Subtlety vs Eye-Candy

[Ally Mcintosh]

Are we more "wowed" by the eye-candy of golf courses these days than at any time in our golfing history?... Do we get carried away by huge imposing bunkers, horizon greens and "features" at the expense of straight forward subtleties and shot values in less inspired surroundings?

Combining both is great of course. But I think most golfers today take a joy more in the former than the latter. And I'm not sure it was always like that.

Perhaps I'm just thinking out loud, primarily because yesterday I enjoyed a highly pleasurable round at my home course - subtle and seemingly overlooked a little more every year.

Ally

[Brent Hutto]

Generally speaking it doesn't wow me now and it didn't in the past. The thing that can "wow" me, perhaps to an irrational extent, is contour. Looking at pictures of a course if I can identify from a photograph what looks like small-scale undulation I have a "wow" reaction. And I am particularly impressed with bold yet flowing large-scale features.

Bunkering I am not impressed with. Not mowing patterns or color/texture contrast in grassing. Undulation and contouring are my eye candy, I suppose. Subtlety is great but boldness is also inspiring!

The Garden Changes

When I was young, I grew
dull plants returning food
for work. But I, now older,
repent my practicality.
I’ve renounced beans, and turned
to crocus, gladiola,
and coreopsis. I’ve moved
past zinnia, marigold,
to bougainvillea.
I’ve even learned to love
poor salvia, which blooms
on August days, when few flowers
will venture anything
but green. The summer’s short
and ornament is what
I want—all vividness.
Not pasty cauliflower
and not potatoes, whose
gnarled flesh is more and more
like mine. Give me bright blossoms
against the teeming green.
Give me orange flags, blue horns,
white faces, yellow wings.
Give me the purple throat,
breathless, of calla lilies—
and red, red, red, red, red.

--Andrew Hudgins (from "The Never-Ending")

[Bill Brightly]

Ally,

You need to define "we." I think that vast majority of golfers are wowed by eye candy. The participants on this site are far more likely to look past the eye candy and notice subtlety. In fact, learning how to do this is one of the best things about this site.

[Jason Topp]

I thought about this quite a bit on Pinehurst No. 2.  Even with the cool waste areas, there is not much that is dramatic to the eye because the land is pretty flat for the most part.  The course has done well but I am not sure how it would do if built today.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'm not sure how to define "we".

I think raters and rankers are more wowed by eye-candy nowadays than they once were.... I guess I include all those on this site that "think" about their architecture (as a whole)...

After all, there's no point including those that don't in the "we". They were always wowed by it to a large extent, even if that meant big lakes, tree-lined fairways or landscaped gardens.

I like bold too. There is a place for everything - as long as it has substance as well as style.

[Adam Clayman]

How do you define shot values?

[Brent Hutto]

Shot values is rater jargon. As such it means whatever the rater intends it to mean.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally,

I think you have to differentiate between "eye candy" and "scale"

Yale and BPB are enormous in their scale, thus, I wouldn't consider either course to be littered with "eye candy"

In general, the designs of CBM/SR/CB contained deep formidable bunkers, but, their function was unquestionable, thus, I wouldn't consider their features as "eye candy"

Now, the waterfalls at the Trump courses, no matter how nice they might look, are pure eye candy, serving no function in the play of the course.

Sometimes water features are "eye candy" and other times very functional, and ocassionally both.

[Thomas Dai]

Eye candy = Turnberry
The opposite = Carnoustie
Magazines, books and TV like eye candy because it helps sell magazines, books and TV time. New courses want to look 'candylike' to attract new members/visitors/clients.
Give me the more rustic for choice, as long as the greens are pure and true.
All the best.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian S,,,

In general, when a feature has no function in terms of playability, but serves as a visual enhancement, that might qualify the feature as "eye candy"

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Excellent description!

[Mac Plumart]

Are we more "wowed" by the eye-candy of golf courses these days than at any time in our golfing history?... Do we get carried away by huge imposing bunkers, horizon greens and "features" at the expense of straight forward subtleties and shot values in less inspired surroundings?

I can't speak to the "at any tine in our golfing history" part of the question, but I believe there is no question that we (the consumers of golf) are wowed by eye candy.

I remember Tom Doak talking about building his course at Streamsong and the constant push for more bunkers to wow and catch the eye of golfers.  I believe the hole with the fewest bunkers is 11 (a long 4).  I love this hole and the rumples protecting the green (and of course the green), but I've heard many, many criticisms of the hole for the lack of interest and bunkering.  But I'd argue the hole has a ton of interest...just not a lot of greenside bunkers.  

[Ally Mcintosh]

Brent - By shot values, I mean the option of different ways to play a shot that faces you. I can use a different term if it is not to your taste.

Pat - I agree with your comment about scale

Brian - Portmarnock got me thinking but not versus The Island (as per the other thread). More versus every new course that is built today, all with striking aesthetics and features. Some of those have great playing options, some of those less so.

Mac - I didn't know that example but it seems a good one to me.

[Brent Hutto]

Brent - By shot values, I mean the option of different ways to play a shot that faces you. I can use a different term if it is not to your taste.

No worries, Ally. It's a term that seems to mean different but very specific things to different people. For you it means options. For others it's more akin to difficulty. And so forth. When raters use it as a numerical rating dimension it means whatever is listed in their rater-training material. Just kind of a loaded term.

[James Boon]

Ally,

I think you are right that most golf ears, even those of us on here, are often suckered in by the eye candy...

The first time I played Burnam & Berrow, I loved the course. However it was some of the holes on flatter land that I thought were holding it back. I was then lucky enough to play the course many more times, often with the Jedi Master of observing the subtle, Sean Arble, and he highlighted the subtly genius of the 7th. Mainly flat land but a subtle spine running the length of the hole which has or at least should have, a real impact on how you play the hole. I eventually loved the hole and miss it dearly...

Maybe it's this modern age? A photo on the Internet has to win us over quickly, but when one had to read the words of Darwin or Dickinson, there is the opportunity to be won over by the poetic subtle description?

Cheers,

James

[Eric Smith]

Great ground certainly helps to eliminate the need for the extra eye candy.

[Sean_A]

Eye candy is like much to do with golf, you know it when you see it.  I think much of the modern design mantra is as much about eye candy as architectural merit.  In fact, I would go further and say the two are no longer separate in the gca world.  Using merely ground movement to create the interest is essentially a lost art.  Its not that archies can't do it and do it well.  Its just that archies really want to create eye candy to justify fees and punters love the stuff anyway.  Its a win-win.  

A few examples of classic eye candy are

textured plantings; including grass, trees etc.  

seamless fairway transitions and transitions in general

eliminating blind shots is a classic if there ever was one

Eye candy has a bad rep, but much of the time it can be good stuff because details can separate good from great.  Like anything, eye candy can make a big difference if the right guy is in charge.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean - Looking at it from the other side of the fence, I wonder if architects just put much more of a premium on the aesthetic look than they did 100 years ago when in general things were more simple?

I'm going to see Castle Stuart next year for the first time but remember looking at the photos and thinking a) how beautiful it looked but b) how it was bursting with deliberate features (including horizon green after horizon green). If the shots and playability and fun are generated by these features and as long as they feel "right" then that is perfect of course. Also playing Boston GC lately, I was amazed at how many ideas and “features” were incorporated in to the course. I thought the course was superb – likely the best modern inland course I have ever seen – but I started questioning whether the architect and crew were almost so skilled that they could just add things for fun. Although minimalist and natural looking, Boston GC is also quite stylised. And that is what I’m getting at in many ways. Every modern golf course is designed and built with a style. Has the loss of early simplicity made us view simple but effective things with less enthusiasm than we once did?

Why were courses like Portmarnock, Hoylake and Carnoustie seen by previous generations as the cream, despite their lack of visual eye-candy? And why has that view been usurped a little in the last 20 - 30 years. I think it is more complicated than Tom's explanation above that “championship” was seen as “best”. I do think however that it is part to do with how they photograph rather than how they play.

[Sean_A]

Ally

I don't think there is any question that aesthetics play a bigger role now than 100 years ago.  

Part of the issue with subtlety is its much easier to get away with if the area is beautiful or if turf is exceptional enough to highlight the subtlety.  Boonie pointed to Burnham's 7th and it is an exceptional example. Strandhills' 6th is a great example.  Sure, the backdrop is lovely, but the green configuration works with the drive options perfectly without any flash whatsoever.  The flash is the scenery, but the hole is very well designed.  

I also think one of the reasons I like subtlety is because the "road map" aspect of the design is reduced.  Road maps ar eone of my big pet peeves, but I think I am in an extreme minority on this issue.  Much of today's aesthetics too often provide the "everything is in front of you" experience.  Often times I admire the sort of aesthetics which hide annoying issues which remind golfers that the course was built.  Sometimes its more or less a budget issue, but sometimes it is sloppy design/maintenance.  

Perhaps one reason the Hoylakes and Carnastys of this world have taken a bit of a knock in recent times may be due to them not being as well designed as some of the newcomers.  Today's best archies seem able to combine great design with great aesthetics.  It shouldn't be surprising that with what we know today, the money floating around, some of the available sites, and great talent, that better courses are being built.  Well, its not surprising to me.  What is surprising is that it has taken so many years to get to this stage after so many great archies paved what was a wide, smooth road.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Eye candy = Turnberry
The opposite = Carnoustie

Thomas:

I don't think you know the difference between eye candy and beauty.  Everyone loves a course on a beautiful site.  Eye candy is a question of how many visual features the architect adds to the equation.  I think Ally has it right in his last post.

It's worth noting that 30 years ago there were only three gentlemen who made their living taking pictures of golf courses.  Now there are at least five times as many.  That's not all about what architects want ... it's also about what clients want and what the magazines want.  We see way more magazine space [and way more bandwidth on this site] devoted to pictures of golf courses than to architectural descriptions of them.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Perhaps one reason the Hoylakes and Carnastys of this world have taken a bit of a knock in recent times may be due to them not being as well designed as some of the newcomers.  Today's best archies seem able to combine great design with great aesthetics.  It shouldn't be surprising that with what we know today, the money floating around, some of the available sites, and great talent, that better courses are being built.  Well, its not surprising to me.  What is surprising is that it has taken so many years to get to this stage after so many great archies paved what was a wide, smooth road.

Ciao

Whilst I agree with your comment about today's best architects combining great design with great aesthetics, I cannot agree with your first sentence. Some of these courses were built with a simpler design method and style, certainly. But why do I find myself enjoying rounds on the Carnousties of this world as much if not more than those courses with a lot more going on visually?

[cary lichtenstein]

So if I understand the majority on this site, eye candy is a bad word, relegating those of us who love drop dead big deep bunkers to the hall of shame and ignorance.

I hereby nominate myself as an honorary member of the Eye Candy Society.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So if I understand the majority on this site, eye candy is a bad word, relegating those of us who love drop dead big deep bunkers to the hall of shame and ignorance.

Cary,

I don't think you've hit on the right definition of "eye candy", or rather, you've adopted the wrong definition of "eye candy"

I hereby nominate myself as an honorary member of the Eye Candy Society.

[archie_struthers]

 

Thanks for the pictures Eric S. ! Funny how eye candy to one might be why did they do that to another.

In the third picture , the long flowing bunkers to the left are way too contrived and unnatural to me , though they may be wow to someone else.

[Mark Pearce]

Eric,

Where is that 4th picture?