[Ian Andrew]

I had an amazing conversation while playing the Blue Course that was about criticism of golf course architecture.
One of the things we talked about was the fact that it’s far easier to find the minor flaws or perceived faults than explain the larger ideas and broad concepts that often carry an entire project to a remarkable result. Sure we can break down the details of a hole, both positive and negative, but rarely do we talk about a philosophical stance or grand set of ideals that often has a greater impact on our enjoyment or fascination with of a course than a shape, a grassing line or bunker. We tend to review by details.

This week I thought there was a philosophical difference between the Red and the Blue and I thought it had greater impact on how each turned out “From My Perspective.” And those words are important. I think it’s important we remind ourselves that “Our Perspective” is what we have and not some “Grand Knowledge of Everything about Architecture.” Very few are capable critics because that requires accepting what is not within your comfort zone and looking with interest at what you may dismiss or potentially ignore. We are not naturally good at that. We’re even worse at admitting that to ourselves.

We must start by understanding that our views of strategy, design and all the aspects we see in golf design are not a Universal Truth but a Personal Perception of the facts. Most ideas or ideals are indeed shared, but many are not. Our view is not “The View” but simply “Our” view.

It’s important to understand how we work to acknowledge how we perceive the world around us. The brain works on two levels. The first is an intuitive response system that makes quick decisions and many instinctive judgements that allow us to function without being slowed down … by well thinking too much. It is our first response to just about every situation and piece of information we receive. The secondary system takes over and provides careful consideration and for lack of a better term is your analytical side. It functions about 10% of the time in the average person.

Mid round I ended up taking about going to Musee d'Orsay with my wife and looking at paintings by Alfred Sisley. Cynthia loved the work and well I did not.  When I dismissed one particular painting as just another “ship in the fog” (I am an ass sometimes … ok often) she made me stop go back and look again. We moved both back and forward until I eventually found a series of spectacular details “in the fog” from both perspectives including buildings and children that I could only see by getting close or far enough. I needed to look at what was in front of me rather than glance and pass judgement. Often we look at this vast landscape and see only what we think we see or want to see rather than what is there.

I think one of the issues we have is we often only have enough time to allow our intuitive brain to make snap judgement and quick decisions. In very general terms this is actually efficient and is more often than not accurate “in general terms” at least, but if you’ve ever spent any time looking into this process, you come to learn that the way the intuitive system is essentially flawed when it comes to critical thinking. You see we allow our biases to be far more involved in the decision making when intuitive and we also defer to what “we expect” often over what we actually see. In simple terms, we will be overly supportive of an artist we already like and over critical of something that we have already dismissed.

One of the great problems of understanding brilliance within golf architecture is far more it is found in the obtuse rather than the obvious. So at a quick glance we can only draw on an instinctive impression and miss something far greater and grand that impacts WHY this intuitively works, which occasionally has less to do with the elements and more to do with a conceptual ideal.
And that brings me to the concept of perfection.

We revel in a 300 hitter in baseball and a 55% shooter from behind the arc in basketball. Yet I have often found myself on a nearly perfect golf course where a singular element is allowed to tumble the entire house of cards and the result is a complete dismissal of the course.
Many of the courses we admire have an element of improvisation and creativity in the moment. They are full of passion and moments of shear brilliance that likely never could have found their way to paper or plan. This week I saw moments that made me say f@#$ I wish I did that. There were a few places where I was left curious on the decision making, but that’s good too. I don’t want perfect courses, I want passionate architecture.

I’ll digress to explain myself better …

I went to see Robert Cray many years ago because I was a huge fan of the first two albums. He played each and every song perfectly without a mistake that I could hear at least to my limited ear. The concert was … well disappointing. Many years before, I saw Emerson Lake and Palmer where a massive part of the show was improvisation. It was never perfect and occasionally appeared lost, but the highlights were worth the risk and my impression from the evening was this was one of the most enjoyable experiences I have ever had and the minor miss-steps were so inconsequential compared to the brilliance that carries the night.

There is no such thing as perfection in golf design, but often reviews treat it as that is the case. There is some knowledge to be found in what we think doesn’t work as long as we take the time to explain clearly WHY we think this is an issue. I believe if you can’t explain why, you lose the right to be critical. There is far more learned and gained from looking far deeper into the canvas and sharing what moves you and WHY.

[Matthew Petersen]

Great post, Ian. You anecdote about paintings of ships in the fog hung with me. Some years back, my wife and I were in NYC and visited the Met and MOMA in the same day. The works at MOMA are far more likely to appeal to my personal taste, but one of the day's most lasting memories was seeing "Washington Crossing the Delaware." This is of course a pianting everyone (US American in particular, I should think) has seen many many times in books, and it's not a style of painting that interest me much ... but in person it's absolutely arresting. First, it's HUGE, among the biggest paintings I've ever seen. That'll be the first thing that grabs you, and that's what kind of helps draw you in to all the little things. That was one of those moments for me. A time when I saw something I already "knew well" in a whole new light, and I gained a whole new appreciation for it.

Applying the same standard to golf courses is a great ideal and I absolutely applaud your notion that it's great to look for the passion and all the good in GCA ... even if it's easier to find the flaws.

[Jason Topp]

I love the Robert Cray analagy.  I had a similar experience involving him and Steve Ray Vaughn . .   which is long story.

I also agree with the idea that one wants great architecture rather than perfection.  However, I find it very difficult to describe a course in gestalt terms in any fashion that is meaningful.  I also think Ran's "great golf courses should be evaluated hole by hole approach" imposes some rigor into analysis.  In addition, my interest in this subject and this site is in part a reaction to the marketing fluff that used to be at the heart of almost any golf course description.

In short I agree . . . sort of.   

[Ian Andrew]

One thing that I didn't share in the actual piece is some of the critical comments are self-directed. I got stuck on one small aspect at Streamsong Red while I was there and it impacted my thoughts. That's on me. A few days has allowed me a better perspective.

[Alex Miller]

I love the Robert Cray analagy.  I had a similar experience involving him and Steve Ray Vaughn . .   which is long story.

I also agree with the idea that one wants great architecture rather than perfection. However, I find it very difficult to describe a course in gestalt terms in any fashion that is meaningful.  I also think Ran's "great golf courses should be evaluated hole by hole approach" imposes some rigor into analysis.  In addition, my interest in this subject and this site is in part a reaction to the marketing fluff that used to be at the heart of almost any golf course description.

In short I agree . . . sort of.    

Ian, wonderful post! It made me realize that as my (perceived) knowledge of architecture has increased, my approach to new golf courses/hole has changed. I find myself trying to take everything in, and often as quickly as possible. I've been trying so hard to develop my thoughts on a golf hole in the middle of the round, even in the middle of that very hole, that it's likely negatively influenced my experience on the course and the impression that I've taken away from it.

Jason, I really agree with the highlighted above!

[Ally Mcintosh]

Thank you Ian.

[John Kirk]

A common example of a course possessing one hole that magnifies controversy is #14 at Bandon Trails.  A legitimate beef about that hole is its magnified importance in a golf round.  One can play a very good round, say 4 over, on the 17 other holes, and then add 3 or 4 more shots over par on that one hole.  A hole that wrecks a round far more often than others could legitimately reduce the overall impression.

"One of the things we talked about was the fact that it’s far easier to find the minor flaws or perceived faults than explain the larger ideas and broad concepts that often carry an entire project to a remarkable result."

--  Ian Andrew

As an amateur analyst who is rarely privy to the inside story on any course, how do I know what the "larger ideas and broad concepts" are? 

Streamsong Red and Blue courses are complicated designs that players will learn how to play better with repeated plays, that possess a hometown advantage for the local pro or employee, and may well become more interesting and enjoyable with repeat plays.   

My prediction is that these courses, and the resort, will experience a percentage of first time guests who are disillusioned with the difficulty and intensity of the challenge.  I expect it will take a couple years for the resort to gain full traction and respect as a shotmaker's paradise.  Other complex, "modern" Doak designs such as Ballyneal and Stone Eagle took a while before gaining widespread admiration.

It's important to know what you don't know.  My conclusions of the golf course are based on previous experiences I have had.  All I can do is observe all the shots made in front of me, take note of the walk and the rhythm of the golf holes, and try to decide whether I like it.  I needed to play both courses at Streamsong more times to fully appreciate them. And I factor that into my overall impression.

[Bryan Izatt]

Ian,

Interesting thoughts.

Could you expand on what you think "passionate architecture" is?  Using John Kirk's example of the 14th at Bandon Trails, I guess many see it as a hole to criticize, but I guess an argument could be made that the hole is the result of passionate architecture.

And, don't tease, it would be interesting to hear what it was that you got stuck on at Streamsong Red what your current better perspective.  It would be interesting to understand the thought process in relation to intuitive and analytical sides of the brain.

[Mike_Young]

Ian,
I know what CJ means....
As you say there is no perfection in golf design but we have the "herd mentality machine" to take care of such.  It's the reason we take something like the crossovers at Merion and accept them there but not at some other place.  Is it cold up there?

[Lester George]

Ian,

Good stuff, but I must admit I am surpried you even know ho Emerson, Lake and Palmer are/were.  Not knowing how old you are, I might have seen them before you were born.

Lester

[Ian Andrew]

John,

Width can be a broad concept if used regularly and for purpose - its use can lead to other attributes that may dominate the course like choice

I have never got my head around the 14th. I like the concept, but through a series of plays I have watched more balls finish in someone’s hand than holed out. That’s odd for a resort course. I finish each time, but I didn’t play for the green until I could putt the last two because a bogey was at worst a tie! I’m left unsure what to think to be honest.


Brian,

The willingness to take chances or risk or go out on a limb, but I think that might be a convenient answer rather than a good one.

The Red opened up with a series of very tough holes, lots of water and places where golfers and snakes are destined to meet.  I found the start a tough go. I had no issue after, but wondered about so much so early.


Mike,

I had a piece about rater events, but dropped it. No course in their right mind would ever host one. I’ll leave it at that….

I also struggle with how much I hate all mounds, yet like Travis mounds ... I feel like a hypocrite at times


Lester,

There is no cold up here … there is only hockey season….
We have no snow, I can’t ski, I’m bummed out over that…

ELP was on its last legs when I first watched shows live.  I love to work on complicated issues listening to a Lamb Lies Down on Braoadway … that should say it all.

[Lester George]

Ian,

I also like your comment about Passionate Architecture, that says it all as well.

Best,

Lester

[Mac Plumart]

Any thoughts or comments on Desmond Muirhead being a passionate architect?

[Tom_Doak]

Any thoughts or comments on Desmond Muirhead being a passionate architect?

He was passionate, I'm just not sure he was passionate about golf.

Tommy Naccarato insists I'm wrong about that, and he knew Desmond Muirhead, which I didn't.  My conclusion was based on seeing two or three examples of his work in his later years.  I don't know how much Tommy saw of that.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - thanks, interesting thoughts as always, especially coming from you (a working professional). I'm probably repeating myself, but I think a distinction needs to be made between what is experienced (purely, simply, in the moment) and how that experience is later processed and communicated (the complex process of transmuting a unique experience into a common language that can be shared). I see it as the difference between the subjective and the objective, but I note that - in the modern age of constant and rapid information exchange - our subjective experiences are rarely simple and pure, and the objectification of that experience borrows freely from the personal/subjective experience of others (shared moment by moment on sites like this one). For me, I think I've stopped trying to work backwards, as it were, i.e. I've stopped trying to read through the haze of (supposedly) objective commentary to try to find the subjective experience from which it emerged. I'm not saying this is a good thing, this giving up of mine; I'm saying that I am simply unable to find what I think most meaningful (the subjective) in the jungle of words (the objective) -- especially on a site like this one where the language is so set in stone, e.g. templates, options, width, strategy, and thus has lost some of its power for true communication. On the other hand, I don't so much want and need my architects to be passionate; I need them to be talented!!  

Peter

[Joe_Tucholski]

I had an amazing conversation while playing the Blue Course that was about criticism of golf course architecture.
One of the things we talked about was the fact that it’s far easier to find the minor flaws or perceived faults than explain the larger ideas and broad concepts that often carry an entire project to a remarkable result. Sure we can break down the details of a hole, both positive and negative, but rarely do we talk about a philosophical stance or grand set of ideals that often has a greater impact on our enjoyment or fascination with of a course than a shape, a grassing line or bunker. We tend to review by details.

This week I thought there was a philosophical difference between the Red and the Blue and I thought it had greater impact on how each turned out “From My Perspective.” And those words are important. I think it’s important we remind ourselves that “Our Perspective” is what we have and not some “Grand Knowledge of Everything about Architecture.” Very few are capable critics because that requires accepting what is not within your comfort zone and looking with interest at what you may dismiss or potentially ignore. We are not naturally good at that. We’re even worse at admitting that to ourselves.

We must start by understanding that our views of strategy, design and all the aspects we see in golf design are not a Universal Truth but a Personal Perception of the facts. Most ideas or ideals are indeed shared, but many are not. Our view is not “The View” but simply “Our” view.

It’s important to understand how we work to acknowledge how we perceive the world around us. The brain works on two levels. The first is an intuitive response system that makes quick decisions and many instinctive judgements that allow us to function without being slowed down … by well thinking too much. It is our first response to just about every situation and piece of information we receive. The secondary system takes over and provides careful consideration and for lack of a better term is your analytical side. It functions about 10% of the time in the average person.

Mid round I ended up taking about going to Musee d'Orsay with my wife and looking at paintings by Alfred Sisley. Cynthia loved the work and well I did not.  When I dismissed one particular painting as just another “ship in the fog” (I am an ass sometimes … ok often) she made me stop go back and look again. We moved both back and forward until I eventually found a series of spectacular details “in the fog” from both perspectives including buildings and children that I could only see by getting close or far enough. I needed to look at what was in front of me rather than glance and pass judgement. Often we look at this vast landscape and see only what we think we see or want to see rather than what is there.

I think one of the issues we have is we often only have enough time to allow our intuitive brain to make snap judgement and quick decisions. In very general terms this is actually efficient and is more often than not accurate “in general terms” at least, but if you’ve ever spent any time looking into this process, you come to learn that the way the intuitive system is essentially flawed when it comes to critical thinking. You see we allow our biases to be far more involved in the decision making when intuitive and we also defer to what “we expect” often over what we actually see. In simple terms, we will be overly supportive of an artist we already like and over critical of something that we have already dismissed.

One of the great problems of understanding brilliance within golf architecture is far more it is found in the obtuse rather than the obvious. So at a quick glance we can only draw on an instinctive impression and miss something far greater and grand that impacts WHY this intuitively works, which occasionally has less to do with the elements and more to do with a conceptual ideal.
And that brings me to the concept of perfection.

We revel in a 300 hitter in baseball and a 55% shooter from behind the arc in basketball. Yet I have often found myself on a nearly perfect golf course where a singular element is allowed to tumble the entire house of cards and the result is a complete dismissal of the course.
Many of the courses we admire have an element of improvisation and creativity in the moment. They are full of passion and moments of shear brilliance that likely never could have found their way to paper or plan. This week I saw moments that made me say f@#$ I wish I did that. There were a few places where I was left curious on the decision making, but that’s good too. I don’t want perfect courses, I want passionate architecture.

I’ll digress to explain myself better …

I went to see Robert Cray many years ago because I was a huge fan of the first two albums. He played each and every song perfectly without a mistake that I could hear at least to my limited ear. The concert was … well disappointing. Many years before, I saw Emerson Lake and Palmer where a massive part of the show was improvisation. It was never perfect and occasionally appeared lost, but the highlights were worth the risk and my impression from the evening was this was one of the most enjoyable experiences I have ever had and the minor miss-steps were so inconsequential compared to the brilliance that carries the night.

There is no such thing as perfection in golf design, but often reviews treat it as that is the case. There is some knowledge to be found in what we think doesn’t work as long as we take the time to explain clearly WHY we think this is an issue. I believe if you can’t explain why, you lose the right to be critical. There is far more learned and gained from looking far deeper into the canvas and sharing what moves you and WHY.

Ian, I have to admit I think I'm a bit confused (starting with not understanding the CJ in the title).  In the first paragraph and a half I guess it's because I don't really realize that golf architects are trying to get a "broad concept" or "philisophical stance" across.  With this are you talking about shot shapes, or particular methods of play?  I feel like you are trying to say courses reflect something deeper but I’m not really getting what.

In the third paragraph are you basically saying some people will enjoy a large heroic carry and some will despise it?  Or am I being too specific because I don't understand the "ideals" bit?

The fourth paragraph has me thinking you recently were reading Blink or some such book.

The fifth paragraph seems to have a lot of appeal to people.  I'm not sure I fully understand the anecdote.  Paintings often are completed with an intentional deeper meaning, a reflection on society, or something that touches the viewer beyond the actual image in the work.  Is that really ever intended with a golf course?  I guess golf courses in different periods of time have reflected the times they were built.  To make my own anecdote, a less high brow version, I like movies that require minimal thought and are generally upbeat.  I can vividly remember watching a movie called Memento.  Memento is the opposite of minimal thought and upbeat.  I didn't like the movie at all but I recognize the movie is a well made movie because it had an emotional impact on me that I believe was intended by the creators of the movie.  With respect to a golf course I can't really think of a course that I didn't like but recognized was well made.  Maybe some people who can't stand cart ball courses have this experience.  Maybe my anecdote is different because yours was something you needed to watch again to see what was great about it.

The 7th paragraph confuses me again.  The anecdote you previously provided is you have a negative reaction because you typically don't like the creator.  In this paragraph you talk about liking something but not being able to pinpoint the reasons.

I have to assume the following quote is an exaggeration "Yet I have often found myself on a nearly perfect golf course where a singular element is allowed to tumble the entire house of cards and the result is a complete dismissal of the course."  I could understand if you said a near perfect course has a single flaw that you amplify and enjoy less than you would otherwise.

If in the last paragraph you are saying it's better to say I don't like __ because ___ than just saying I don't like ___.  If yes, I think everyone will agree.

I guess my biggest problem is I don't see golf courses as a method to portray a story or a deeper meaning, if they are intended to I don't realize what they are telling me.  Maybe I don't see golf as art like many people do.  We could talk about severe terrain and cart ball courses fitting a particular reflection of life/society and I'd probably agree but were the architects/shapers trying to create that reflection of life/society or were they trying to create an atmosphere that would appeal to and entertain a paying customer?

On the other hand, I don't so much want and need my architects to be passionate; I need them to be talented!! 

Peter, talent from whose perspective?  I assume the answer is from your perspective.  From my interpretation of Ian's post this perceived talent of particular architects is what clouds judgment of particular courses.

[Ronald Montesano]

"You anecdote about paintings of ships in the fog hung with me."

Great metaphor, Matt.

I once played golf with Ian Andrew. I previously had sampled many of his writings over the years and found them to be wondrously flawless, focused on a single topic, never straying from the appointed destination. To wit, I was a bit nervous about where the conversations of the round might end. I anticipated that my words, unlike my ever-straight drives, would miss the anecdotal fairways.

To my relief, Ian's conversation were all over the place. He started on one theme in the parking lot, something about changing his shoes and the importance of properly-balanced foot odor as precursor to a round of golf. On the range, where the winds whipped low and high like grickle grass, he segued into a treatise on cross-border politics and the demise of a cup of coffee at Tim Horton's. As we traversed the fairways of that wondrous tract (over which he has had complete control during a restoration) his drives and approaches were arrow-straight, just as his words went in contrary (sometimes contradictory) directions.

And then, just as he power-pushed a drive wide, wide, WIDE left on one of the holes and his game inexplicably left (get it?) him, the meaning and significance of his words began to clarify and I found myself retracing each sentence (which is difficult enough, without adding the Ontario dialectal variation) to unearth, unshell its nut.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Saltzman was no help.

I made this all up of course, other than the part about actually golfing with Ian. I enjoy his posts, as well-thought as mine are helter-skelter. Perhaps we bring balance to this universe.

[Ian Andrew]

Joe,

I willl try with broad concepts....

From Max Behr,

“The concern of the architect should be positive and have solely to do with what a golfer should do. His mission is not that or a moralist, the principle word of whose vocabulary is DON’T. The golfer should not be made to feel that he must renounce, that the primary object for him is to conquer his faults. It is not for the architect to inform him he played badly. That is for the professional. No, the mission of the architect is that of a leader. By the development of his hazards he exhorts the golfer to do his best, enticing him at times ‘to shoot the bones for the whole works.’ Thus he instills the golfer a spirit of conquest by presenting him with definite objectives upon which he must concentrate. It is for the golfer to stamp his law upon the ground. It is no way the business of the architect to stamp his law upon the golfer. But thus it is in most cases. The penal school of golf spells death to that spirit of independence, life and freedom which we are all seeking, and which we should find in all places of our recreation.”  

This piece by Behr speaks about not defining the game into specific shots or requirements. It talks about giving the player enough room and options for to provide them the freedom to choose their own path. If the hole has bunkering where you want to be, you will need to flirt with that for position, but if that is accompanied miles of room on the outside path that is the freedom to play around. You’re not forced to do anything, everything is your choice. Therefore choose to make things challenging or as easy as you like. That is a broad concept that affects a design and the player’s experience. That is a situation I can create as a designer.

If short grass everywhere around a green you can argue it is a detail, but used consistently it becomes a theme or conceptual idea because it means the ground is very much in play in both the recovery game and approach shots. It also means every shot has an option along the ground as well as in the air. Once again this creates the freedom to decide.

I've always felt you have to start with how you want your player to feel and what you would like them to experience long before you look at the details of what they play. A broad set of ideas is essential ... at least for me, before I look at a hole. It keeps the focus on what I’m trying to do conceptually overall. I personally think that matters a great deal in design. 18 completely unrelated holes is schizophrenic, it has to work as a whole to make sense.

I even do this with committee in my work in restoration and renovation.  Believe it or not, it actually helps me get trees down, because it's considered conceptually first and individually afterwards.... the big picture often removes the obsession on individual bunkers and trees. It gives me the latitude I need to do good work.

Joe, I hope that helps, or now you know I’m nuts!

[Ian Andrew]

(CJ):  It's cheyenne for finish what you started, or something close to that anyway.

[JESII]

Ian,

I think this is a great thread and I wish I could say more than I agree. Maybe I can muster up some ideas of these themes because that's exactly how I feel about golf course analyses.



Joe,

Are you demonstrating the guy in Ian's opening paragraph?

[Joe_Tucholski]

I've always felt you have to start with how you want your player to feel and what you would like them to experience long before you look at the details of what they play. A broad set of ideas is essential ... at least for me, before I look at a hole. It keeps the focus on what I’m trying to do conceptually overall. I personally think that matters a great deal in design. 18 completely unrelated holes is schizophrenic, it has to work as a whole to make sense.

Until the above paragraph I thought the broad concepts were going the way of the schools of thought on golf design or maybe the purpose of the course.  The above paragraph makes me think you're trying to combine everything - the purpose of the course, the schools of design, the vibe and other things I don't fully realize/understand/appreciate to create a "feeling" for the golfer.  I can only imagine how difficult taking on projects must be with this as your starting point.  So much of the impact on the feeling is out of the control of the architect.  As stated in another thread "the land, the owner, and the money" have to be instrumental in the success of the architect creating the desired feeling.

Joe,

Are you demonstrating the guy in Ian's opening paragraph?

   Jim I have to tell you that wasn't my intention but your comment made me realize I definitely am, and made me smile.

[Ian Andrew]

So much of the impact on the feeling is out of the control of the architect.

Joe,

If I make every fairway wide, I make you feel comfortable. If I make every fairway narrow and the distance between tree lines tight, I make you feel anxious. If I give you five wide open holes in a row and then make the next very tight, I'm screwing with you. If I take you through a dark tree lined path all the way to a vista with no windows to what is ahead, I'm using what's called Compression and Release. The wide open vista is made grander by the experience leading to it.

If I'm smart with my bag of tricks I can have an impact on what you feel. Perhaps not every trick will elicit the same response, but that’s OK too.

Where you're right and I’m not is because I don't know you the individual. For example I love blind shots and hit the ball much straighter when I can't see the fairway. Others can't deal without the visual feedback. Not every trick works the same way on every person.

I think design is far more than a series of tasks, I think it's trying to create an entire experience.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I think design is far more than a series of tasks, I think it's trying to create an entire experience.

And if that experience combines the feelings your trying to get the golfer to experience, good golf, a highly functional golf course that can be reasonably maintained, then its perfect...enough...isn't it? Why at that point do we need to grouse about center line bunker positions or a bump here and there?

Is nature perfect? When we look at a beautiful high mountain meadow, do words like perfection enter into our thoughts?

[John Kirk]

Ian,

If you make every fairway narrow, not only will you make me anxious, you will create golf that requires more second shots from off the fairway.  People spray the ball whether they are nervous or not.

What if I said I don't want you to play with my emotions?

In general, I like to see a few narrow holes requiring accuracy off the tee, to test a necessary component of a player's game.  But don't demoralize me.

[JESII]

I think design is far more than a series of tasks, I think it's trying to create an entire experience.

Agreed! And damn happy to hear it.





"Is nature perfect? When we look at a beautiful high mountain meadow, do words like perfection enter into our thoughts? "


Yes, it is. Are all mountain meadows the same?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()