News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #75 on: December 01, 2013, 07:22:00 PM »
Tom,

You are comparing your course in Myrtle Beach - which I'm guessing is called The Legends - Heathland with this one in terms of it being a faux links course. I've not been there but looked at some pictures. Honestly, didn't think it looked that bad. It certainly didn't resemble the shaping of this Winston Links. A bit ironic that you call it a faux links and name it Heathland I think. That is if I have the right course.

I'm really curious what do you consider creative and daring then? Or is that something your saving for a special project?

That's the right course.  It was going to be named the Linksland course until the owner decided he didn't like the sound of that, and moved up the name "Heathland" which was to be used for the second course.  We don't get to name them ourselves!

I guess my idea of what links shaping should look like is different than what was thought necessary to make a splash in Germany.  Partly, I was more budget-minded [the earthmoving at The Legends was about 450,000 cubic yards], but my observation is that most links courses have some flatter sections, instead of playing through big dunes from 1 to 18.  I was happy with what we built, overall, though I'd concentrate on different things if I had it to do over again.  [That is why I hate big earthmoving projects, you really never feel like you nailed the design, because you could have done anything.]

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #76 on: December 02, 2013, 10:45:11 AM »
Tom,

there are laws, there are local regulations, there are community representatives and there are overrulings :)

Generally, the more remote a place is, the more likely it is that a provincial sovereign exists, who is not to be messed with. In principle like China, just less glaring.

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Peter Pallotta

Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #77 on: December 02, 2013, 12:54:31 PM »
Like Pavarotti's voice, like Bobby Orr's rush up the ice, like Jess Stacy's solo on Sing Sing Sing at Carnegie Hall or Charlie Parker's Lover Man, like Shakespeare's King Lear or Melville's Moby Dick, like Dr King's I have a Dream speech, like Giacometti or The Pieta or Van Gogh, like Cal Ripken at third or Magic Johnson in the playoffs or Walter Payton: what allows the art-craft to approach the truly special (beyond the good, beyond even the great), and what helps me -- through that art-craft, on some rare occasions -- to experience and touch the hem of transcendence (beyong pleasure/contentment, and even beyond gratitude), is the humaness of it all, the almost-perfection that's achieved through the imperfections, in spite of them, because of them, along with them, the uniqueness of an individual human expression striving for something beyond the individual, the just-missing Ideal slightly veiled despite the very best efforts and talents and commtiments. It's amazing how close some artists-craftsmen can get to the Ideal, and what makes their work resonate most for me is this very fact, i.e. the mistakes or limitations that can get them close, but no closer --the honesty and humility and simplicity of that; the humaness of it.

But hey, if a gca can achieve that (assuming that he/she even wants to achieve that) with 20 bulldozers and a million tons of shaping, more power to them.

Peter
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 01:02:51 PM by PPallotta »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back