Analyzing what's natural and what's not!

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Very good call on Pete Dye in the context of this subject of "natural" and "unnatural" and what's important in golf architecture. Obviously, Pete is immensely talented in architecture and his contribution is significance as much or more for the direction he took the art in as for what he actually created! Nobody much would deny that Pete's style and his courses play great--maybe different but great!

But lots of people in the know say that it's sort of ironic what Pete (and Alice) came back with idea-wise and what they started using as a result of their year of architectural study in Europe. Like a lot of the highly manmade looking features that apparently fascinated them on the old courses--sleepers, man-made supports and how they effected golf strategy and such with their razor thin margins for error! And everybody who knows Pete knows he loved running the machinery!

Actually, it's ironic for me since I've known Pete most all my life (a great friend of my Dad) and in all that time I don't remember once saying one word to him about golf architecture or he to me. Mostly, I'm sure because I didn't have the vaguest interest in the subject! I did talk quite a bit to P. B. about it but much later and still when I had no interest in it.

P.B. is one hilarious guy and Pete and Alice are great people to know too--really fun, honest with interesting takes on things--real super down to earth. My best recollection of Pete, as he used to come for dinner a lot, was one time my stepmother, who could really put on the dog, had a super sophisticated dinner party (she did that about every other night) and in one of those she served a cold salmon dish for starters in a rabbit mold and she topped it off with little delicate capers!

Well here's Pete, at this elaborate dinner table with a beer can in his hand (he hated to put beer in a glass, I guess) and he's staring at this dish in controlled horror sort of looking around to see what everybody else was going to do about those capers! Nobody was moving too quick so Pete starts scraping these things to the side of his plate obviously trying not to be noticed. I'm watching all this and the look on his face like; "What the hell kind of people are these I know who eat Rabbit shit?"

Great memories but if I could do it again I would bend his ear on architecture. With all that I really don't even know his courses that well, just a few.

But you do make a good point with Pete about the use of the clearly "unnatural" with some very great architecture Mark!

[RJ_Daley]

Holy jamolies!  You guys can sure get going on a philosophical concept like how many angels can dance on the head of a needle...  but it is contagious activity  .

"Analyzing what's natural and what's not!"  That was the first question.  I don't think there is anyone more qualified to answer that on its face better than a world class golf terrain shaper and landscape designer.  I mean a dozer artist who has done several architect's concepts, and been around to see the old classic stuff too...  He may not even know who Robert Hunter was, but by golly he'll most likely tell you if a piece of golf course design feature is natural terrain or not in the technical sense.  He may or may not be able to tell if the features tie into the near and distant landscape aesthetically.  

But, the test of whether the work "emulates" nature in a pleasing or non-objectionable manner.  That test is so subjective, it is almost too varied by individual sense of aesthetic to contemplate.  Then, one can go on to opine if the design is golf functional in a golf playability sense beyond just its natural qualities.  

We all have our jumping off point in terms of where we recognise natural surroundings and where artificial begins.  A purist like Rich (I hope I don't overreach here) seems to say that once man has turned over the native cover to transform the terrain to a turfed field of play, it becomes artificial.  At what point does the manipulation of the land by man, to create an enjoyable field of play of stimulating sporting recreation for a golf course become un-natural?  (golf, Del points out is not some sort of pre-determined activity of man to while his time away here on the planet in the first place, so it isn't even natural as an activity)

Heck, Pete Dye at Whistling and Tom Fazio at Shadow may be considered part of a perfectly natural process of transformation of the land if you go to the extreem of considering that man is just one more natural element and life form on the planet that interacts with all the other natural elements and due to necessary consumption of man of resources to sustain life, and ultimately to consume more than just what it takes for subsistance - pursues happiness to recreate and other wants beyond subsistance as part of his so-called "higher intelligence - then man is just another force of nature that erodes, exhausts, or transforms nature.  Are man's natural consumptive inclinations any more damaging to nature than the beaver's natural inclination to build dams when it comes to transforming what exists naturally in the scope of their own enviroment?  Aren't we all just busy little beavers altering, transforming, and exhausting the existing natural world to evolve or erode or transcend it to something else.  

Everyday, I think our line of perception can change about what is natural, pleasing and meritorious in GCA according to our new experiences, observations, and current emotional state.  I might have a particularly great day on a highly manufactured course, and come away with less of a harsh feeling about it's manufactured appearance at that moment, then decide on further deliberation that I may have had a pleasurable time but that the course was either one dimensional, ugly aesthetically, or great strategically.  But, what is the line of definition as to whether it was natural, Rich's extreem of anything touched, or the other extreem that if a man created/designed it to whatever extreem, it is ultimately part of nature?  

Whew, I think my head hurts...

[Rich_Goodale]

Dick

I am a purist (or just a stubborn prick!), but my purism says that EVERYTHING is "natural," since man is a fully paid up member of "nature."  Nothing is "artificial" in my book,  even that D-9 driven by the shaping artist or that waterfall on the 18th at Applebrook.........

[RJ_Daley]

Rich, I am just naturally too lazy (and stubborn) to go back to find and check this point, but i seem to remember a while back in this thread you mentioned the fairway of a hole at Dornach and its adjoining native rough untouched area.  I thought you said that the fairway was not natural, and the rough was, and if man simply moved the hole over and mowed or draped a new fairway over the native rough area, it would then become un-natural.  

My wife says I am completely un-natural for all the time I have spent here lately, to the point of becoming absent minded in our conversations because I am thinking too much about this stuff...  I told her it is only natural for a house bound golf nut with no place to go play...

[Rich_Goodale]

Dick

I did in fact make those statements, and if they seem to be contradictory, well then maybe they are!  My head is hurting too.   Go give your wife a hug.

Cheers

Rich

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

MattW.
Golf in my mind is also about shots and holes -- and they are both tied into how the architect chooses to use the land he is given. The most useful feature an architect has to work with is the lay of the land, the interesting depressions and rolls and bumps and contours and ridges. The essense of routing is working with natural lay of the land or at least it used to be. What in your mind is the important aspect of routing? Isn't it taking advantage of the land? You can have holes of differing lengths, you can have holes that change direction, you can have holes that are difficult, you can even have holes that utilize strategy, but if they do not take advantage of the interesting features of the land - what do you have? Not much. I don't think environmental restrictions are a strong excuse for not taking advantage of interesting natural contours and undualtions. What regulation forces the architect to grade away natural contours?

My last question was rhetorical. Of course one can not collaborate with nature on a featureless site. MacKenzie was given a blank slate at Bayside he was forced to create, Macdonald was given a largely blank canvas at Lido - he created, and Fazio was given a blank slate at Shadow Creek and he created. I have no problem with that, that is the reason I dislike the term minimalism - how do you create an interesting course on poor site without moving some dirt - you can't. Now are these courses their finest achievements, Bayside good but certainly not. Lido not his best, but evidently very very strong - the sandy seaside location a major plus. Shadow Creek, might be his best, but I hope not for Fazio's sake - it is diffiuclt to ignore the courses steady decline in the eyes of the raters. Interestingly the first two are no longer.

Who says 'the land was just there for a golf course'? Maybe Old Tom, but not I nor anyone on this site.  And you claim the quality of the land is becoming less and less prevelant. Maybe in NJ, but there is plenty of rolling farm land in the Midwest and aren't most of the ranked courses built before WWII occupying old rolling farm land?

I too put a major emphasis on how the course plays, how do you seperate how the course plays from the interesting or not so interesting land it occupies? And how do you seperate either from how its visual appearance?

I'm still waiting for those examples of the wetlands and redirected streams, and while you are at it how about a 'natural' golf course that does not have a strategic vision.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
I've played quite a few Pete Dye golf courses, but the two finest by a long shot are The Golf Club and Casa de Campo. Both are comparativley low profile designs that take full advantage of natural features and blend beautifully into their environment. In fact in my mind TGC is the second finest modern course to Sand Hills. I wish he would get back to that period.

[Mike_Cirba]

RJ;

Your head may hurt, but I think I finally understand what Rich Goodale is getting at through your explanation.  Good stuff!

Rich;

You rarely fly over my head, but I just caught a whiff of your fumes on this one.  Makes me wonder your definition of "unnatural acts"  Nevermind...I don't need to hear it.

Mark Fine;

Pete Dye is a great exception to the "Natural Law" rule, as is Seth Raynor.  However, while it may appear at first glance that both of these men take a highly manufactured approach, and they do, the results somehow do not offend.  I wonder why that is?

If I were to speculate, I think these guys avoided strict symmetry and straight lines.  Nothing appears "head on", and everything is designed at angles and configured to optimize the visual and playing characteristics of those angles.  In recent years, however, I believe even Dye has fallen victim to a harshly overdone unnatural style.  Even the faux dunes at Whistling Straits look more like mini-volcanos than anything nature would have eroded away from sandhills.  He seems to have also developed a propensity for multiple mounds and shaping that looks lunar.  A look at the Irish course at Whistling is evidence of what I mean.

I think the fact that most of his newer designs have been less well-received is partly due to the fact that his courses are becoming less visually natural and almost a parody of his famous design style.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Hunter married into a very wealthy Eastern family - the Stokes. His wife's father was an investment banker and the contributor of the Americas Cup. Her brother was also a millionaire socialist. Hunter treated his wife indifferently and spent lots of her money according to a family member. After their marrriage he planned on giving away millions. It wasn't true. But the poor didn't know and thousands ended up camping outside his home -- he claimed he couldn't leave the house three weeks. He played most of his golf on Long Island - Shinnecock, Nassau and NGLA. He was part of what Thomas Wolfe called the 'radical chic'. His political views were more or less a fad, a fad that is still strong among many Eastern socialites of today. I recently saw a letter from Hunter to Colt dated 1910 discussing the finer points of socialism. Socialism was also a fad among the intellegencia in Londontown. By the time he moved from Berkeley to Pebble Beach it seems think the ideology had run its course. And no doubt the Depression finished it off. He died a conservative Republican in the 40's.

In the foward of The Links is an excellent biography writen by John Strawn.

Hunter is an example of the tenet:  Show me young man who is not a liberal and I'll show you someone without a heart, show me me old man who is not a conservative and I'll show you someone without a brain. Or something like that.

[TEPaul]

Whoops, I just realized what I did here, or did wrong!

Not to say that some of these posts aren't fantastically interesting. RJ, yours was wonderful and my head doesn't hurt, I'm actually even more inspired by it!

But this topic and the way it's evolved reminds me that one has to be very careful--very careful indeed, with the words one uses--this is the Internet afterall! And I realize too that the words I used in this subject topic are misleading to what I meant to say or meant to ask.

This topic has evolve into a bit of a metaphysical discussion of what is actually "natural" and what is actually "not natural".

That's not what I meant to ask or pose. What I meant to pose, in the context of golf architecture only, is; "analyzing what "looks natural" and what "doesn't look natural"."

The reason I wanted to ask that, and thought that I had, without realizing, until now, how misleading my subject topic's words are, is because I have taken much of this subject and the thought on it from the likes of Robert Hunter and Max Behr.

I'm a strong advocate of their thoughts and their philosophies on this particular golf architecture subject and they stated in no uncertain terms that what an architect created in the context of necessary golf features (tees, fairways, greens and bunkers) could not possible be considered truly natural--they could only ultimately succeed in the context of  man's (an architect's) best emulation of what was truly natural!

And in this particular way they were interested in the attempt to make those inherently unnatural features (that they created) be as naturally appearing as possible! They certainly realized they could never possibly make what they created be the same thing as nature, just that it could look as much like it as possible! And in this way, for obvious reasons, they meant to try to be "site natural" or "site specific".

I hope this clears things up a bit, and some of the misunderstandings too. It was my fault for not being more specific in the subject topic's word usage.

This has been very interesting but I didn't mean to launch out far past golf architecture into the realm of metaphysics!

[Del (Guest)]

HOLY COW BATMAN!!

I posted this morning, and had to go back about THREE PAGES to find my post!!  Do you guys do ANYTHING except write on here??

In my desire to straighten you guys out, and hopefully elevate you to the path of true enlightenment, I see I need to refine a few points.  My illustration of observing "unnatural" appearing formations in nature was supposed to point out that we can't necessarily label something as "unnatural" simply because it doesn't appear to our eye to "fit in".  Nature fools us sometimes.  I don't see how you guys can fault a golf hole for not "appearing natural" because it doesn't blend in with the surroundings, but at the same time say that you like "unnatural" features.  That seems somewhat contradictory to me.  

Likewise, I would like to point out that there is also sometimes a disconnect between "minimalism" and "natural appearing".  While the two are definitely NOT mutually exclusive, it often requires moving a great deal of earth to make a green complex "blend in" with the natural surroundings.  In fact, a lot of times, the more dirt you move, the easier it is to "blend in" a green, bunker or tee box with the "natural" surroundings.  I'll admit that if you can utilize a natural green site in a design, that is preferable to "creating" one, but if a designer has to create something, and move a lot of dirt to make it "appear" natural by blending in with the surrounds, that's fine with me.  I still say that if the "Classic" architects could move dirt with the same ability that we possess today, you would not find them quite so forceful in their belief that moving dirt was "bad".

I admit that I do enjoy viewing a golf hole that seems to "drape" over the existing landscape.  But achieving that appearance, and still retaining the playability and strategic elements of a good golf hole often require significant reshaping of the land.  

Tommy... I can't believe that I go away for just a little while, and you guys forget the proper way to refer to Mr. Tom (AMOSRP) Fazio.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Del
I'm still unclear of your idea of an unnatural appearing feature appearing in nature? I think you perhaps of idealized view of nature formed through years on certain modern golf courses. No one is saying that they like unnatural features, only that your idea of nature is at odds with their own. If you study nature you will find that nature is random, haphazard and unpredictable. "Strange land-shapes, irregular hills, mounds and hummocks, unusual rock formations, abrupt changes in textue and elements, and unusual patterns in vegatation" are what makes nature exciting and visually appealing - John Ruskin's savage Nature.
  
The 'classic' architects were unable to move dirt? Are sure that is historically accurate? Is it possbile they could and did move dirt - and that they only chose to do it judiciously?

[Mike_Cirba]

Del,

Let me clue you in on a little secret.  

Ran is actually an international mogul, this site is simply a front for certain "activities" if you catch my drift, and he is paying a few of us some pretty hefty sums of cash to sit here and type all day.  The extra income affords us some pretty luxurious lifestyles, world travel to the best courses and restaurants, and the inevitable groupies help us to ease the stress of a long day thinking up this stuff at the keyboard.  

Surprised you didn't make his invite list...you don't happen to have a traceable record of past misdeeds, do you?

In any case, to answer your second paragraph, you seem to find an inconsistency in our appreciation for actual natural features that seem irregular or incongruous to the site.  I can only answer once again that what you mention is EXACTLY what we love.  We love COMPLEXITY, and I don't see much man-made complexity out there.

I agree with your point about sometimes needing significant earthmoving to achieve naturalness.  To that I say, so be it.  If it's well done, that's wonderful.  

My working definition of minimalism is that after you exhaust every natural feature at your disposal, you only move as much dirt as is absolutely necessary to make the man-made features integrate with the larger natural whole.  Sometimes that requires very little earthwork, and sometimes it requires millions of cubic metres...but the guiding tenets are always the same.

Del, I think that's pretty consistent to what you've described.  Would you agree?

Tanya, could you please pass the suntan oil.....oh...and Waiter..another margarita please.  

[TEPaul]

DelR:

Couldn't agree more that many times moving more dirt not less is the key to blending created features well with a site. Moving less dirt as a key to some kind of "minimalism" is often misunderstood. Real minimalism is probably a true luxury reserved for certain special sites and architects anyway!

Not sure I agree with your remark that preWW2 architects advocated moving less dirt in the name of "minmalism". I think they were able to identify and use natural features better and more creatively than today but probably partially because they had to. If they practiced today I see no reason why they would give up or overlook the use of complex and sometimes quirky natural features because moving dirt would be easier, but I do think if they worked in today's world they might have tried to realize their hope and dream of hiding their hand better than they could in their day--and that contemporary architects do today!

You really think you can come on here every now and then and explain things to us and enlighten us? Why don't you hie on over to the Middle East and solve their arguements, stop in on your way home in Northern Ireland solve theirs too and then come on back here and broach that subject again?

[GMP]

Damn, Rich, if you don't see that Hunter's path was as clear an explanation of socialist practices as anyone could want, then you missed the whole point of socialism.

Thanks for the entertaining read, fellas.

[Del]

Tom:  What you're missing in my "explanation", because I'm doing a poor job of trying to articulate it, is this:  "Unnatural" shapes appear in "nature" anyway (and I'm not talking about just golf courses), so viewing something man-made on a golf course as "unnatural" because it doesn't "look" right isn't always fair to the architect, IMHO.  Maybe the "unnatural"  element DOES exist somewhere in nature... a long shot, but not totally out of the question.  I personally don't like artificial contrivances, but I have played golf with guys who don't even SEE the artificiality (is that a word?) of a certain feature... they LOVE a "contrived" hole.  So, if the GCA is attempting to create something for the purpose of providing an enjoyable golf hole, even though WE like that appearance, does it mean he isn't a "Good" architect?  That's probably the underlying theme in my position on many of my posts.  As to the classic architects not moving dirt, I think it is pretty evident that, for the most part, they always advocated not moving dirt.  I can't help but think that this was in part due to the difficulty of moving earth then... if it were as easy to move then as it is now, I just don't think it would have been a recurring theme.  It is kind of like claiming an artist who uses less paint is a "better" artist than one who uses a LOT of paint... as long as the finished product is what they wanted to achieve, and "looks" good, does the amount of paint used in the painting really matter?  Has anyone ever viewed a masterpiece of work in an art museum, and said "My goodness, look at how LITTLE paint this guy used?"

Mike:  I suspected something similar to what you described.  I would love to join your little cadre, but unfortunately I am secretly employed by Ran's counterpart, Dr. Evil.  My mission is to disrupt activities of Ran's underlings, thereby crippling his entire empire and lead to world domination by Dr. E.  I am somewhat discouraged by the dedication and determination I am faced with thus far.  And your views are very consistent with mine... I like "quirkiness", too.  

TEPaul:  I believe you and I are in agreement regarding my statement about "Pre WWII" architects... they were forced to work with "natural" features because they had to, at least to a greater degree than today's architects.  They also had much more freedom from regulations and other types of intervention that drastically affect the final product.  I agree with what you said.  I have actually offered my cool, level-headed, rational and unbiased services to take care of several hot-spots in the world, including those you named.  Although I declined to help the Panthers (even I can't help them), I am looking into the current Argentina financial crisis, and expecting to be called in to help clean up the Enron mess.  I have to finish up some stuff for Dr. E. first.

[TEPaul]

Del:

Interesting analogy of yours between a golf architect's creations and an artist applying a little or a lot of paint to a canvas.

The analogy of a painting artist's canvas and that of a golf architect's was one not lost on some of the writers and architects of the "Golden Age". The distinction they intended to make, it seems, with the analogy, is the vast difference of the canvas itself so as not to be a good analogy at all.
The painting artist's always "blank canvas" to consider and the golf architect with the canvas of the earth's many offerings to consider!

But anyway, does anyone consider whether a painting artist applied a little or a lot of paint and was one better than the other? I don't know about one better than the other but as to the amount of paint applied you bet they consider it.

Van Gogh is probably most notable for the amount of paint he used and the particular manner he applied it. There is a most noticeable physicalness to Van Gogh's paintings and it has a strong impact indeed. While others seemed to apply paint almost like a gentle breath--and that too has an interesting impact. One better than the other? You got me!

So I don't really know how far the painting artist's blank canvas and the golf architect's mother earth canvas analogy can go. But it might be interesting with some of the totally "featureless", "blank canvas" sites of say Shadow Creek or Talking Stick and what the golf architect artists did with them regarding "paint".

[RJ_Daley]

Hey, I like that painting analogy.  You have your broad brush D-8s and 9s and you have your fine brush D-4 and 5s and right down to sand pro rakes like hair thin brushes.   What are the soil types like sand and clay, the difference in oils and acrylics?  

I fully expect Tommy to start a whole new thread on which GCA is like Buonaroti, and which is like Dali.  All I know is Muirhead has to be Cellini!

[RJ_Daley]

Hey, I like that painting analogy.  You have your broad brush D-8s and 9s and you have your fine brush D-4 and 5s and right down to sand pro rakes like hair thin brushes.   What are the soil types like sand and clay, the difference in oils and acrylics?  

I fully expect Tommy to start a whole new thread on which GCA is like Buonaroti, and which is like Dali.  All I know is Muirhead has to be Cellini!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Del
I'm sure there are lots of golfers who like many differing types of golf courses -- and I'm not here to say they are wrong. There are millions who enjoy McDonalds, hell I enjoy McDonalds once in a while. Do I want a steady diet of McDonalds, no; am I going to go out of my way to eat McDonalds, no. Golf is a great game, it is enjoyable on many courses of differing qualities and types, including less than stimulating golf courses.

As far as your analogy comparing golf architecture to art, you seem to be saying the past architects didn't use much paint - minimalists if you will. I do not believe that is an accurate assessment. Respect, appreciation and a desire to utilize natural features does not translate into minimalism - there are many examples of architects who understood the importance of Nature who were hardly minmalists - Macdonald, Raynor, MacKenzie, Langford, Thompson - to name a few.

If I were to compare my view of golf design/nature to art, it wouldn't be the medium or the frequency of the medium or even the style, but the way the artist looks upon their subject. Many modern designers look at their subject in an idealized way. There vision is of perhaps a beautiful women, without visible flaws, perhaps physically or artificially enhanced, not unlike the women one sees in Playboy. Certainly not a bad image, an image of perfection, but after a while they all start look a like and when viewed up close, not quite as attractive as at first glance. And unfortunately there is that blank stare and chances are behind that stare many times is an empty vessel.

The architect who designs in conjunction with nature, doesn't mind a subject with flaws - some scars, maybe wrinkled and weathered, maybe over-weight, maybe short - in fact they welcome the blemishes and imperfections, they are what makes the subject interesting and unique. Each of these naturalistic artists are different, one his into realism, another more abstract, one a surrealist, another an impressionist and so on. But when given a subject they depict the subject as they see it, interesting flaws and all, not some idealized vision of what think others might want to see. When a modern architect ignores his subject and continues to give us the same beautiful vision over and over - it becomes boring, predictable and less than stimulating.

[George Pazin]

Some random thoughts after slogging through this thread:

- I don't think anyone who likes "natural" features & a "natural" look said that architects who produced obviously manufactured courses were necessarily bad architects, but rather that this was something that they don't particularly care for.

- Similarly, I don't think any of the "natural" proponents said that obviously manufactured such as Mauna Kea or Shadow Creek should not have been built or even be allowed to exist, but rather that, again, these courses are not necessarily to their liking, but that it is still possible to to evaluate the extent to which they utilized "natural" features. I think Tom MacWood included the photo of Mauna Kea to illustrate how the architect used the cove, not to suggest that somehow this green grass looked natural set against the black lava. To me this point was pretty clearly made, but others seem to feel he is implying that this course looks natural.

- The preference for the look of a course is obviously purely an aesthetic opinion. And people's views can definitely change. When I first began playing golf 5 years ago, I used to dream of playing the beautiful, immaculate fairways of Augusta. A couple years later(even before I discovered this site), my views began to shift & I found myself dreaming of playing the rougher, more "natural" lookning courses like County Down & Dornoch.

- To me, the question of whether a course appears "natural" lies as much with course setup as with its design. I think it's really easy to come up with examples of straight clean lines that Pat Mucci requests - simply look at Augusta, with its long, smooth curves, & then contrast this with some of the older pictures, or even older videos that they play on The Golf Channel. As recently as the 70s, the lines around the bunkers were still rough & not the perfectly manicured look of today. To see the influence this holds, just look at any advertisement for almost any course at Myrtle Beach. Long, smooth clean lines in abundance. I think it looks terrible, but I fully recognize that this is my opinion & many others like this look. Sure, it doesn't really influence play(other than perhaps psychologically), but that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on the artistic side of this.

- The whole "golf course are by definition unnatural" argument is largely mental masturbation, IMHO. Tom Paul clearly states in the VERY FIRST POST that Hunter & many others all admit this as a given & are simply looking to examine ways in which the course can be made to look as natural as possible. Whether you agree with this desire to emulate nature was in fact one of Tom Paul's initial questions, one which most of the objectors failed to address. I think this is the crux of the difference in opinions. I personally prefer when archies & supers try to utilize natural features - to me it makes sense, is probably more economical & is usually more appealing aesthetically TO ME. Perhaps the objectors out there could give some reasons why they think long smooth curves and unnatural features might be desirable. Ultimately, I would judge a course by how it plays, but I can certainly understand that aesthetics play a part in determining your experience on a course.

[TEPaul]

George:

Thanks for the clarification there about what this topic was supposed to be all about. That clarification probably needs to be included on every page of this topic as contributors zip off on various tangents and run with them a lot. This generally happens when the supreme King of all Tangents, the one and only "Tangential Pat" arrives in the ring!

Tom MacW:

I buy your thoughts about flaws and such (the scars, wrinkles whatever of land and architecture) and you explained it perfectly in the "Arts and Crafts Movement" essays!

But I was thinking if you're analogizing architecture to a beautiful women and one without flaws that would be boring, I don't know if I can accept that!

If a golf course inspired me like Heidi Klum does I might like to play it daily!  She's great looking, I might even tell her she was natural looking and she does appear to use all her natural features although I sure can't find the flaws in them. But when I came to realize she also possesses an incredible sense of humor the whole package looked real good to me. What if she likes to get down and dirty too?---I mean that would be the most perfect of all worlds!

[Rich_Goodale]

George and Tom

I did go back to the original post, as you suggetsed, and TEP says, in his opening post that Hunter believed that:

"....golf architecture and its designers are inherently saddled with a number of necessary golf features that must be produced--in his example, at least, four of them--tees, fairways, greens and bunkers that are inherently "unnatural" to most sites and their topography!"

Well, to me if you take away tees, fairways, bunkers and greens there's not a lot of features left for even the most transcendentalist archie to showcase his ability to "hide his hand!"

George

I happen to think that both the smooth lined bunkers at Muirfield and the rougher edged ones at Applebrook are functional and esthetically pleasing.  Both are manufactured and only vaguely reminsiscent of any "natural" feature that exists on or near either site.

To me there is little mental mastrubation going on on this thread, but if there is it is being done as much by those who try to explain why some manufactured features are "natural" and others are not as it is by those of us who think that trying to define "naturalness" is as quixotic as trying to determine the deeper meaning of the sacred gourd in "The Life of Brian."

Your last statement, which effectively takes the Potter Stewart line of "I know good golf architecture when I see it," is one I can very heartily endorse.

[Jim_Kennedy]

"Nature provides the most enduring challenge"... or so it says on the opening page of this website. After analyzing what's natural and what's not, do y'all think that no matter what is created, natural or not, it owes the idea for it's conception to nature?
  

[Jim_Kennedy]

"Nature provides the most enduring challenge"... or so it says on the opening page of this website. After analyzing what's natural and what's not, do y'all think that no matter what is created, natural or not, it owes the idea for it's conception to nature?