Tom Simpson and "Suppressio Veri"

[ForkaB]

Mark

That's a very interesting point of view from Walker Percy (a real blast from the past--haven't heard of him for 40 years or so...).  It says more than a few things to me about GCA, including:

1.  Identifying and/or creating the "truth" of a hole is a subjective/artistic process
2.  The "truth" of any hole will differ to any observer
3.  The more the collective "truth" is obvious (i.e. agreed to by "objective" observors), the less likely the hole is to be great.
4.  Deception is more artifice than art
5.  The "truth" of any golf hole (or even golf course) is personal to the observor as well as to the creator.
6.  The law of numbers (and social psychology) tells us that the collective of observors will have a better understanding of the "truth" of a golf hole than the artist.
7.  This is why there is such a thing as creative restoration and why most of the great golf courses in the world are not the product of one man (or woman) but of many men, thinking and working with love, over time.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Rich,

I grew up in Walker Percy's hometown! A few comments:

3. Brilliant!

4. That's pretty perceptive, but I'm not sure I agree.  Sometimes it's true, but what about when deception serves truth, albeit obliquely? For example, is Paul Burtynsky's photography showing us the evil in environmental degradation or the "positive externality" of beauty:
http://tinyurl.com/wrqor

6. You sound like a deconstructionist -- "artists" will hate you for this! Also, let's not forget no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public!  Also, if you were to map the many routes golfers took to get from tee to green on a particular hole, all you would have is a lot of lines.  You wouldn't necessarily know the "truth" of the hole based on where lines converged.  Convergences could be the result of mass error, lack of skill, etc.

7. Please explain in greater detail -- are you saying you believe committees work better, or that a series of individuals, working individually, can lead to improvement?  Is Woking in your mind here, or Pine Valley?  And if so, why do you not believe those are exceptions to the rule?

I agree with your other points.

Mark

[ForkaB]

Mark

I'll take one "brilliant" out of 7 tries, any day.  Thanks!

As for the less than brilliant statements.....

4. Whoa!  Tough question.  Great stuff, but I don't see deception in that sculpture, except to the extent that in first looking at it, many people (possibly including me) might go, "Doh?"  I doubt if anybody would say, "What happened to the rest of the shipyard?"

6.  I have my deconstructionist days, and this is definitely one of them.  I strongly believe that everybody has their own private 2nd shot to "Foxy" or 16 at Cypress or even Old Course in toto, (or whatever).  The greater the shot, hole or course, the more real and personal alternatives there are.  As fresh and interesting as it must have been in its day, Mackenzie's deconstruction of the 14th at St. Andrews looks far too simplistic in this day and age.

7.  The more one studies a golf course, or even a hole or a shot, the more it is obvious that it is imperfect, and could be improved--in all but a very small number of cases.  Only the greatest practitioners have the courage or skill to improve upon the past masters, but when they do, ooh la la!

And yes, groups can and do make better decisions than individuals, if they are led or facilitated properly.  It will be very interesting to hear about how the group dynamics of "Old Macdonald" are guided.  Properly, Keiser could get a truly breathtaking golf course, igiven the quality of the people involved.  Improperly, he'll get just another ho hum Bandon course.......

[TEPaul]

Does raw Nature herself (natural landforms) offer suggestio falsi and suppressio veri?

I think that's just about all one needs to ask and have answered.

[Dan Kelly]

This is a very interesting thread -- much of which, I'm afraid to say, is beyond me. (I liked the Walker Percy idea a lot. Made me feel better about not having written any novels! And I agree with the "brilliant" regarding Rich's 3rd thesis -- even though "brilliant" is on my short list of most overused words.)

Could one of you gents explain "deconstructionism" (or is it "deconstructivism"?) to me?

Or attempt to, at any rate?

Thank(sgiving)fully,

Dan

P.S. Mark Bourgeois -- I think the best meal I've ever eaten was crabs and beer on a picnic table outside a place in St. Michael (or is it St. Michael's?), on the Eastern Shore.

Do Eastern Shorers eat crab on Thanksgiving?

[TEPaul]

"Walker Percy believed the modern writer had to hide the truth from his readers.  He couldn't simply speak truth to them because in today's post-modern cynical world they'd just tune out.  So he had to trick them into seeing the truth -- in fact, this would get them to actively root it out and discover it for themselves. They'd "own" it."

Mark:

That's good stuff but I don't know that I'd call it the result of today's post-modern cynical world. That trick or technique or guidance or whatever you want to call it is the basis of psychoanalysis. That's why most psychoanalysists never talk much---eg they're simply trying to quietly lead the patient to feel he's become aware of something on his own---by a simple question here and there to discover it for himself or feel like he did. If they simply tell him what they think his problem is the idea has always been that he'll be more likely to reject it and put up some mental defense. But not so if he feels he ferreted it out on his own.

This is exactly what Max Behr based his fundamental philosophy of strategic vs penal golf on. To him strategic golf was when the golfer was allowed to feel a real sense of freedom to make his own discoveries and execute things on his own, rather than being merely shown the way with total obviousness only to physically succeed or fail and be penalized (punished) without the ability to think for himself.

Rich Goodale said---but with any form of deception a golfer will figure it out the first time around. So what? If that's the case then create something where there may be two or three or more different ways of going about achieving the same goal, and better yet try to get the decision making into some form of equilibrium all along the way.

Do all that in architecture and golfers should feel a true sense of freedom that they are finding their own way and if by chance they suspect some "suggestio falsi" or "suppressio veri" is about somewhere they will then be in a position to feel they can and should accept responsibility for it themselves, and particularly if something goes wrong.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ok, I'll admit this thread sailed over my head mid-way through, right about when these two very well-read, very intelligent chaps starting using terms I too have no clue about and citing writers I've never heard of... but re Rich's point #3, brilliantly concise and summed-up it is... but the thought is not new.  Earlier in this thread, an otherwise aw-shucksing yokel said:


Suppressio veri holes, however, seem to me to be what the game should be all about.  I really do believe that the more one has to figure out the best way to play a golf hole - and the less easy that is - the more fun it is.  This is NOT an easy trick to pull off - most experienced golfers can figure out the most effective way to play a hole pretty darn quickly - so when one finds a hole with true suppresio veri and thus has one scratching his head, that hole is to be treasured.


Can a brother get a little love?

 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tom Paul, she certainly does! That's why we have lighthouses (suggestio falsi).  But architecture can never be nature -- interesting connection here to 19th-century, Victorian conception of nature and landscape architecture (forerunner to "Disneyification.")

Tom Paul, re psychoanalysis, I don't think that's where Percy was coming from.  What he was getting at was we've lost our capacity to wonder about the origins of Christianity.  The perspective owes more to Kierkegaard and Camus than Freud.

Dan, the Crab Claw! (My kids call it the "Red Roof.")  We will be having MD she-crab soup today (and turkey -- BBQed).

Dan, the aspect of deconstructionism I was getting at here was the idea that a writer does not own his text; rather, the reader(s) decide the meaning by "deconstructing" the text using certain methods that act as prisms or lenses.

Tom H, love given -- respect earned!

Mark

[Dan Kelly]

Can a brother get a little love?

As soon as this damn football game is over.

And not a moment sooner.

Fraternally (that's Latin!),
Dan

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul, she certainly does! That's why we have lighthouses (suggestio falsi)."

Huh?

"But architecture can never be nature"

Architecture in my mind doesn't have to try TO BE nature, just a good imitation of much of the look and essence of nature which essentially is randomness.

"-- interesting connection here to 19th-century, Victorian conception of nature and landscape architecture (forerunner to "Disneyification.")"

What connection to 19th century, Victorian etc, etc?

"Tom Paul, re psychoanalysis, I don't think that's where Percy was coming from.  What he was getting at was we've lost our capacity to wonder about the origins of Christianity."

Is that where Percy was coming from? That's some pretty trivial wonderment, in my opinion, all things considered. What if one's not a Christian?  

"The perspective owes more to Kierkegaard and Camus than Freud."

Percy's perspective does? Then I'm glad Percy stuck to writing.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I'd better take a stab at this one before the L-tryptophan takes hold.

I didn't read closely enough your earlier post (Behr) and misunderstood.  I agree it's better to figure out things for yourself!

Lemme ax you some stuff. Is it possible for Nature to "offer" suggestio falsi or suppressio veri? Or is it down to our interpretation, in which case we cannot use Nature to judge either concept?  And what's your judgment of both concepts? Is one superior to the other? Did Behr write of the distinction?

(Re Percy, I take it you're not a fan.  Counterpoint re Freud: TL Lawrence beat him to the (Oedipal) paradigm in "Sons and Lovers"!)

Mark

[Dan Kelly]

I didn't read closely enough your earlier post (Behr) and misunderstood.  

That is a very common problem when Behr is about!

[TEPaul]

"Lemme ax you some stuff. Is it possible for Nature to "offer" suggestio falsi or suppressio veri? Or is it down to our interpretation, in which case we cannot use Nature to judge either concept?

Mark:

Is it possible for Nature to "offer" suggestio falsi or suppression veri?

Sure, but not or, and---eg both! Could it really be otherwise? But if you or some golfer is just asking a question about this kind of thing regarding Nature and golf architecture I guess it depends if you're asking Tom Doak or Albert Camus.

Which brings it to your next question---eg 'or is it down to our interpretation'?  

Now you are into my world of Max Behr. Offer in architecture and golf the ability for any golfer to think for himself whatever he wants and whatever he will. Don't try to limit with architecture any of that. Give him as much freedom as possible to think for himself and express for himself in what he does with his club and ball, foster his courage, not his fears.


"And what's your judgment of both concepts? Is one superior to the other? Did Behr write of the distinction?"

I think both concepts are cool, at least as I understand them, and I think both can and should be used in architecture. Why not?

"Is one superior to the other?"

Very good question, I'd probably have to think on that a long, long time and maybe go out and see if I could somehow actually categorize some of both on the ground and then just let my emotions regarding it supply the answer after a time.

"Did Behr write of the distinction?"

I'm not sure, but I can't exactly recall him making a distinction between such things but maybe I missed it---that is always very possible with Max Behr's writing. I believe if he felt Nature supplied and offered both somehow he probably would've endorsed both in architecture as much as I am.

I believe Behr probably felt the best of golf was about two parts intelligence and about eight parts emotion. By intelligence he meant a golfer's ability to call upon experience. By emotion he seems to have meant fear and joy.

He appears to have believed that the golf architect who could produce the most of the latter in any golfer was a good or great architect and the one who produced a good deal of the former wasn't.  

[TEPaul]

But Mark, I think when we discuss things like this we probably need to be a bit careful so as not to be or appear to be inconsistent or even contradictory.

First of all, I'm a big fan of Behr's but that in no sense means I subscribe to everything he said and wrote. At least one of his primary assumptions, I'm afraid I'm coming to disagree with more and more every day. But the rest, to me, is just so good.

When Behr said creating fear in a golfer with architecture was not a good thing to do, he clearly did not mean it should never be done in architecture just that it wasn't a good thing to do if it just completely defeated the golfer emotionally time and again---eg did not inspire both thought and courage from him but instead created no real thought but only fear and intimidation towards acting courageously.

So fear is OK, I guess, if it doesn't completely defeat. I, for one, would have to subscribe to that thought if I was to be consistent about some architecture I like and admire the most---eg Pine Valley probably creates more fear in me than any other course I know but somehow it does not defeat me---it does inspire courage to try things which really do produce real joy if I succeed.

You kinda feel like you really earned it there more than anywhere, and that's, for me, the best of all---as good as it can get, as it were.

Does PV have some good examples of suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. You bet it does, at least as I understand them.

[Peter Pallotta]

This thread deserves to be brought back, and as it is relevant to many of our current threads. From 2006, when architecture was just a gleam in my eye.


Peter

[Matt MacIver]

I thought about the first hole at Tobacco Road reading this thread and suprressio veri. Perhaps a bunch of Strantz holes.

[Paul Gray]

Nice work in bumping this, Peter. This links nicely with the thread you recently started regarding the use of aesthetics to get the golfer thinking.

I see someone beat me to the punchline re Mackenzie by a mere nine years. 

[Paul Gray]

At what point does subtle become so subtle as to be of limited benefit to golfers? In other words, without wishing to pander to the lowest common denominator, is there much point in creating holes which only a handful of people will ever learn to appreciate? Should the architect not seek to open the eyes of as many players as possible to the pleasures of the strategic game which is so cherished on this site, in doing so giving as much pleasure as possible to as many different golfers as possible?

Is it such a disaster if options and the various pluses and minuses of those options are fairly obvious, particularly when they are ever changing because of a change in conditions from one day to the next, let alone from one golf to the next? I can think of any number of Colt holes which this applies to which are, in my opinion, exceptional golf holes.

Certainly there can be subtle nuances beyond the obvious which we uncover as we play any quality course over and over but I've yet to find a secret passage to completely alter my approach to a hole. More often than not, subtlety is directly proportional to influence, not unlike on a green.

[Thomas Dai]

Can subtle sometimes be accidental or even actually not there at all, we just interpret it as being there, kind of like the Emporers new clothes?
Atb

[Sean_A]

I have been thinking about how Beau Desert's greens fit..can't decide if they are veri or falsi.  The subsidence creates greens which can't properly be read, but that circumstance was not deliberately designed. 


Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Can subtle sometimes be accidental or even actually not there at all, we just interpret it as being there, kind of like the Emporers new clothes?
Atb

I was thinking much the same. In fact, I've thought much the same on more than one occasion. The GCA collective can perhaps be guilty of over analysing design, interpreting things which either don't exist or are so subtle as to be nothing more than an irrelevance in terms of how the course is played. As you know, I am a member at Hayling and very attached to the old place. It's a fiine course but waxing lyrically about Simpson and suppressio veri at Hayling would, as you put it, be a case of the Emperor's new cloths.

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - I've often thought the same, and yet I also find myself thinking this: that there are no "accidents" in gca, since what exists on a golf course exists because of both what the architect did and what he didn't do.  So, yes, the subtle nuances and apparent strategy that we discover or that we think we've discovered (or that we can "own" to use Mark's term) may not have been consciously or specifically intended by the architect, i.e. he didn't put them there; but if the architect had respect for the natural site and the talent to identify useful pre-existing features and used construction techniques that didn't unduly disturb the land, then I'd suggest that the nuances have been allowed to be, i.e. they are partly, but not wholly, unintended consequences, since what the architect didn't do he didn't do in part to make manifest such consequences.
Peter

[Paul Gray]

Peter,

I think yours is a very good point. Let me raise this:

You refer to consequences not being "wholly unintended. " This, it seems to me, implies that, on a subconscious level at least, the architect has absorbed those subtle nuances which we go on to 'discover.' Maybe, maybe not.

When some of those ODG's spent a morning here or an afternoon there, sticking pegs in the ground before moving on, can we really be confident that we are not wearing the emperor's new clothes?

[Sean_A]

Paul


It doesn't really matter what the archie "intended".  What matters is what is and that is something we see through our own eyes, not the archie's.


Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Paul


It doesn't really matter what the archie "intended".  What matters is what is and that is something we see through our own eyes, not the archie's.


Ciao

In the comtext of this thread, I disagree.


Of course the game as a whole is about individual interpretation but the thread is about the architects' intent.