What wrong with contrived?

[Jon Wiggett]

On another thread there was a comment about Geoff Ogilvy getting  GCA and a quote where he states

“ The bunker in the center of the green on the sixth at Riviera. The deep little pot bunker at the 10th at Pine Valley. These would be considered madness today, and I guess for good reason, as they'd seem contrived."

so what is wrong with contrived?

I always have to laugh when I hear people say features unnatural/contrived detract from a course. I guess then we cannot have bunkers on most courses and flat tees whether square or round are out. We are been pushed the idea that by taking a wholly artificial hole in the ground full of sand and planting a grassy bushels along with giving it scruffy edges it is suddenly 'Wow, so natural looking'. If you should not build something because it is contrived then you cannot build 99% of the courses out there.

I do not want to create the impression that I dislike the ‘faux natural’ or ‘minimalist’ look even though it is neither in most cases. I do like this type of presentation but I also really like the obviously artificial look which was so often the case in courses built in the UK from the late 1890s through to the 1930s.

What is puzzling me is why are so many people happy with something that they know to be a lie but not something that is honestly showing what it is?

Jon

[Mark Pearce]

Nothing.  Kington is as contrived as it comes in defending the greens but I love it.  It's all too easy to think that natural (or faux natural) = good and artificial (or contrived) = bad.  In practice contrived can look and play great and natural can look and play bland.  In the end what matters is what is there.  Some land provides truly great natural holes, other land needs some help.

[Ally Mcintosh]

What really floats my boat are the little irregular ground contours of links courses and good green complexes.

Therefore anything that replicates this well is what I like most.

Everything else is secondary.... And amongst those secondary things, there are lots of cool features, green shapes and all sorts of "contrived" elements that I like. But they are secondary.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mark,

yes Kington is a great example. The last green complex has to be one of the best in the UK.

Ally,

I agree about the little irregular ground contours of links courses and that true links golf is my favourite form of golf and all else is secondary. But secondary does not mean not being acceptable. Yet Ogilvy seems to be suggesting that one of the best known features on a course that has often been held as the best course in the world would not be built today as it is too contrived.

Jon

[Sean_A]

If it wasn't for contrive architecture there wouldn't be parkland golf, in fact, there wouldn't be many courses at all.  Of course, some contrived courses are more appealing than others.  While its wonderful that archies take the time and effort to create a natural look, at the end of the day, what matter most is the interest and variety of the course, everything else is icing on the cake, chasing rankings, or whatever you want to call it.  If interest an variety are taken care of all else will follow to an at least "acceptable" standard.  Who knows, maybe 50 years from know there will be a backlash against natural designs?  However, I think its more likely that folks will have forgotten these courses were built rather than found. 

I am looking for that archie who will build bunkers that look primitive and evil, like mass burial pits, and earthworks that get straight in the face of golfers.  If folks have seen the odd Fowler bunker at Walton Heath you get the idea.  Its a beauty all its own, even if the sort which stops the heart with fear rather than bringing a pleasant smile to the face.  That is a style I admire, but never see from modern the guys.  Jeepers, you don't see it much from the ODGs either. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

If it wasn't for contrive architecture there wouldn't be parkland golf, in fact, there wouldn't be many courses at all.  Of course, some contrived courses are more appealing than others.  While its wonderful that archies take the time and effort to create a natural look, at the end of the day, what matter most is the interest and variety of the course, everything else is icing on the cake, chasing rankings, or whatever you want to call it.  If interest an variety are taken care of all else will follow to an at least "acceptable" standard.  Who knows, maybe 50 years from know there will be a backlash against natural designs?  However, I think its more likely that folks will have forgotten these courses were built rather than found.  

I am looking for that archie who will build bunkers that look primitive and evil, like mass burial pits, and earthworks that get straight in the face of golfers.  If folks have seen the odd Fowler bunker at Walton Heath you get the idea.  Its a beauty all its own, even if the sort which stops the heart with fear rather than bringing a pleasant smile to the face.  That is a style I admire, but never see from modern the guys.  Jeepers, you don't see it much from the ODGs either.  

Ciao

I've tried to say this before and been shot down... http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,53800.0.html

But many of those early sharp features (perhaps Fowler bunkers) were built because the guys hadn't yet learned how to blend them better in to the landscape....

[Adam Lawrence]

If it wasn't for contrive architecture there wouldn't be parkland golf, in fact, there wouldn't be many courses at all.  Of course, some contrived courses are more appealing than others.  While its wonderful that archies take the time and effort to create a natural look, at the end of the day, what matter most is the interest and variety of the course, everything else is icing on the cake, chasing rankings, or whatever you want to call it.  If interest an variety are taken care of all else will follow to an at least "acceptable" standard.  Who knows, maybe 50 years from know there will be a backlash against natural designs?  However, I think its more likely that folks will have forgotten these courses were built rather than found. 

I am looking for that archie who will build bunkers that look primitive and evil, like mass burial pits, and earthworks that get straight in the face of golfers.  If folks have seen the odd Fowler bunker at Walton Heath you get the idea.  Its a beauty all its own, even if the sort which stops the heart with fear rather than bringing a pleasant smile to the face.  That is a style I admire, but never see from modern the guys.  Jeepers, you don't see it much from the ODGs either. 

Ciao

I've tried to say this before and been shot down...

But many of those early sharp features (perhaps Fowler bunkers) were built because the guys hadn't yet learned how to blend them better in to the landscape....

I think this is absolutely true, and have written on these lines before. You see it on the early Willie Park courses too - Huntercombe most obviously, but Burhill Old also, and there are a number of those features still in existence on the Old course at Sunningdale. It's Colt who was the first to figure out how to build natural-looking features.

[Ryan Coles]

It is purely personal taste. As with the Eastbourne Thread.

Some UK courses, the worse they are, the more they are lapped up as being 'quaint' or 'unique'. So is a lousy hotel with peeling wallpaper and showers that don't work properly.

People make all sorts of concessions and excuses if something or someone is old. All new stuff is brash and contrived. Everything old must be treated with great reverence, however bad.

I visited worplesdon recently. I thought there was so much that was shabby and uncared for around the clubhouse and clearly finances are not an issue. Therefore it becomes either neglect or traditional, depending on which side of the fence you're on.

I prefer contrived.

[Sean_A]

In the case of Kington though, it is patently not true.  Hutchison was a very experienced architect by the time Kington was built...the natural style had been around for at least 20 years.  I think it is likely Hutch had budget issues to properly shape Kington and instead chose Alpinization to make Kington playable.  The idea had been around since at least 1910ish although mainly as fairway features...perhaps it was in part a backlash against naturalism.  For whatever reason for Kingtons Alps, I think we can safely discount the notion that Hutch din't know how to create naturalism.

Ciao

[Tommy Williamsen]

Some of the most natural looking bunkers are contrived.  When I played Old Town this year Dunlop White shared that the bunker on the first fairway took months of shaping and massaging til Coore got it right.  He knew that the first impression of the course could set the tone for the day.  He was right.  It is an awesome looking bunker.

[Peter Pallotta]

Another way to look at Jon's question:

We all wear clothes during the day. For a very special occasion men might even wear a tuxedo. No one seriously suggests that, since everyone is born naked, it's 'contrived' to be wearing clothes, or that it's 'unnatural to wear elegant clothes when a special event calls for them. Wearing clothes is simply the cost of doing business, the cost of living in society - a convention so common and so practical (especially in winter months) that we don't give it a second thought. (Much like a golf course needs/is defined by conventional elements such as places from which to drive/tees and putt/greens as well as places that trouble us/hazards.) But say a fellow shows up at the next funeral or wedding or awards show not in ordinary clothes or a fine suit but in a pirate costume, or in robes and sandals, or dressed up like a robot, or looking like King Louis IV? Sure, there's nothing wrong with it perhaps -- but it would indeed be contrived and unnatural in a different way and to a different degree than with clothes-wearing in general. (Which is to say, if you want to call any golf course -- 99% of them -- that has greens and tees and fairways and hazards 'contrived' and 'unnatural' then there's really no point in having a discussion. Such elements are the 'cost' of being able to play golf at all, but surely we can distinguish, as with clothes, between necessary conventions and the affectations of the egoist.)

Peter

[Josh Tarble]

That's a great question Jon.  I'd like to call out one of the definitions of contrived:

create or bring about (an object or a situation) by deliberate use of skill and artifice

If that doesn't make you think of great architecture, I'm not sure what would.  I think many of my - and probably many on the DG -  favorite holes and courses are quite contrived. 

I think a great example I recently saw would be Chechessee Creek.  On most course, to have so many pushed up and wild greens would seem contrived.  C&C masterful shaping and design made those greens seem to somehow fit the course and land perfectly.

[Sean_A]

Pietro

I don't think folks are suggesting that golf courses exist ipso facto they are a contrivance.  I am suggesting there are design methods and materials which can heighten or mitigate the contrivance.  However, it doesn't necessarily follow that less contrived equals better.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

One man's contrived is another man's cool.
One would think the competition between architects would encourage innovative, outside the box design.
But I'd say the opposite is true because no one whos stuggling wants to lose work due to criticism.

[Paul Gray]

For me personally we rather miss the point when we talk about natural vs unnatural. As someone that sits firmly in the function above form camp, the whole issue is about whether man and nature have worked harmoniously to create a positive. That doesn't say anything about appearance and I personally couldn't give a rat's ass whether that harmony was put there by nature or whether it took a skilled hand to expose it. What never works, it seems to me, is going to war with a piece of land; treating it as if it needs to be conquered.

[Jeff_Brauer]

If you liken gca to fashion, and/or pop culture, you realized that at some point, architects wanted to try something new, and in one sense contrived is a good thing. Or at least, it had to happen given the desire to always be new and different.

[Adam Lawrence]

For me personally we rather miss the point when we talk about natural vs unnatural. As someone that sits firmly in the function above form camp, the whole issue is about whether man and nature have worked harmoniously to create a positive. That doesn't say anything about appearance and I personally couldn't give a rat's ass whether that harmony was put there by nature or whether it took a skilled hand to expose it. What never works, it seems to me, is going to war with a piece of land; treating it as if it needs to be conquered.

It's a perfectly legitimate view. But then, so is the view that a golf course that looks natural is better (all other things being equal) than one that doesn't.

I give you Mr Colt: "It is by no means so widely recognised that the ‘landscape’ aspect of actual construction plays an important part in securing the popularity of a golf-course. The appreciation of pleasant surroundings is often subconscious, and many golfers are no doubt under the impression that while they are playing they are entirely engrossed in the game. When they go away to play golf they select a beautiful place for choice, because they realise that, while not playing golf, they will enjoy having something to look at. But, so far as the links is concerned, they imagine that the quality of the golf is all that matters.”

Colt was hardly the only one to proffer such thoughts.

[Jason Way]

Having been the one to post the quote in the first place, here is a different angle on it.  Mike Clayton can probably comment more on the details of Geoff's tastes in GCA, but I will change the quote slightly to show how I took it:

"These would be considered madness today, and I guess for good reason, as they'd be (misunderstood and criticized as) contrived."

He didn't say exactly that, but that seems to me to be the essence of his lament, and that is why I posted it.  I don't think that it is even fair to say that there is no daring in modern design - there is.  But I think that it is fair to say that we sometimes get caught up confusing style and quality in the debate.  We each have our own style tastes, and they are all valid.  But what really seems to matter to me is the quality piece.  Did the architect and their team, in partnership with nature, create something that is great - interesting, playable, fun, perhaps even a little daring in spots - or didn't they? 

To me, debates about style are much less interesting that debates about quality. 

[Marc Haring]

It's a perfectly legitimate view. But then, so is the view that a golf course that looks natural is better (all other things being equal) than one that doesn't.

I give you Mr Colt: "It is by no means so widely recognised that the ‘landscape’ aspect of actual construction plays an important part in securing the popularity of a golf-course. The appreciation of pleasant surroundings is often subconscious, and many golfers are no doubt under the impression that while they are playing they are entirely engrossed in the game. When they go away to play golf they select a beautiful place for choice, because they realise that, while not playing golf, they will enjoy having something to look at. But, so far as the links is concerned, they imagine that the quality of the golf is all that matters.”

Colt was hardly the only one to proffer such thoughts.

Don't think Colt would like this one then....

[Paul Gray]

It's a perfectly legitimate view. But then, so is the view that a golf course that looks natural is better (all other things being equal) than one that doesn't.

I give you Mr Colt: "It is by no means so widely recognised that the ‘landscape’ aspect of actual construction plays an important part in securing the popularity of a golf-course. The appreciation of pleasant surroundings is often subconscious, and many golfers are no doubt under the impression that while they are playing they are entirely engrossed in the game. When they go away to play golf they select a beautiful place for choice, because they realise that, while not playing golf, they will enjoy having something to look at. But, so far as the links is concerned, they imagine that the quality of the golf is all that matters.”

Colt was hardly the only one to proffer such thoughts.

Don't think Colt would like this one then....

If you actually follow Colt's quote to its logical conclusion, you might well conclude that someone could choose this as he or she might actually find it beautiful. Hell, just to contradict someone that I VERY rarely diagree with, I think it's beautiful but have no desire to play it as it is clearly a product of form being placed above function. Or to put it more bluntly, style has triumphed over substance.

[Jon Wiggett]

It is interesting that people bring up Colt as being the first to build natural looking courses. I agree that he built courses that sat well in their surroundings but are they not also contrived. The next time you drive away from a Colt who is being praised for building natural courses take a look and see if you can spot many low hillocks with their side hollowed out and sand splashed up the side. Surely for a GCA style to be called natural it also needs to occur in NATURE.

I will return to Braid as someone who built many courses in an obviously manmade style and yet his courses are very often not only very appealing from a golfing point of view but also fit the landscape in an artistic sense despite not looking at all natural. I suspect this is due to most of these artificial looking features having a direct and reasonable influence on the playing of the course. Yet many people suggest they are ugly, primitive and somehow lesser in value.

But some of these same people heap praises on designs with a 'natural' look even when such designs incorporate bunkers that have no function other than to look good. Is not superior design that that uses only the features that influence the playing of the game and should one not be suspicious of designs that incorporate functionless eye-candy to cover up inferior design.

Jon

[Paul Gray]

It is interesting that people bring up Colt as being the first to build natural looking courses. I agree that he built courses that sat well in their surroundings but are they not also contrived. The next time you drive away from a Colt who is being praised for building natural courses take a look and see if you can spot many low hillocks with their side hollowed out and sand splashed up the side. Surely for a GCA style to be called natural it also needs to occur in NATURE.

I will return to Braid as someone who built many courses in an obviously manmade style and yet his courses are very often not only very appealing from a golfing point of view but also fit the landscape in an artistic sense despite not looking at all natural. I suspect this is due to most of these artificial looking features having a direct and reasonable influence on the playing of the course. Yet many people suggest they are ugly, primitive and somehow lesser in value.

But some of these same people heap praises on designs with a 'natural' look even when such designs incorporate bunkers that have no function other than to look good. Is not superior design that that uses only the features that influence the playing of the game and should one not be suspicious of designs that incorporate functionless eye-candy to cover up inferior design.

Jon

What he said. 

But seriously, I think we're on the same track in that 'the magic' happens when man utilises (rather than fights) the land to tease out it's best golfing features.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jon,

Good question. Perhaps my most interesting experience with "contrived" was at the Chicago Golf Club. Generally speaking, I am a Mackenzie, natural looking guy. But, somehow the contrived look of Chicago Golf Club just seemed to work.

Unfortunately, I am not smart enough to say why.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tim,

by Mackenzie I assume you mean the good doctor. If so I grew up in Mackenzie country and have played a lot of his courses. Mackenzie did not build natural looking courses which is often wrongly attributed to him as his philosophy. The good doctor built courses that a) fitted the land that it was set in and b) used the lay of the land to fool the golfer and hide the true challenge the hole was presenting. He held local knowledge over seeing what was there.

If you look at his bigger courses none of them are natural looking but rather they all make bold statements and exaggerate what is there naturally. This is why he was so controversial when he was alive and why he strove to be so. If you think about some of his most famous holes such as the fabled lost green at Sitwell Park which was hardly natural looking or the 16th at Pasatiempo does not look as though it was just lie of the land. They are both bold, obviously manufactured yet sit well in their settings.

That is one of the reasons Alwoodley is such a great course. It is very reserved for a Dr. Mac and yet the whole is more than the individual parts.

Jon

[Garland Bayley]

... Mackenzie did not build natural looking courses which is often wrongly attributed to him as his philosophy. ...

MacKenzie's 7th general principle

"The course should have beautiful surroundings, and all artificial features should have so natural an appearance that a stranger is unable to distinguish them from nature itself." The Spirit of St. Andrews

Furthermore, he spends considerable amount of time describing how to maintain a natural look when modifying the landscape while building the course.