should be a delightful expression of freedom. Indeed the perfect rhythmic coordination of the muscles to swing the club makes the golf stroke as art. And, being such, it is apt to induce an emotional state, under the stress of which human nature is not rational, and resents outspoken criticism. It follows that when the canvas of nature over which the club-stroke must pass is filled with holes artifically designed to impede the golfers progress, these obvious man-made contraptions cause a violation of that sense of liberty he has every right to expect. This accounts for the checkered history of every artifically appearing golf course"

[Mike_Cirba]

Some awesome quotes here.

Tom Paul, how long are you planning to keep us in suspense as to the author?

[TEPaul]

Sorry about that MikeC:

I didn't really mean to keep you or anyone in suspense about authorship for more than an hour or two. I felt like holding off on the authorship so RichG wouldn't immediately call the author a champagne socialist dilletante air head with sub-artistic thoughts and sentiments.

It's Max Behr included as a sidebar in GeoffShac's new book "The Art of Golf Design", following GeoffShac's own excellent essay entitled "The art of golf architecture". Behr's short article following GeoffShac's essay is also entitled "The art of golf architecture", 1927.

[Rich_Goodale]

Tom

I knew it was Behr.  I'd hate to be back in 8th grade and have to try to parse any of those sentences.....

Rich

[Tom Macwood (Guest)]

Rich
MacKenzie addresses your question about why you find beautiful courses in areas of little natural beauty and relatively "ugly" ones in places of significant beauty, and it has to do with a golf architects ability, or lack of ability, in recongnizing and utilizing natural beauty when he is confronted with it and when not blessed with it, his trained eye for it assists him creating features as naturally as possible. Not all great architects were talented in both, but in my opinion the former is more important than the latter. Of all the golf architects, MacKenzie was probably the most out spoken propent of the advantages of Nature.

I don't think it is beyond you, or anyone on this site, to explore why a golf course is beautiful or why most importantly a golf course is interesting. Isn't that the purpose of this discussion group - to indentify why certain courses are appealing - and isn't that what golf architect asks himself everyday or at least shouldn't that be what he is asking himself?

[Dan Kelly]

Rich --

Forget about Behr. You should be glad you're not in 8th grade (or any other grade) and have to parse any sentence -- including this one: "I think this is a 'true' statement, as said above, but these 'laws' are still unable to be properly expressed by we [sic] humans, particularly when said in regard to such a complex, mutable and interactive 'art' form as a golf course."  

All --

I'm not enough of a scholar to know if there is any such thing as a universal, "hard-wired"  consensus about beauty -- or any "fundamental laws of balance, of harmony and fine proportion."

If you think there is and/or are: What is it? What are they?

[Dr Kildare]

Ahhh 8th grade.....three of the best years of my life...

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Dan
Does one have to be a scholar to explore aesthetics or to discover why they find something beautiful? To say it is beyond the average person, or even the above average person, seems like a cop out to me -  don't we know why we find certain music exhilirating or a story interesting or a film provoking? Its not Einstein's theory of relativity. What are the most beautiful golf courses in your experiences and why do you like them? As far as man being hard wired, I do think aesthetic scholars have discovered certain natural features that man finds aesthectically pleasing and they claim that it has do to with an innate desire to survive and man's long running battle with the many forces of nature.

[Rich_Goodale]

Dan

Thanks for seeing the irony in my statement about parsing, even before I did.  I didn't take as long as Dr. Kildare to finish the 8th grade, but I did spend 113 of the 181 school days that year in detention (that ranked me @2 in my class).

TomMacW

I fully agree that we can all see beauty in all natural things and that we can all generally agree on which golf courses or golf holes are more aethestically pleasing than others.  I just don't think any of us can explain why, i.e. I beleive that the "laws" that MacK talked about, if they exist, have not been revelaed to any human being.  If you've heard differently, tell us about it.

Cheers

Rich

[Rich_Goodale]

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.11/wine.html

Can't remember if I've mentioned this before, but the above link is to an article which describes (seriously, I think) a geek who has found a way to chemically analyze the finest wines in the world and come up with "ratings" which almost perfectly map those of human experts, particularly Robert Parker.

Essentially, this technology allows the inventor to "accurately" rate wines without ever drinking them, just by looking at their composition.

Can golf courses be far behind?  Or, did MacKenzie and the others already crack this problem many, many years ago?

Just wondering....

[TEPaul]

There certainly is an ongoing dialetic among a number of us about whether some of the things we see on a golf course are aesthetically pleasing forms of naturalness and also how the work of an architect on a golf course compares (or contrasts) with that naturalness. Nothing wrong with that and it probably is a lot of the essence of this subject of ours on the analysis of golf architecture or even the art of golf architecture.

We also look to some of the older architects and their work and certainly their writing on this subject, particularly since they seemed to concern themselves with this subject to a large extent. Nothing wrong with that either.

Do we see beauty in the forms of nature? Some of us think we do. Others may not or may not see it the same way. Do we need to prove to them what we see regarding beauty? Do they need to prove to us we really can't see what we think we can in that regard? To both of those questions--of course not!

It seems to me that Rich Goodale or anyone else on here, for that matter, is not really saying that he doesn't think we are able to see what we think we do. What he might be saying, though, is he doesn't think we can prove some universal validity of what we're seeing. He seems to be saying that he doesn't think the likes of MacKenzie, Hunter or Behr can either!

Rich, particularly, seems to be putting this entire discussion and subject into the actual context of the philosophy of "Aesthetics". That would be something in the vein of; "The study of the qualities perceived in the works of art, with a view to the abstraction of prinicples". Or; "The study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty".

There is certainly nothing wrong with Rich doing that either. Frankly, it's a good test, a good framework to discuss this subject, particularly if any of us really want to convince  others of what we might think we see and what we think others should too!

Sometimes Rich says in this context that he really doesn't even think that golf architecture can be considered art--at least not in the same way as other forms of art. I, for one, really don't know about that, but I don't think I really want to get into a dicussion of the finer points of what constitutes art. I don't think I want to get into a discussion either about what might be a "consensus making mechanism" in Man's mind like some form of "hard-wiring" or even an area the Greek's might have thought they found, known as the "Golden Section".

But on the subject of naturalness in golf architecture I would like to look into what MacKenzie, Hunter and Behr thought they might  be seeing when looking at a natural dune formation, for instance, and how it might have been formed by nature. And even how it might make man feel while observing it, even on a golf course, even while playing golf. And also how it might make man feel if an architect copied such natural formation or not--and also how well he may have done that!

Is that the observation or discussion of art or even aesthetics? I don't know and I don't care much either. Should everyone see these things? I don't know that either.

But are the things we discuss here in architecture things that are connected to some law of nature, some natural balance or fine proportion of nature? Not sure about that either.

But I did get a bit of a surprise the other day in that vein. Gil Hanse and I went to look at some really good architecture and some of what we consider really natural looking bunkers.

As we were looking at it and analyzing it Gil mentioned that Bill Kittleman, for one, firmly believes that there is in fact some form of "law" in the formation of these types of things by nature. To what degree this may depend on the subject of "randomness" in nature and how or how many factors may be involved in all of this I'm not sure. But is there some natural "law" in this somewhere? Maybe even one that can be broken down into a formula? Bill Kittleman thinks so somehow and so does Gil. That it can even be looked at in the relationship of the base grade of sand to its upsloping gradient, the length of that gradient and the dimensions (weight?) of where it ends. That given certain factors there is very much a natural relationship in how these things come to be naturally and also how they breakdown!

Think about that! I'm no geophysicist, nor do I want to be but it sounds like there surely is something in that. Are some of these things the "law" of nature at work? Probably!

Think of natural drainage for instance, and how it works on land formations. If you look at a golf course on a clear day can you see it? If you look at a golf course in the midst of a deluge can you see it? You sure can!

If you watch a natural dune on a windy day can you see how the sand blows and sweeps and creates formations of clear beauty of balance, proportion and even harmony? I think so! Are there particular "laws" of nature at work before your eyes that apply to this process of creation and eventual disintegration? It seems that there might be!

That may be what some of these men are talking about or  even how it may effect a golfer in the context of whether he feels it appears naturally created or not. For this I can understand why they concerned themselves with this subject and why they tried to copy nature.

Let the dialetic continue...

[Rich_Goodale]

Tom

Great post.  In fact, an early favorite for Post of the Year!

You pretty much accurately sum up what I'm trying to say (I can't speak for the 'others' you refer to).  Just a couple of clarifications.  Firstly when I say GCA is not an "art" I am merely repeating what my dictionaries and encyclopedias and common sense tell me--that architecture falls into a fuzzy area between the "fine" arts (e.g. painting, music, sculpture, etc.) and crafts (e.g. manufacturing, engineering, gardening, etc.).  I'm more saying that the "artsy" status of GCA is questionable rather than one way or the other.

More importantly, I think GCA is unique among all the arts and crafts in that it is multi-dimensional, interactive and mutable.  While it may be possible to apply formulae to two-dimensional objects such as paintings to see how they conform to any 'law" of "standard" such as the golden mean, or whatever, how can you do that to a 3-dimensional object, such as a golfing green?  With difficulty, I would say, if at all.

Adding to that problem is the fact that the "value" of any view of any golfing object varies infinitely, depending on where the player is, what his or her ability is, the meteorology of the moment, his or her psychology, etc.  For a simple example, think of the green complex of the 18th at the Old Course.  It looks very different from the right side of the fairway and the left.  Very different from 150 yards out vs. 50 yards out.  Very different in a North wind vs. an East wind.  Very different in the light of Summer and the light of Fall.  Very different to Tiger Woods than to you and to you than to me.  Very different if you or I need a 4 for 69 or a 3 for 79.  Different if it is your first time and you get a lump in your throat looking at the Auld Grey Toon in the backdrop, or a seasoned veteran for whom that view merely warms the cokcles of your heart.  And....this is the simplest of holes.  Think of the additional complexities of the 17th........

Finally, what I call "mutability."  This includes all of the variables listed above, but also includes the variable of time.  Landscapes are formed, by whomever, or however, but they are not things that "are" but things that are in the process of being.  I have spent much of much of my life in dunesland and linksland.  Every summer from age 0 to 18 playing in the sand dunes of Cape Ann in Massachusetts.  Most of most every summer since 1978 playing golf on the linksland in Scotland, Ireland and England.  I can say with complete experiential confidence that sand dunes shift--certainly from year to year, and most probably from day to day.  I can also say wtih complete confidence that trees grow.  I grew up in a house on a street called "Pasture Lane."  When my family bought the land and built the house it was a pasture.  Today, only 50 years later, it is an arboretum.  I am also becoming increasingly convinced that even the groomed linksland over which I have played much golf over the past 25 years has changed too.  "Poofs" have become "bumps" and "bumps" become "humps."  Just from natural processes--including the heavy feet and gouged mashies of man.

So, a golf course is a dynamic object.  It changes.  It mutates.  No architect or artist (or critic or golfer) is smart enough to anticipate how these changes will play out.  In fact, after a year or two, the object of the architect's "art" is almost completely in the hands of the owners of the land and of the people he hires to supervise that land.  Which is why the "maintenance meld" is so very important to the beauty and utility of any golf course, no matter how we choose to define those terms.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
You might not agree with MacKenzie's or Behr's and others reasons (Nature) why certain things were aesthetically pleasing, but the fact that they attempted uncover the keys says something. You seem to agree that Nature is beautiful. So I guess you are saying that the reasons why human beings find Nature beaufitful is the mystery. Modern aesthetic study has done a very good job of uncovering those reasons and is pretty much in agreement. They attempted to prove their theories throughout the differing naturalistic arts - although not in golf architecture as far as I know. Maybe that will be my next project.

You have a very narrow definition of the Arts, surprisingly not inclucing Architecture or Landscape Architecture - I would say you are in the minority when it comes to art not being active or interactive.

And as far as the chemical equation identifying Parker's tastes (and American tastes) - I could have done that - Oak.

[Rich_Goodale]

Tom MacW

Not very convincing.  You can do better.  Try again, if you wish.

Rich

[RichardH.]

To all,

WHAT IS THE ART OF GOLF DESIGN?

WHAT IS THE ART IN GOLF DESIGN?

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ART?

[Ed_Baker]

Once again we enter the realm of the indefineable.The appreciation of beauty is personal and entirely subjective.Quite often,rhetoric even of the highest order,proves inadequate in describing feelings.

There are no absolutes in the arenas of art,beauty,or golf architecture, the emotions each has the capacity to evoke are infinite and distinctly personal, running the scale from abject despair to ecstasy. The only commonality is that the truly great examples of each are powerfully evocative by virtue of their existence.

Take 100 golfers ranging in experience and zeal from casual intermediate to expert veteran, have them play Pine Valley  and NGLA and all would have powerful opinions on each course ranging from the in depth analysis and reverence routinly espoused on this site, to declaring some holes unplayable and absurd. However, the passion and conviction of the opinions would be more powerful simply because the experience was more extreme and therefore memorable than lesser courses might evoke.

Some people are just as moved by velvet Elvis' as they are by the Mona Lisa. Why, is the mystery of the human condition.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

We may be getting near a meeting of the minds here--possibly near enough to forego long posts!

The "Golden Mean" huh? And you need two dimensions to envision "formulae" into a standard--into a medium? Why not three dimensions or four dimensions? Why is it that these things must not be "mutable", "multi-dimensional" or even "interactive". Who said so? Your dictionary or encyclopeadia? Or some Greek in a toga and sandels who thought he was smart and others did too a few thousand years ago?  How do you know Max Behr is not the equal of or even far more innovative and truthful than the smart Greek dude of BC?

Who cares if Tiger is on the left side of #18 of TOC in 2000 and I'm on the right side in 2003? Does that mean that #18 is any less valid, less natural, less anything else? Does that mean he absolutely must see it differently than I do? Does all this prove there can be no "Mean", no "Medium" or "Standard"?

Does Tiger see what I see if he stands next to me and looks at a painting by Van Gogh? But it is possible to apply formulae and a "medium" to that two dimensionality?

You must open your mind and realize that at this very moment our scientific boys are beginning to ponder the validity of our known dimensions. Do you know they are almost convinced that there may be seventeen dimensions  or maybe nineteen? Furthermore, they may be coming to believe that these dimensions maybe razor-thin universalities closely juxtaposed to one another!

Are you ready for that or are you just going to revert back to the Greek dude two thousand years ago for validity? I remind you that in this probable new existence that I will beat you in golf far more often! You may be longer than me but I'm straigher than you and in these razor thin dimensionalities  closely juxtaposed to one anothe you are likely to hit your ball into another dimension far more often than me! It may or may not be OB, depending on the "containment mounding" of these dimensions but even if it isn't OB you may not find your ball! If you hit it out there it very well may never have existed!

So open your mind and never again question Mother Nature or even Max Behr and certainly not in the name of some two thousand year old Greek dude!

[Dan Kelly]

Tom MacWood --

I wrote: "I'm not enough of a scholar to know if there is any such thing as a universal, 'hard-wired' consensus about beauty -- or any 'fundamental laws of balance, of harmony and fine proportion.' If you think there is and/or are: What is it? What are they?"

You answered, somewhat more in-your-facially than I expected: "Does one have to be a scholar to explore aesthetics or to discover why they find something beautiful? To say it is beyond the average person, or even the above average person, seems like a cop out to me -  don't we know why we find certain music exhilirating or a story interesting or a film provoking? It's not Einstein's theory of relativity...."

I agree with you: The question of why something is or is not beautiful (to you, or to me, or to that fellow behind the tree -- a tree which he or you or I may, or may not, find beautiful, more or less) is not Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Here is my completely unscholarly hypothesis: It is an infinitely (yes, infinitely!) more difficult question, and it can never (yes, never!) be reduced to an equation, to anything so absolute as e = m times c-squared.

You ask: "Don't we know why we find certain music exhilirating or a story interesting or a film provoking?" I answer, again, from my non-scholarly perspective: No. I do not believe we know why WE find certain music exhilarating or a certain story interesting or a certain film provoking. My guess -- note: guess -- is that a person finds something (a golf course, a woman, a song, a movie, a piece of writing, whatever) sublimely beautiful -- or quite beautiful, or marginally beautiful, or not beautiful at all, or downright ugly -- because of some mysterious combination of genetics and experience. Mysterious, and unquantifiable -- but, in any event, individual.

Isn't it remotely possible that when it comes to aesthetics, there is no "WE"? That there is you, and there is I, and there is every other person on Earth, and that each of our views of beauty are peculiar to each of us? That, to me, is a beautiful possibility! You may -- or may not, of course -- agree.

My hunch -- note: hunch -- is that there are, in fact, no "fundamental laws of balance, of harmony and fine proportion," and that Doctor MacKenzie was so much in love with his own views of things, and so taken with the sound of his own charmingly, disarmingly arrogant voice, that he came to consider his views "fundamental laws."

I'm perfectly happy to discuss which golf courses (and women, and movies, and songs, and books, and writings) I have found most beautiful, and to tell you what I found beautiful about them (insofar as words will allow me to do so). But as to WHY I found beautiful WHAT I found beautiful: I think that's beyond me. I'd have to study my genetic map and witness my own life from my mother's womb forward -- and even I don't have time for that!

Call this a copout, but when it comes to beauty (and to academic investigations thereof), I think I'll side with E.B. White's view: "Beauty can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind."

Well, OK, all right: Mr. White did say that about humor, not about beauty. But if the shoe fits...steal it! (Is that funny? Yes? Why? Would everyone find it funny? No? Does that mean that there are, in fact, no fundamental laws of humor?)

I close with a few more choice words from Mr. White:

Wife: "It's broccoli, dear."
Husband: "I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it."

  

  

[Rich_Goodale]

Tom P

You, Ed and Dan have said it all.  I promise not to write any long posts anymore, but ONLY if you promise not to not do the same.  Were you to retreat to the internet hell of forced pithiness, this site would become, to paraphrase Dr. McCoy, "It's GCA, Tommy, but not like any GCA we've ever seen before!"

Keep those fickle fingers flying.

Rich

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
From your brief response I take it you are an Oak man.

I'm just happy you now acknowledge that we can all see beauty in all natural things. There is hope for you afterall.

Why must art be static in your mind? I suspect because you have very narrow view of art --  either painting or sculpture. I see it more like Ruskin - seeing no difference between artist and craftsman. He viewed the nameless medieval craftsmen as among the greatest most talented artists in history and he understood that their works were not static and that they evolved and changed.

You would like to equate those who admire past golf architecure and those who advocate restoration as fighting the laws of Nature and change. No one wants to restore the exact formation of the dunes at the Old course or County Down. And no one wants to hault a tree or bush from growing. Most restoration advocates are preservationists first. There would be no need to restore X course if they had not butchered by Y in 1954 or in 1969 or in 1977.  If there had been a preservationist there at the time, there would be no need for a restorationist today. Likewise no one wants to stop the natural growth of a tree, but only to restore the strategic qualities of the original design. If there had been someone looking to preserve that original intent perhaps the idiotic greens-chairmen who were keen on arboretiums could have been prevented from planting trees by the thousands. And no one is advocating that every old golf courses is great or even good and can not be improved through change -- just be sure that the change is well considered and is in fact an improvement.

As far as aesthetics and natural beauty is concerned - there is a theory that it can be traced to man's innate survival instincts. Which boils down to two major forces, man's need for refuge and protection (hiding, not being seen)
and prospect, man's need to see what is incroaching and around him. The third important criteria are hazards [animate (human or non-human); inanimate (weather, instability (e.g., glacier), water (ocean, rivers), fire, locomotion (e.g., cliffs); impediments (natural, artificial)] and the exhiliration they seem to stimulate.  Many of the most aesthecially appealing visions in nature share these chacteristics.

Dan
Since it is a difficult question and since we are unable to create an equation to explain exactly why we find something aesthetically pleasing, should we not attempt to uncover the factors/reasons? Should we just except our tastes and leave it at that? Do you think it is a futile excercize, to explore why one finds certain golf courses more appealing than others?

I agree aesthetcs are very subjective, but there does seem to be certain univeral truths in what Man finds aesthectically pleasing in Nature. And those truths might explain why certain golf courses and golf holes are appreciated.

[Rich_Goodale]

Tom MacW

One of these days please reveal these "universal truths" you are aware of to us.  None of the golden age writers you hold so dear has yet some close to doing so, at least for me.

PS--please also read the Wired article.  You will see that it has nothing at all to do with "oak."  In fact it is "anti-oak", or cherry-berry, or any other fuzzy-wuzzy description that poseurs make about wine.  It is in fact perhaps a clue which might allow you to find or better describe some of those elusive uinversal truths that are so dear to you and Dr. MacKenzie.....

As for me, you know well that I take my Gaja Nebbiolos chilled with a twist of lime and a stick of marinated melanzane and a soupcon of indifference.....

[TEPaul]

RG-text or design, length bad, pith good

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
It usually helps if you actually read them.

I think that might be my next project exploring what amn finds aesthetically pleasing in Nature (common characteristics that transend locations and cultures) and how that effects golf design. As my 'Arts and Crafts Golf' resulted in or cemented your anti-Golden Age/Arts & Crafts tendencies. Hopefully this project might result in or the cementing of your anti-aesthetics in golf tendencies. Following that I will explore sexuallity and golf, which will cement your anti...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()