GCA and tastemeking

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeff Brauer asked an interesting question on another thread regarding crticism and tastemaking, and the role of GCA:

'...whether the art of golf design itself has any value if there are not critics to evaluate?  (If a golf course evolves in the woods, but nobody sees it, does it really exist?)

Your post also vaguely reminds me of several local art, restaruant and movie critics I read that seem to say, "They will like what I tell them to like!" Is this your percieved role of GCA - "tastemakers" in golf design?'

I personally do not look at myself as a 'tastemaker'. I definitely have my own personal tastes and preferences, and those tastes have prompted me to explore the subject - as to why I enjoy certain things and what are the origins of the designs I enjoy. And the more I look into to these things, the more I learn and try to share what I have discovered. Perhaps I may have had an indirect influence on someones tastes, but that has never been my goal. I believe since the early 30's the art of golf design has been neglected as far as analysis and study - especially from within the field. That is one of the beauties of GCA, a platform for architects to express themselves and to explore ideas.

What I find interesting is how tastes have changed and evolved over the years and the reasons for those changes--golf and non-golf related influences, a subject that has not been explored thoroughly. I think it is important to analyze and criticize contemporary design, and to compare it with design-good and bad-through the years, so you might put all eras in perspective. Certainly it is natural for contempory designers to believe they are created the best work their art has yet seen, but history teaches us that there have been many highs and lows in creative/artistic output - but perhaps we are now going through a high point. Time will tell.

What I do not appreciate is the approach taken by Tom Fazio and other modern architects who say on one hand they appreciate the work of past eras and enjoy studying that work, so they might learn....so they might learn what they can not do today, that they can't produce the mediocre to bad quirky golf holes that these old guys did. A pretty twisted and deliberately negative look upon the past in an attempt to elevate the present - bad form if you ask me. The guy has a ton of talent and has produced some excellent work - there is no reason for his inferiority complex and please keep him away from the great old courses. I appreciate designers who have actually taken time to study the past, the many good aspects and the few not so good. I'm not into lip service, especially lip service for the purpose of elevating one's own work above some past era.

Is there a underlying inferiority complex among a group of modern golf architects? And might that attitude contribute to the sad treatment of many great old courses?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I don't think you can look at the transition to the modern architect/course without looking in parallel at the transition of golfers, club members and society through the same period.

I think a perfect example is the absence and removal of almost every top shot bunker.  They didn't become extinct or disappear due to poor construction or lack of know how.
It was non-architectual issues that forced their demise.

It might be interesting to examine why certain features no longer exist, or are rare.  And, why was there a shift from penal to benign designs.

I suspect it mirrors societal changes or perceptions, and a diluting of unique and quality architecture in the name of:
the need for more fairness.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

What a great post!

I instantly think of the architects that have soundly made the neccessary adjustments to their careers paths and placed the element of success on the back burner in the attempts to get any original classic design back to its meaning. I see it as really hard work, and it takes a passion to do it.

-First, you have to the perfect green committee since most of these courses are private, then you have to educate the members who are all divided with the non-restoration half all citing, "Why did we change it in the first place?"

-Then you have the research involved, which is easily likened to finding a needle in a haystack since it seems like 99.9% of these clubs have had a clubhouse fire which destroyed all of the intregal doucments and pictures needed. Then try talking to a 94 year old man that is regurgitating his porage, trying to remember and recount to you where a bunker was, or how a green was shaped 75 years ago.

-Then comes the fun part. After working up a Master Plan, taking it in front of a club committee for passage, where each and every member has their own rock solid opinion of how "A" golf course should play. (All in relation to their own game, as well as their wife's.)

There should be a GCA badge of honor for every course and feature saved. We could call it the "TE Paul Purple Cross!"

Getting back the the topic.

You have Gil and Tom's firms both working on some of the greatest courses in the game.

Look how Brian Silva has overcome a very negative and unfair light, to become one of the better Ross people in the game.

Ron Prichard seems to also made great inroads in convincing and dealing with all of the above mentioned.

All of these men deserve GCA Purple Crosses.

And then you have one firm in paticular that comes in and simply and easily, with name value, destroys all of the meaning of that hard work. It is amazing how some people will go great lengths to have a certain persons name attached to their classic.

The first and most glaring, if not most obtrusive error is a course called Merion.

(Here we go again!)

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

Interesting topic.

I hope GCA can influence people's taste in golf architecture, but I'm not sure how much to expect.  GCA has had no impact on my preferences whatsoever.  Years of travel and visiting various golf venues determined what I most enjoy.  Isn't first hand experience likely to be most persuasive?  Don't you have to see and study classic architecture to really appreciate it?  How much can an Internet discussion group really do?

That said, it is not that unusual for me to receive private emails from people who seem to be influenced by discussion at GCA.  In one such email, someone asked me if I thought GCA had made me too critical of Tom Fazio and my home course.  He was a member of a Fazio club and seemed unsure of his architectural preferences just because of comments at GCA!

So who knows.  I'm guessing GCA's influence will be greatest with people who aren't familiar with many of the great venues, people who are just starting on their journey to learn about golf architecture.  For people who are a few decades into the process, GCA isn't likely to have much influence.

I'm not sure what to think about this inferiority complex thing.  Maybe someone like Tom Fazio is just selling his product.  Maybe he is making a business judgment that pointing out the "strengths" of his work and the "weaknesses" of classic era work is good for his firm and his employees.  It seems to me that Fazio is very much like other people in his profession: he tries to sell you on his product.  Nothing wrong with that.  You are the buyer.  You can make your own decision.

Finally, I don't like Fazio or any modern architect making significant changes to classic courses, but is the architect really to blame?  Who is really responsible?

If there is an inferiority complex, isn't it more likely to be resident in the buyer of such services who doesn't know the art form well enough to just leave a classic course alone, e.g., people who get star struck when big name architects show up?

[jglenn]

It's a fascinating discussion and one on which I had wanted to say something for quite some time.

Essentially, Should we design for the critics or for the masses?

I'll try to post more on that later.

[RJ_Daley]

We started to get into this discussion recently when considering "brand names" for architect identity.  Tastemaking is the product of publicized conventional wisdom.  If you have "critics" who have a platform, i.e., a magazine column on golf architecture, in a magazine that has infomercial advertising spreads to promote resort courses and mansion district golf communities, then you are going to present certain tastes to the masses who've not bothered to learn or study or contemplate actual golf course architecture.  Critics and commentators in the media, including those participants and contributors to the system of rating services in the magazines have a greater degree of understanding GCA than the masses.  Yet, they start to develop a conventional wisdom about what is great.  They are star struck to some degree by the mighty brand names if only to put a chance to critique the newest brand name course on high priority, because everyone is going to get there first.  The lesser known archies with no brand name will fall to a lower priority.  Yet, some of the lesser known brand names may be apt to do more with less and be more creative if only because they are not spread out on numerous projects due to their lack of being in demand and having multiple projects to manage.  The whole system self perpetuates itself and grows distorted.

I will concede that this does not apply to all those in the system of critique and tastemaking.  But, I feel it probably is accurate to describe the system in general...not certain individuals that make a greater effort  (I was impressed by the New Jersey Golfer sample I was sent as being a bit different than the mainstream)
 
Sure there is token attention given to non-brand name architects work.  But, it has to start with some sort of a buzz to get any focus.  It seems a lengthy process of building a cult following has to develop, like the cult of Doak.  So, with all the focus on the brand name work, which tends to be in the area of mega-bucks/mega-works resorts and mansion community golf courses, a certain wow factor manufactured in extreem designs gets to be the conventional wisdom explained to the masses, who don't invest time or inclination to learn for themselves, nor do they have many non-conventional or independent voices from the mainstream guides to help them discover the differences. (unless they stumble into golf club atlas and are open minded   )

[Mark_Fine]

I should probably hold back on commenting here till I thought this through a bit more but here are a few things that come to mind for now.

First of all, Tommy mentions Brian Silva, didn't Ron Whitten sight him a while ago as "the golf architect of the year" in GD??  Maybe Ron knew something back then that a few of us didn't!  

I still believe (and Pat aludes to this as well) that the biggest difference in architecture now vs. in the Golden Age of architecture is that today, golf architecture is treated PRIMARILY as a BUSINESS!  A few might be financially fortunate enough to treat it like a hobby, but most DO NOT.  Golf Course Design is an occupation and a business profession.  These guys design courses to make money!  To make money you need to please your customers and most of you know what I think pleases about 99% of the customers out there!  

Like most aspects of life, things come and go and I'm sure there will be continuous changes in golf course design over the next fifty years.  But one thing I'm reasonably sure about and that is that the paying customer will have the most influence in the direction those changes take!  There will always be a few radicals bucking the trend, some good some bad (we rarely talk about Muirhead and he has surely bucked the trend) but generally the consensus will rule!  
Mark

[RJ_Daley]

Yes Mark, but what processes or what influences shape the consensus?  Tastemaking; who drives it - from what notions are tastes conceived - and why?  Does tastemaking as it occurs benefit GCA?  Or do you not believe that tastemaking exists?  Is money/commercialism the root of all taste?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mark,
Spoken like a true CEO/President.

For me the problem is the profit motivation. Don't get me wrong, I hope for success for everyone, but not to the point where it changes a style or function of an art to the point that a course will not get built by so and so simply because he doesn't have Joe Q. Golf Professional signed on as a co-designer.

I was shocked a while back in a conversation with a few architects on how they have exhausted all the possibilities of signing any tour professional--that "they've all been taken!"

What a horribly sad state for the art.

What is compromised here is integrity in design, and even worse the sellout of principles. I cannot fathom how anyone could ever stand for it. Just knowing that the said name had very little if anything to do with the actual building, after it being publicized that he did, would make me want to avoid the place more then ever.

Where is our sense of value and decency to this fallacy, which is nothing more then lying to the public? Are people that naive?

I believe that a lot of this has to do with constructing things. The sense of accomplishment one gets when they do their job to the best of their ability and the pride it took in doing it. We can look at the time and patience craftsman of the past took in constructing some of the world's GREAT monuments to building architecture.

Today, it is about one thing. Ease of installment and cost effectiveness. It is goes back to the topic from some few months ago when we talked of pre-factory made styrofoam building materials becoming such a common denominator for mini-mall construction. Try explaining it all to an Italian or Greek Craftsman that constructed the Sistine Chapel or Parthenon.

No, we build them much better and quicker these days, and the end result is profit, not GREATNESS or a tribute to the art of design.

And yes, Ron Whitten is responsible for the total success of Brian Silva.

(You have totally missed that point.)

[A_Clay_Man]

I think there should be a rule of thumb for the ASGCA: For every course that a member refurbishes for free. They must do the same for 3 well renowned dogtracks. First, it would stop anyone from working for free for the wrong reasons. and second it would raise the bar for some of those farmland masterpieces we love to hear about. ( or at least twump nationwal)

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think some may be heading off in the wrong direction.

An architect gets paid a fee to design a golf course.

How does that, for profit emdeavor, negatively impact the quality of the product ?

With respect to the prime mover/s, what are his/their motives ?

The sale of houses, the sale of memberships, the sale of daily fees, creating his/their own golf dream ?

How good was the acquired land ?

What constraints existed that impacted the final product ?

Almost every golf course that has been built in America over the last 100+ years typically employed an architect  who was paid a fee.  How were those courses hurt by that fact ?

Almost every one of those courses employed firms/contractors/subcontractors who built those courses with the intent of making a profit.  How has that fact hurt the finished product at those courses ?

The Profit motive and Money aren't responsible for bad architecture.

Did the spending of enormous sums of money ruin or diminish
YALE'S architecture ?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
As soon as a golf course becomes "PRODUCT" it becomes greatly diminshed.

A GOLF COURSE is not PRODUCT. If it was, then it would be nothing more then a packaged experience, where each course is the same and its features repeated over and over with firm consistency.

Sort of like Corn Flakes. They are PRODUCT.

I also think you to are missing the point. This isn't about enjoying a measure of success. It is everything about abusing it. Of the names I have listed, they have in MY opinion taken the task of restoring original designs far and beyond what other GCA's could ever comprehend.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
The profit motive and money ARE very much so responsible for golf architecture.  Think about it like this:

There was this guy named Palmer who won The Open and made golf real popular and then they needed more golf courses for all the new golfers to play and also guys to design and build them and then everybody and their brother thought they were golf architects and could design courses and jumped on the bandwagon including guys who were previously in the landscaping business just planting flowers and shrubs and then the "real estate" guys saw an angle to sell expensive houses because golf was now on TV and people liked to see "pretty" pictures and pretty pictures could help sell property and then lots of very rich guys decided they wanted their own pretty courses and many tried to keep out doing each other so they started hiring famous golfers to add to the notority of their properties and then even more guys realized this course design stuff was easy money and they didn't have to know much but could still charge these outragous fees and then more guys got in because they saw how lucrative the business was and how much money was being tossed around and how much golfers were willing to spend to play as long as the place was green and well manicured and at the same time course owners realized they could make more money if speed of play was increased and more golfers could be pushed through the course so hazards were moved to the sides and on and on.......

Get my point  
Mark

Oh can GCA influence tastes? - maybe a little, but not much.  It might refine tastes for some but not for the masses.  At the end of the day, the owner and the paying customer are king.  If the owner wants a waterfall on the 18th hole because he likes them and feels his paying customers will as well, even the best will cave in as did Strantz at Royal New Kent and Hanse at Applebrook!  What are you supposed to do, walk?  

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

I'm kind of with Mark Fine on this.  Golf is a business, the customer will be king and only a small percentage of the golf market will have appreciation for fine architecture.

But, don't let that influence you.  The really good stuff is such a joy.  I just hope a few guys will remain committed and able to build more classics.  It's just that you might have to go far out of your way to see it.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeremy asked should architects design for the critics or the masses, my answer would be neither, a designer should design for himself. Who cares what the critics or the masses think if it doesn't strike a personal chord. If the architect is honest to his convictions and loves his art, both will come.

There is nothing wrong with an architect being successful and making money. But interesting architecture/great art and fanancial success or not mutually exclusive, do you think Ross, Colt or MacKenzie sacrificed either? In my mind its a poor excuse.

[Lou Duran]

I doubt that this site has a measurable impact on golf architecture.  A very small minority of golfers care greatly about what is discussed here, and a close look at the postings reveal that much of the content is generated by 10 to 20 GCA veterans.  Let's face it, the core is relatively small and somewhat insular.

Personally, my tastes for golf architecture have been affected by the learned views and opinions of many here.  I am more receptive to blind shots, quirky holes, and firm & fast playing conditions.  My thoughts on cross bunkering have changed (a few are desirable), and I have a greater appreciation for free-form hazards.  I no longer object to wildly undulating greens, and even enjoy the occasional uneven lie from the middle of the fairway after a drive that was well struck.  I still like trees, but now I prefer them on the periphery of the playing areas and once in a while at the turn of the dogleg.

I still have a hard time understanding some people on this site when they complain about money and golf.  Weren't most of the classic golf courses built by well-heeled individuals for their exclusive use?  Of course golf is to a large extent about money.  For some reason, Tommy's comments reminded me of Thomas Sowell's "In Search of Cosmic Justice".  Life is not fair.  If my father was a prominent businessman in NYC or Philadelphia, maybe I would now be a member of Winged Foot or Pine Valley.  But guess what, even with my relatively limited means, I can enjoy golf (and life) to a substantial degree.

Jeff Brauer and the rest of the boys will continue to build what their clients want, which generally reflects what the customer will pay for.  The best We can hope for (if I may include myself in the GCA group) is to be able to provide food for thought for the architects who frequent this site.  Perhaps they will gleen something useful from here which may influence their work in some small way.

I do believe that the major golf course ratings, and Mssrs. Klein and Whitten personally, can have considerable influence on architecture.  How often do golfers refer to these when choosing a course in an unfamiliar area?  I suspect that making "the list" is extremely important to many architects, developers, and investors.  I wonder how many more memberships or rounds of golf are sold as a result of being rated in the "Top 100"?  

[Shane Gurnett]

Guys

Some interesting comments raised here. To put a slightly different perspective on things, I'd like to draw on some professional experiences of mine over the last few years.

I work in property finance (mostly development), and every so often we have the opportunity to fund a new golf cours(s) development with the usual peripheral housing and leisure facilities. I'm speaking from an Australian perspective, however from what I understand the formular is the same worldwide.

Firstly, courses just wont come out of the ground on their own, unless you have a cashed up membership or you can cover the cost thruough selling inflated price allotments. To get the higher prices on the land sales, you need a course, and much more importantly a "name" attached to it of some note. Otherwise, you wont attract the punters and the land wont sell. The sunk cost into the course itself cant be recovered any other way. As for the course itself, little regard is given to the usual matters of routing, playablity, quality, etc (from a financiers perspective), other than it having a name attached to it. This is why so many ordinary courses are being built, simply because the market is happy to accept an average design for the sake of being able to live close by.

I suspect that things wont change that much in the next 10 years. For example, would the land sales generate an extra 10% for a Doak as opposed to a lesser designer? I'd like to think so, but unfortunately not. And therein lies the problem. I'd love to think that the cream will rise to the top, but from what I have seen, its just not a priority.

As I said earlier, I'm relating my Australian experinces here, and would be interested to see what is happening in the broader market.

[TEPaul]

Shane:

The way the development of the golf course/residential community appears to work in Australia is the same in America--just the way you described it in your post.

However, you said that here the buyer seems to accept an average golf course and you asked if land sales would generate an extra 10% with a Tom Doak course, for example!
Sort of an interesting example on your part and it might with Doak, although I doubt it, and for none of the reasons you think.

First of all the people who buy into these communities do not think they're buying into an average golf course! They think they're buying into a course designed by the very best in the world, whether that be Fazio, Palmer, Nicklaus, Jones or some of the other high profile designers.

I'm sure that most of the people who buy into these communities have little or no idea who Tom Doak is! In our opinon he's a better designer than those mentioned or at least he's designed better courses but those people don't know that or don't think that--not yet anyway!

I guess you might be able to make the case that a developer might be able somehow to generate an extra 10% with a Doak course but that would be a result of the fact that Doak could definitely build a better course for less than those other designers--but would that make up for the lack of sales due to the lack of designer name recognition? Probably not, not yet anyway!

Most of these people are buying a name, and although they may think it's a quality golf course that certainly is not necessarily so--although they may never know that or think that!

The best way to sell land, lots and golf anyway is generally to put up a Taj Mahal-like clubhouse first, a big showhouse that is decorated to appeal, a golf course with a name designer, put a nice looking wall or fence around the property, spend less than $50,000 for a nice guardhouse with a gate and sell the whole thing as a secure "gated residential/golf community"!

I'm not joking about that at all---it has worked over and over and over again and for many years!

And frankly, at this point, I doubt Tom Doak wants to get into that whole twist, and I can't say I blame him!

[Shane Gurnett]

Some good points TE. The "name" aspect is what gets the cash rolling in, but theres no correlation to the quality of design with profitability other than having a Palmer, or Nicklaus name on the prospectus. A sad thing. I guess what I'm trying to convey is that if a Tom Doak design were part of the fomular, those in the know might appreciate the difference (and the cost saving) but for the majority the name will be the single most important factor. I might add that I intend absolutley no disrespect to Mr. Doak, its just that he is not as well known in this part of the woods as some of the other names are. Hopefully that will change soon, for the better.

Shane

[cbradmiller]

Tom, your describition fits to a tee. I believe C&C might be closest to breaking the current circle that you describe, but sadly don't think they are there yet (too bad). Projects being done with "Golf" as the "prime" focus will be and are the first to break this circle, the less RE to be sold, the more important the actual golf is and that will yield a slighty more educated consumer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

I think you have to seperate the design of a new course from the restoration of an old one.  I think they are two seperate tasks to be viewed in different lights.

From my perspective, the restoration process SHOULD be simple because, in many cases, photographic and other evidence is in sufficient supply to allow the club to
"GET IT RIGHT".  I feel, the fault in failing to get it right lies with the membership, as much as with the architect.
The architect is in the club's employ.  If the Club's mission statement is to restore, then any deviation from that task, in most cases, should be rejected.  If the RESTORATION of the course is the goal made clear to the architect from the outset, and..... the club carefully reviews the architects plans, and oversees the work, in theory, nothing should go wrong, and the completed project should be a success.

All too often, a deviation is proposed and accepted, by either the architect or the club, and that begins to take the project down a dangerous hybrid trail, frustrating and altering the goal of the mission statement.

In a restoration, the PRODUCT is the recapturing of the
ORIGINAL OR TARGET YEAR GOLF COURSE.

Golf courses are not built in a vacuum, to be viewed for their art.  They are built to be PLAYED.  Let me repeat that, the primary, if only reason a golf course is built, is to be PLAYED.

Now, the product aspect rears its head.
To be PLAYED by whom

1.     To ne played by residents of the community only
2.     To be played by members only
3      To be played by resort guests only
4      To be played by the paying pubic
5      To be played by guests of the owner only
6      To be played by a corporations employees only

I'm sure others will add to those categories, but Tommy,
a lot of the design of this golf course will be determined by which category of player the course is being built for.

Tell me, if you were designing a course for category # 1 and
#3, that you would build Pine Valley, GCGC or NGLA.
Those designs are in conflict with the PLAYERS intended to traverse the golf course, and the forces behind the project would not permit it.

If you go back to the classics, category # 1 didn't exist,
category # 3 and # 4 were just starting to evolve, and category # 6 was rare, if non-existent.

Categories # 2 and # 5 were the primary end users, hence the designs were more focused on what we would call, traditional values.  At the time the classics were built, there was a clear connection with golf in Scotland and England.
Those architects, some from those countries, had their ideas and concepts strongly influenced by those roots.

With a modern new course, it is a PRODUCT, created for a reason.
Shadow Creek would be a noticealbe example, but then again,
so would AppleBrook.  Looking back historically, one could consider NGLA and Seminole in the same light, products, created for a purpose, and you have to differentiate that purpose when evaluating a golf course.

As an example:
Suppose I owned several casinos in Atlantic City, and suppose I owned some Bay property, and I commissioned you to build me a golf course, that my gambling customers, and hotel guests (men and women) would enjoy,
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD FOR ME ?
 
How would your answer differ if I said, I have plenty of land, build TWO courses for me.

[ian "ebert"andrew]

Tom M,

There is no underlying inferiority complex with modern architects. This is a phase, every type of art goes through periods and cycles. Music had punk, disco and metal to name a few. Art had cubism, modernism, etc. Golf also has gone through many stages; the golden age, mechanization, etc. ; welcome to the "IMG" era. Unfortunately for golf marketing is currently king. This is the era where a big name means a big deal. Maybe this should be called the "Golf Digest" Era, since the writings of Ron Whitten had a lot to do with this.
Fortunately, like disco, this era will pass to. We will look back at the Shadow Creek and others and hold them up as prime examples of the era. We will also look back at a lot of other big budget, monster home surrounded, courses and shake our heads.

While the art mainstream chases the current "style", great careers come from ignoring the trends. Pete Dye took his era of architect in a new direction, for this history will recognize him as one of the great architects . Right now there are many architects pushing against the current era of one-upmanship; it is there that will find the start the next new era. Crenshaw and Coore could be the beginnings of what will become popular.

The good news for many of you GCA posties, is art usual will shed its acumulated excess for something new, simpler and pure.

Excellent topic Tom.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just a couple of thoughts:

Tom MacWood,

Perhaps a bit idealistic in the "designing for yourself" idea.  Design schools spend the first two years of the curricula beating the notion of the " master designer" out of you.  Analysis and design for a site specific user or specific need are the norm.....and designing for yourself, or at least for your own view of golf (ie, the Nicklaus high fade) has not been well recieved as carefully studied designs that let all players play their games.

ian,

You make good points about cycles.  I wonder (and I bet Tom MacWood would know) if any great art/design era began by copying previous eras, or if they arose out of original ideas and uses of new building technolgy?  If not, then current emulation of 1930's golf design is likely to be viewed in the future as a fad, and not a trend. If on the other hand, designers end up using the best features of all eras in a logical, site specific way, and tailored to the realistic -not wishful thinking- of how golf is played TODAY, then a classic design or two will likely emerge.

I am thinking about the general thrashing the Beaux Arts school, such as the Chicago World's Fair in a Roman style, took, versus the Wright Prairie style which evolved organically from local materials and the horizontal sympathy to the flattish midwestern landscape.  The debate about that design style was at least as vociferous as anything on this site.....

Who would want to do the Andy Warhol soup can again, and it was interesting, but not great, but it probably allowed a lot more things to happen in art later on, by building on the essence of the pieces non comformity to existing art principals.  Why should anyone copy the golden age exactly, as opposed to creating something new by combining previously uncombined elements?  In essence, that is what Pete Dye did.....

While I generally agree with the "less is more" design philosoph, minimalism just for the sake of minimalism is not a valid design idea, certainly no more noble from a designer's perspective than forcing a real contrivance on the land just because you can.  If the need is there based on the site and the clients needs, and how the end user will be affected, we should use technology to solve design problems and let the style chips fall where they may.

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci:

Really good post there! Voluminous and looking at architecture from all angles and very realistically! Your post spells out why I resist sometimes the "one size fits all mentality" in most everything to do with architecture whether it be the subject of bunkers, trees, greens, the "style" of a course or its basic "intent", or the CCFAD vs a classic like NGLA. Why I think there can be anything and everything in the world of golf and its architecture, if there's a need and use for it.  

What you say is one of the reasons I resisted the crux of the long Pine Valley thread debating that it was not the "ideal" course. "Ideal" for what?  Ideal for everyone? It was never intended to be for everyone and shouldn't be criticized if it isn't for everyone. Ideal for what it was designed to be, a championship golf course (for its era) with super high quality architecture throughout? Definitely!

These differences shouldn't mean though that we can't compare and critique golf architecture for quality or other things. There's no reason why you can't compare and even critique almost anything for that matter. What's a better car for engineering, design, style, performance etc, a Ferrari or a Neon? There's no question about it. Is there a need and a use for both? Definitely!

Just really understand what architecture is about though and like those cars don't mix them up, don't try to interchange their parts and expect the same things from the one as the other!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Ian
I agree with your appraisal. Perhaps inferiority complex is not an accurate discription, I'm not sure how to describe the need to tear down past golf architects in attempt to elevate his own work? I think he may be focused too much on the ranking systems, he sees past architects dominating these rankings and in an odd way he sees himself in competition with these men. The result is a slick and diplomatic lashing out at these old masters. I really don't believe he has spent much time studying their work, any studying has been focused in trying to find their weaknesses in an attempt to degrade them/elevate himself.

Jeff
The designing for yourself comment was in response to Jeremy's question about seeking critical acclaim, should you design to please the critics or should design to please the masses. Obviously one needs to accomplish what the client is requiring, but as far as the artistic side is concerned, if you do not follow your own artistic urges and attempt to create work that might please a critic or the masses you are appt to fail at both. As far as the practice of excercizing the master within, is there anything to gather from the past golf architect's lack of formal design training? They came from every concievable background but design.

Trying to copy the style of the 30's is in my opinion a mistake and rarely works. The architects of the 10's, 20's and 30's were successful not because they were copying a certain style or expressing a common style, the reason they were successful is because they had a similar approach. They believed that whatever their style, and there were many differing styles (including so called minimalists and non-minimalists), their designs should be in accord with nature. That ideal will succeed in any era and is not effected by how the game is played today, yesterday or tommorrow.