[Paul Gray]

Arguable, and very contentiously, all arts are merely sciences which we don't yet know enough about to understand the laws of.

Convenient wisdom has it, amongst the GCA collective at least, that golf course architecture is an art form. Possibly it is, but any number of disciplines began within the art and evolved into recognised sciences as greater understand enabled humans to appropriately record certain data which could be shown to consistently produce the same results. Economics remains somewhere between art and science. Arguably psychology does as well. Presumably though, and obviously this is debatable, greater understanding of both will see them both recognised as sciences in the future.

So, by means of reduction, will golf course architecture ever be quantifiable to such a degree that it will be classed as a collection of facts which fit neatly into the scientific model or will it always have indefinable factors which forever leave it in the realm of art?

[Greg Taylor]

Always more of an art than a science, "ceteris paribus" will never be true to no real way of testing hypotheses.

Economics isn't a science either. It's like to think it is, but it isn't. May be except behavioural economics, in a lab conditions etc...

[Michael Moore]

Golf course architecture is engineering, which is science, which is quantifiable.

If I were hiring an architect, I would certainly hope that his greens and bunkers "fit neatly into the scientific model" so that they would not fall apart in heavy rains.

[Paul Gray]

Hmm, if I may......

Golf course building is engineer. When I mentioned architecture, I was referring to the design. Is it ultimately geometry?

Economics is not YET a science. Whether it ever will be remains to be seen. That's the point of the discussion.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Paul, there is a large amount of design that is engineering (or at least technical). We just don't talk about it that much.

A designer will spend more time on drainage, irrigation, specifications, bills of quantities, functional details, site constraints and multi-discipline coordination than he will on the arty side.

[Paul Gray]

Ally,

I realise that but the focus of the thread is on the conceptual side of architecture.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Hard to separate the design and engineering side, IMHO. Being a professional architect means both cool ideas and making them work.  In building architecture, would an architect designing a cool platform that falls down be called a good architect?

There are lots of functional things in golf architecture you can measure - number of holes (!) green and tee size, drainage, etc. etc. etc.  Architects have even come up with charts to measure balance (see Hurdzan's book for the Stanley Thompson chart and other books for other examples)

Heck, even CBM had his detailed perfect (or ideal) course in which to compare designs to, based on length, hole types, etc.

Even some of the artistry is probably measurable, as theorists have studied proportion, visual balance, etc. etc. etc. to try to determine what is pleasing to the eye. (and that goes back to Roman times, so you would think it would be able to have been figured out by now)

And to be honest, and to answer the original question, with all the books, critics, etc., we probably are very close to quantifying everything.  How many reviews focus on what is non-standard from what is expected?  The xxth is blind, or the green at hole no. 3, is too small, or the course in only par 70, etc.  The various rules are pretty standard and I contend even the courses of the iconoclasts are about 90% of what all designers do. 

It is only the last 10% that falls into any sort of unique design philosophy that may produce celebrated differences among architects.

[Mike Hendren]

Is it really a science if some of its finest examples were constructed with a mule and drag-pan? Then again, I likely lack the intellectual capacity to meaningfully contribute to this thread.  Carry on.

Bogey

[Ross Tuddenham]

Science isn't really a thing as such, it is a method of investigation which involves taking observations and experimenting to test hypothesis.  So you could easily apply the scientific method to any number of the tasks required to design a golf course.

[Don Mahaffey]

The problem with the premise is the assumption that science cannot be used in a creative fashion. Of course anything that has to function must be scintifically sound, but there are creative solutions to science and engineering problems.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

Very true.  It is a form of creativity to "see" how certain elements can combine into something else, which is not that much different than golf design, or for that matter, music, comedy, art, etc.

In GCA, in many cases, we see a situation, like pond left, and start applying possible design concepts we know from the past, and end up with something like a Cape Hole, for instance. Or something else.  We combine several common elements with perhaps one unique one to craft a solution (and unique design) to a specific piece of property.

But Ross is right, too.  The design process is similar to the scientific process - ID a problem, look at alternate solutions, pick the best, refine as required (including, sometimes starting over under a different premise found to be better)

I believe many participants here don't see the value of that process, and in some cases, great architects like FLW, market themselves as "Master Architects" sort of able to see things as a whole. But, in reality, most of us have to break the design down to several different and smaller parts to solve the big puzzle first (routing) and then a series of smaller puzzles, such as greens, tees, fairways, each of which is really a separate design problem.  And most design problems involve some kind of compromise of "give this to get that."

And, the things that go into a good design - drainage, circulation (especially with carts), maintenance, etc. go far beyond simply saying "a bunker would be nice here."  The nice bunker thing is about 10% of the total thought process!

And back to the OP, yes, each of those features can be greatly quantified. Does the green get enough sunlight to grow turf?  Big enough to withstand traffic?  Enough areas to move good cup locations?  Ease of walk on from front (walkers) and side (riders).  Is it visible to golfer?  Does the ball react "correctly" (whatever that may be) when it hits the green?  While each green varies in the degree in which they meet minimum functional needs, most would say they have to meet a lot of them to be a good design.

And, that is all before the golfer even weights in with a "I just like it for some reason" which will always be the last thing we can quantify, under, perhaps, the saying of "There is no accounting for taste....."

[Paul Gray]

The problem with the premise is the assumption that science cannot be used in a creative fashion. Of course anything that has to function must be scintifically sound, but there are creative solutions to science and engineering problems.

It was certainly never my intent to suggest an assumption that science cannot be used in a creative fashion.

Essentially, if we actually knew all the different variables, would the apparent mysticism of the art form actually be replaced by predictable reasoning for all those "I just like it like that" comments. In other words, person 1 will always like angles combined as a,b,c when the variables are x,y,z. That, in this context,  is the fundamental distinction between art and science.

[David_Tepper]

"Economics isn't a science either. It's like to think it is, but it isn't."

Greg T. -

You are right about that. The fact that 44 of the 45 economists on the Wall Street Journal panel predicted, at the end of 2013, that interest rates would rise in 2014 (they went down instead!) tells you everything you need to know about the "science" of economics.

The 45th economist on the panel predicted interest rates would be unchanged.  He was wrong too.

DT   

[Michael Moore]

The fact that 44 of the 45 economists on the Wall Street Journal panel predicted, at the end of 2013, that interest rates would rise in 2014 (they went down instead!) tells you everything you need to know about the "science" of economics.  

I know, right? Thomas Edison also sucked big time, wrong on thousands of filament materials.

[Sean_A]

Paul

IMO, absolutely not.  Golf courses aren't about testing data.  What would it mean to apply the scientific method to golf architecture?  A bunch of data is measured to what purpose?  Can the data improve a golf course in aspects other than the nuts n' bolts stuff like drainage etc?  In terms of how a design interfaces with a golfer,  how does one conduct a fair test in an experiment with so many unknown variables at play (ie the weather)?  Can we call an archie a scientist?  Does anybody think of a building archie as a scientist?  It could be argued that in the right hands, course design is better off being less scientific...hence the push for "random" features.    

Ciao

[Sven Nilsen]

Its an art and a science.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,54713.0.html

[Paul Gray]

Paul

IMO, absolutely not.  Golf courses aren't about testing data.  What would it mean to apply the scientific method to golf architecture?  A bunch of data is measured to what purpose?  Can the data improve a golf course in aspects other than the nuts n' bolts stuff like drainage etc?  In terms of how a design interfaces with a golfer,  how does one conduct a fair test in an experiment with so many unknown variables at play (ie the weather)?  Can we call an archie a scientist?  Does anybody think of a building archie as a scientist?  It could be argued that in the right hands, course design is better off being less scientific...hence the push for "random" features.    

Ciao

Sean,

Your referring to your dislike of the idea. That isn't the point. Nor is the point whether we can currently quantity architecture, hence my mention of "science we can't yet quantify."

I suppose ultimately its a philosophical point regarding the nature (or lack of) of determinism. Maybe it's a bit too abstract to get into here and now, which I personally think is a shame. Still, I half expected the thread to sink without a trace.

PS: Thanks for the link Sven to the former excellent debate.

[Sean_A]

Paul

Its not a dislike of the idea at all.  I think the concept of architecure as  a science is seriously flawed.  Again, if architecture is science, are archies scientists?  I don't think so.  Its difficult to imagine architecture changing so much in the future that it is considered/becomes a science, but who knows?  All I can speak to is the here and now.

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Paul

Its not a dislike of the idea at all.  I think the concept of architecure is seriously flawed.  Again, if architecture is science, are archies scientists?  I don't think so.  Its difficult to imagine architecture changing so much in the future that it is considered/becomes a science, but who knows?  All I can speak to is the here and now.

Ciao

Ah ha, there in lies the distinction which no one else was focusing on ie. not the here and now. Good answer.

More than enough input from me. People can discuss if they so wish. Dead thread.

[Mike_Young]

IMHO it is an artisan craft.  So many attempts are made to make it more than it is and for what reason?  There is absolutely nothing wrong with an artisan craft.  Is a furniture maker an artist or an engineer?  Is a potter an artist or an engineer?  Why do they teach industrial design at art schools?  The object is to get a good product on the ground.  10 golf designer might have 10 different ways to do it with one having 50 pages of plans and another just staking it out from a line routing.  When the product is ready for the consumer all that matters is that it is a good product.  How it got there is nothing but hype....when I first got in the business I thought it was one way but the longer I was in it the more I realized that so many were hype....oh well...

[Jonathan Mallard]

I guess I'm obligated to weigh in here...

First - comments about Frank Lloyd Wright.

There used to be thread discussions by the structural engineering community about his lack of understanding of structural engineering principles. For those of you who have to build things, he refused to put any reinforcing steel in some of his concrete slabs, most notably Falling Water. There is a long history of required retrofits to keep some of his work standing.

Architecture and Engineering are generally two different disciplines. I'm aware of one Architectural Engineering program out there. They are usually licensed by the same board, but under different examinations.

I'm waiting to hear the screaming when GC Architects are deemed to be under the jurisdiction of a Landscape Architecture board, and subjected to their requirements to practice in a given state. Don't laugh, it will happen eventually. 50 states, 50 different licenses required! Enjoy!

As for construction, we engineers have a saying: we can do anything you want with enough money.

That's when you might be interested in what the practitioners of the Dismal Science (Economics) have to say.

I've posted engineering questions before on here, but so far, only Tom Doak was willing to discuss the specific concept I was referencing.

My thoughts?

I might be just a tad biased  , but I think Architecture and Engineering are two separate disciplines.

We can certainly quantify the Engineering side of things. I'm not so sure about the GCA side of it.

[Mark Pavy]

This from wiki: Architecture has to do with planning, designing and constructing form, space and ambience to reflect functional, technical, social, environmental and aesthetic considerations.


The space and ambience are the two facets of a golf course that sometimes make me think that what we call architecture is actually course design. Think about all those Top 100 courses built in the dunes by the sea, wasn't the space and ambience already there? Likewise, how many people have walked onto a blank canvas site and felt it would be a good site to build a course? Isn't this another example of space and ambience already existing prior to any man made intervention?

[Mike_Young]

I guess I'm obligated to weigh in here...

First - comments about Frank Lloyd Wright.

There used to be thread discussions by the structural engineering community about his lack of understanding of structural engineering principles. For those of you who have to build things, he refused to put any reinforcing steel in some of his concrete slabs, most notably Falling Water. There is a long history of required retrofits to keep some of his work standing.

Architecture and Engineering are generally two different disciplines. I'm aware of one Architectural Engineering program out there. They are usually licensed by the same board, but under different examinations.

I'm waiting to hear the screaming when GC Architects are deemed to be under the jurisdiction of a Landscape Architecture board, and subjected to their requirements to practice in a given state. Don't laugh, it will happen eventually. 50 states, 50 different licenses required! Enjoy!

As for construction, we engineers have a saying: we can do anything you want with enough money.

That's when you might be interested in what the practitioners of the Dismal Science (Economics) have to say.

I've posted engineering questions before on here, but so far, only Tom Doak was willing to discuss the specific concept I was referencing.

My thoughts?

I might be just a tad biased  , but I think Architecture and Engineering are two separate disciplines.

We can certainly quantify the Engineering side of things. I'm not so sure about the GCA side of it.

Jonothan,
Which concept were you discussing with TD?
And,  I think you thinking on the subject is correct.  I have always felt as though I could hire an engineer to inspect or consult on my golf designs.  I don't agree that there will ever be a license such as required by LAR's etc....it's just too small of a business and it will not even exist that much longer....I think if you will investigate you will find that many if not most golf architects will have an engineer handle cart paths and specs and also place such under the engineer's   E&O insurance. 

[V. Kmetz]

No, golf architecture from scratch is best classified and understood as an artistic endeavor, that only permits the most generalized and subjective quantification...

cheers

vk

[Paul Gray]

......can't YET quantify.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()