Can you separate the process from the final product?

[George Pazin]

I was thread-jacking the Erin Hills thread with my debate with Bard, and now since the wise Terry has joined the fray, I figure it's time for a separate thread.

So what is your answer? I say an emphatic NO! NO NO NO!!

 

Seriously, I think to make a statement that you don't care about the process is bordering on meaningless. I think for any creative endeavor, the process and the final product are inextricably linked. Simple casual inspection would seem to confirm my hypothesis.

But I'd be curious to hear from others, particularly architects, though everyone should feel free to contribute, especially if you are in a field that can be considered analogous.

Fwiw, my sister and I once attended one of my dad's AIDS lectures. At the end, I asked him a question and my sister said later she thought I cured AIDS. Surprise, surprise, the actual AIDS researchers had already considered and dismissed my idea as implausible.

[Kalen Braley]

George,

I think you'll have to explain this a bit further so I can understand what you're really asking.

In my field, the process and the final product are in fact different..purely by definition.

For example, in my line of work, an example of a final product may be a piece of code that goes on a processor or some other internal snippet that is put on an embedded server part.  The process is how its determined what the code needs to be, who the customer is, the purpose it will serve and the who/when/how it will be developed and tested before being shipping.  The product is the piece of code that goes on the chip...which is completely different than the process of how it was made. 

So by definition they are seperate because they are not the same.

[George Pazin]

Gotta go pick up my son from first day of school, so I can't explain much further, but it boils down to the hypothetical posed on the other thread:

If someone had built course X, do you care how it was created? I believe 110% that the manner in which it was created cannot be separated from the final product. Courses don't just pop into existence spontaneously. Nor do great novels, great songs, or even great software - or even great legislation, if there is such a thing...

How you go about doing something has a great influence - maybe the greatest influence - on how the final product turns out, imho.

To say, if such and such a course were created by a random bunch of monkeys sitting at a computer, would you perceive it differently? is akin to saying if George were to wake up tomorrow and start shooting 62s and 63s, qualify for the Mid Am, win it and then win The Masters, would you view George's one victory differently than Mike Weir's?

I think we can agree that's an unlikely scenario...

Off to get the little man, will check in later.

[PCCraig]

George,

Of course the process is important, but as a pure consumer the final product is really the only thing that should matter. Personally, I don't care if C&C was out at Sand Hills with Bulldozers and TNT, or with horse & plow...as long as it plays and looks great I'll consider it a great golf course.


However, the best courses generally have the most interesting back stories and were built with unique techniques.

[Jud_T]

George,

How things were produced may color how I feel about an owner, GCA, membership and whether or not I support them on moral, environmental, business grounds etc.  It doesn't IMO matter strictly in terms of evaluating the golf course currently in the ground.  It does matter in terms of whether I want to give them my hard-earned dollars for greens fees/membership.

[Peter Pallotta]

Good question George, and so many ways to approach/discuss it.  I'll just go with my old stand-by, i.e. intention.  I think the architect's primary intention (or goal, if you like) will be imbedded (and hidden) within a given process of his own choosing/devising; and that this process will necessarily result in/express itself via the final product (made manifest).  So, no, I don't think you can separate the process from the final product, any more than you can 'separate' the 5 year old boy from the grown man he was destined to become.  What you sow is what you reap; or, to get all Beatlely on you, "in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make".  

Peter

[SL_Solow]

I suppose it depends on how you define the final product.  If the hypothetical courses were indeed identical down to the soils and infrastructure then from a playing standpoint it should make no difference.  But, if the creative process costs significantly more with one method rather than another, the cost to play and/or the liklihood of a successful venture may be materially different.  If the environment were adversely impacted by one method over another, that would be important.  So one must define the scope of the inquiry before one responds .

[David Cronheim]

I couldn't care less is the architect moved 10 spoonfuls of dirt or 10 million tons. All I care about is the final result. That said, I tend to prefer courses where the amount of earth moved was minimal, but I also like many courses where lots of dirt was moved. For example, I love some of the very artificial features on Raynor/CBM course that make them play like steeplechases.

In the end, it's all about how it plays. If someone picked up and plopped down my favorite course in a totally different spot, but recreated it perfectly, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

[Kalen Braley]

George and all,

Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand now and I too would have to go along with Davids basic thought here.

Whether a ton of dirt was moved, or just a bit...at the end of the day if it looks natural and you can't distinguish from mother natures and man's hand, then its all good.  Or even if it is obvious that man intervened, if its fun to play...then its good too.

I'm reminded of the thread from a couple of years back where we went hole by hole at Pacific Dunes and people tried to guess where Tom moved a significant amount of dirt.  At the end of the thread Tom judged the entire thing and the best person only got half of them right.  Most of us including myself, were lucky to get 25% of the man-made spots correct. I totally love Pac Dunes and its the most natural looking course I've ever seen.

Contrast that to Chambers Bay, a course I also love.  Its obvious in many cases where the dirt was moved, and we know from what was there before that the entire site is completely man made.  Yet the course is a blast to play with a ton of fun and epic shots. Both Pac Dunes and Chambers Bay are both in my personal top 5 of courses I've played and they both got there with what I would envision as two entirely different processes.  Yet I absolutely love both of these end products.

For that matter, even courses like Jim Engh's BlackRock I had a total blast playing too.  Sure no-one will ever try to call it naturalistic, but at the end of the day, it remains a lot of fun to play.  So one can argue we even have a 3rd process that resulted in a similar result....a wickedly fun course that I would jump at the chance to play again.

[paul cowley]

No...the process IS the final product.

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes!

I love you, Paul Cowley. (Sorry Andy, you're out...for the time being.)

Sort of like "Character IS Plot" to use a writer's idea.

Peter

[Sean_A]

Yes, for sure.  I think the process (the architecture) and the final product (the course) are separate, but related.  If I were a paid critic I have a duty to know the brief, limitations and process.  This is the only way I can separate criticism of the architecture and archie and make a reasoned judgement on the quality of the architecture.  As a punter all I care about is the finished product.  There is no duty to understand why things were done as they were if I am a paying customer.  My duty is to myself and my judgements need not in the least take heed of the whys of the architecture.    

Ciao  

[Terry Lavin]

Sure you can especially if you like pedantic exercise!  Both are worthy of discussion but the final product is more important as long as you get it right.

[Brad Swanson]

George,

Of course the process is important, but as a pure consumer the final product is really the only thing that should matter. Personally, I don't care if C&C was out at Sand Hills with Bulldozers and TNT, or with horse & plow...as long as it plays and looks great I'll consider it a great golf course.


However, the best courses generally have the most interesting back stories and were built with unique techniques.

Ding, Ding, we have a winner!

BTW, I participate in this very argument (from both sides) on a daily basis during my day job.

[paul cowley]

Yes!

I love you, Paul Cowley. (Sorry Andy, you're out...for the time being.)

Sort of like "Character IS Plot" to use a writer's idea.

Peter

[/quote

 

[Ben Sims]

George,

Of course the process is important, but as a pure consumer the final product is really the only thing that should matter. Personally, I don't care if C&C was out at Sand Hills with Bulldozers and TNT, or with horse & plow...as long as it plays and looks great I'll consider it a great golf course.


However, the best courses generally have the most interesting back stories and were built with unique techniques.

Ding, Ding, we have a winner!

BTW, I participate in this very argument (from both sides) on a daily basis during my day job.

Brad,

If you're in agreement with Pat's statement, then why were we ever arguing?  I care about process very much,but never MORE than product.  I get what you're saying now.  I just thought we had taken it to the extreme to make our points. 

[George Pazin]

At least paul understands what I'm saying! More tomorrow when I have time.

Brad, I would like to hear more about your work if possible.

[Mike_Young]

George,
I'm not sure I completely understand the question.  But as it pertains to GCA would I be close if I were to say that each style may require a different process.  I have always liked to "find "the course and yet other styles may choose to "place" the course.  These are two totally separate processes and the more expensive, time consuming one is not necessarily the best one IMHO.  Some like to build a course form the center stakes out and others like to build from the outside to the stakes.
The same question could be asked of push up greens vs USGA greens. 
Am I close or way off?

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - I can't answer for George, but it seems to me that, like Paul C, you are getting to the heart of it.  (Me too!).  Unless someone is an idiot or a hack, the steps one decides to take to get to an end goal are chosen precisely because those are exactly the steps required to get to the end goal.  If I wanted to get to Florida, I'd choose to start walking south; if I wanted to end up in Los Angeles I'd start walking west.  In other words, the process leads to the product, yes, but so too does the product shape the process.  To answer George's question, they can't be separated. Everything of import that happens in "Moby Dick" for example happens because of Captain Ahab's obsession with the great whale -- the plot/product comes about because of who and what the character/process is.

Peter 

[Mike_Young]

Peter,
You could walk north but it would take longer

[Peter Pallotta]

Tee hee - thanks, Mike, I'm going to start using that as my tag-line!  It fits just about anything, especially if you use it as a metaphor. 

Peter



"You could walk north, but it would take longer".

[Mike_Young]

Tee hee - thanks, Mike, I'm going to start using that as my tag-line!  It fits just about anything, especially if you use it as a metaphor. 

Peter



"You could walk north, but it would take longer".

I'm honored

[Brad Swanson]

At least paul understands what I'm saying! More tomorrow when I have time.

Brad, I would like to hear more about your work if possible.

George,
   I am R&D Director for the world's largest human stem cell company.  We take the human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and differentiate them into cardiomyocytes (heart cells), neurons (brain cells), hepatocytes (liver cells), and other cell types using very meticulous differentiation PROCESSES.  Our customers use the cells we make for drug discovery, toxicity testing, and general biological research.  This technology, only 3 years old, provides an amazing window into human biology that has never existed before (and gets around most of the ethical issues of human embryonic stem cells) and may one day in the not to distant future be the foundation for new therapeutic/regenerative medicine treatments. 
   This job is also one of the main reasons I no longer have a golf game, but that's another story for another time.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike - I can't answer for George, but it seems to me that, like Paul C, you are getting to the heart of it.  (Me too!).  Unless someone is an idiot or a hack, the steps one decides to take to get to an end goal are chosen precisely because those are exactly the steps required to get to the end goal.  If I wanted to get to Florida, I'd choose to start walking south; if I wanted to end up in Los Angeles I'd start walking west.  In other words, the process leads to the product, yes, but so too does the product shape the process.  To answer George's question, they can't be separated. Everything of import that happens in "Moby Dick" for example happens because of Captain Ahab's obsession with the great whale -- the plot/product comes about because of who and what the character/process is.

Peter 

Peter:

Your point may be a bit over my head, but I think I get the gist of it.  My client in China wants me to make a visit now [still pre-construction] to basically hold his hand and help him visualize the finished product ... I told him I can come, but it won't help because I don't really know the answers to his questions until we get a handful of holes roughed in and figure out what we are really going to do.  That's our process and I am sticking to it, even though it makes their banker uncomfortable.

[John Kirk]

No...the process IS the final product.

Nah, the golf course and the shots it yields are the final product.

You talk like an architect.