The Vanity of Art: Tom Doak Vs. Medinah

[Joe Lane]

Hi to all,


I noticed that I got quite a bit of traffic from this site regarding my blog post, “The Vanity of Art: Tom Doak Vs. Medinah” at djlane.wordpress.com a while ago, around the time of the Ryder Cup. I thought I would ask for some feedback regarding it. Here is the link if you haven’t seen it.


https://djlane.wordpress.com/the-vanity-of-art-tom-doak-vs-medinah/


Thanks!

[Blake Conant]

We should get a follow up article

[Peter Pallotta]

Welcome, Joe.

I can't speak to the accuracy of all your assertions, but your writing here I thought very good -- and you managed to do well what many others I've read haven't, i.e. provide a useful gca context/history for the casual fan while managing to keep the nerds interested too. Remarkably, you also managed to keep the clichés/platitudes/conventional wisdoms to a minimum. Thank you for not mentioning "minimalism", "naturalism", "Mike Keiser", "Pete Dye", "rebel", "outsider" or "the renaissance".   

Peter   

[Tim_Weiman]

Joe,


I have followed Tom's work for more than twenty years, including critic reviews of Tom's writing and architecture work. Honestly, I found your piece refreshing. As Peter mentioned, it doesn't just repeat the common cliches that have often been repeated about Tom. Well done!


There is usually a project or two that I have an interest in seeing. This certainly makes the short list. I'm just wondering the best time to make a visit. Maybe it is a before and after - two visits - kind of thing.


Thanks for highlighting this piece for us.

[John McCarthy]

Joe:

This is a very well written and well thought out piece. 

I was out at the Ryder Cup and knew about what was planned, although it was tough to imagine what would come out with so much of the course paved over, cars parked on it, etc. 

I have been out since and loved the result.  There is so much room out on 1 now.  I can't read the greens to save my life.  As a lesser golfer, 3 really is a bridge too far for me...just the length alone but the rough is better than before.  If the standard is desire for immediate replay, 1 beats 3 for me. 

As someone who has a good body of knowledge before and after, what are your thoughts?

[Jay Mickle]

Your background on the course, the architect, the board and the interconnectedness of the process and the outcome has us, like fans of great serials anxiously awaiting the next chapter.

[Jud_T]

Joe,


I agree that I'd love to see the "after" post to your nice "before"...Medinah's hiring of Tom for this project was a surprise to many of the jaded folks here, myself included; it speaks very well of the club's vision of the future, thoughtfulness about their membership's needs and unwillingness to rest on their laurels, which would have been quite easy to do in their case.

[Bob Montle]

Doak is to Golf Architecture

as

Brian Eno is to Architecture of Music

[Jeff_Brauer]

Do we have a photo tour of the finished project so we can look back and see how revolutionary this came out to be?

[Terry Lavin]

When was the blog item published?

[Blake Conant]

Do we have a photo tour of the finished project so we can look back and see how revolutionary this came out to be?

Decent photos on the Medinah website

[Niall C]

Doak is to Golf Architecture

as

Brian Eno is to Architecture of Music

With the recent sad death of Bowie there has been plenty of TV programmes on Bowie recently, some existing retrospectives and some cobbled together following his death. One of them, can't recall which, spoke to his collobarators during his Berlin years one of whom was Eno, with others being Carlos Alamar and the drummer (somebody Davis ?). Both spoke of Eno and and his input at the time and said that while it was interesting, Eno was clearly no musician, a fact that Eno himself appeared to agree with when he was interviewed.


With that in mind, I'm not sure the comparison above is all that apt. Clearly Tom D knows the nuts and bolts of course construction in the same way that Carlos Alamar knew music structure but that Eno didn't. That's just my take and I'm neither a musician or GCA.


Niall

[Joel_Stewart]

The title is intriguing, "The vanity of Art: Tom Doak vs. Medinah".  After all, vanity is "excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements".


I first thought it was Tom vs. the membership and what has been done at #3 which is counter to almost everything Tom stands for.


After reading the article it's Tom against a piece of property and how to transform it but doesn't every architect face this dilemma?


Thanks for sharing.

[Bob Montle]

Doak is to Golf Architecture
as
Brian Eno is to Architecture of Music

I'm not sure the comparison above is all that apt. Clearly Tom D knows the nuts and bolts of course construction in the same way that Carlos Alamar knew music structure but that Eno didn't. That's just my take and I'm neither a musician or GCA.
Niall

As usual Niall, I agree with what you wrote.  I should have realized what I wrote could so easily be misunderstood.
Brian Eno repeatedly admitted he was not a professional musician, in that he wasn’t fluent with any instruments.
He could poke out a tune on a piano and could (sort of) play trumpet, but Tom Doak isn’t known for his wins on the PGA tour either.
Brian was one of the worlds greatest composers of pop music.  Tom is one of the worlds greatest creators of golf courses.  Both are creative geniuses.

The music reviewer George Starotsin wrote a great description of Eno’s abilitites. 
His review has stuck with me over the years and I believe the spirit of what he felt for Eno is echoed by the respect I feel for Mr Doak.

Here is what George wrote.  Read it and then notice the analogy to Mr. Doak’s designs.

“If there is anybody in this world who could really penetrate into the very nature of SOUND itself and analyze it with the sharpest scalpel, yet leaving no traces of rude treatment upon its delicate soul, it is Mr Brian Eno. Have you ever actually wondered what is the actual mechanism, how does the channel between musical notes and our ears work? What does music consist of? What makes a certain sound beautiful and another sound ugly? And did you ever try to admire the beauty of JUST ONE NOTE? In our everyday life, we're used to music consisting of hurried flurries of notes, be it slow or fast; Eno shows us that one note, if used cleverly enough, can be just as awe-inspiring as an entire complex, or catchy, melody...

Whatever the golden praises, I must sorrowfully admit that Brian Eno is rarely given the due respect he deserves....
...so nobody really knows anything about Brian Eno's composing.

Which is a pitiful thing. You may laugh at me, but I actually consider Eno to be one of the most important composers of the XXth century.

When (Brian) used to really write melodies, he did that with a flavour: be it fast, catchy, memorable, solid rock'n'roll ditties, or heartfelt, deeply engaging ballads, he was always on top. What's more, he always complemented that incredibly talented pop side of his with a tendency to make everything completely unlike whatever anybody else was doing at the time. Such a total devotion to his work and such a burning desire to put his foot somewhere no other foot had stood before highly distinguishes Eno and is absolutely unparalleled in our days: Brian was, indeed, one of the Giants of popular (and not-so-popular) music of his time.

Eno always was primarily an experimentator, but he was a rare type of experimentator: the feeling, the devoted artist. Whatever bleeps and beeps and squeaks and moos and miauws come out of his trusty synthesizers, you know for sure they're heartfelt. Hundreds of 'noise-experimentators' and avantgarde artists have produced music that's close in style to Brian, but it always lacks true compassion and sincerity. The amazing thing, for Eno, is that I can always identify with his music, a process that's practically impossible for me to experience with the above-mentioned David Bowie. When Eno rocks, I rock with him, and do it gleefully and without reservations; when Eno rips out a ballad, I cry with him - songs like 'Golden Hours' or 'Spider And I' can tear the very soul out of you if you don't watch out. Such an amazing combination of 'successful experimentator', 'sincere artist' and 'talented composer' in one person is indeed rarely met."

[Joe Lane]

Dear Tim,


Thank you for your kind words. They are much appreciated.


Joe

Joe,


I have followed Tom's work for more than twenty years, including critic reviews of Tom's writing and architecture work. Honestly, I found your piece refreshing. As Peter mentioned, it doesn't just repeat the common cliches that have often been repeated about Tom. Well done!


There is usually a project or two that I have an interest in seeing. This certainly makes the short list. I'm just wondering the best time to make a visit. Maybe it is a before and after - two visits - kind of thing.


Thanks for highlighting this piece for us.

[Joe Lane]

Hi Peter,


I still haven’t figured out exactly how the “reply” function works on this site, so if there are any technical issues, apologies all around.


Anyhow, thank you for the kind words, and also the helpful direction about what exactly you liked about the piece. That is extremely useful. My blog, by the way, is djlane.wordpress.com—it has quite a lot of pieces in it, so feel free to wander around. A caution: not all of them are about golf.


Thanks,


Joe

Welcome, Joe.

I can't speak to the accuracy of all your assertions, but your writing here I thought very good -- and you managed to do well what many others I've read haven't, i.e. provide a useful gca context/history for the casual fan while managing to keep the nerds interested too. Remarkably, you also managed to keep the clichés/platitudes/conventional wisdoms to a minimum. Thank you for not mentioning "minimalism", "naturalism", "Mike Keiser", "Pete Dye", "rebel", "outsider" or "the renaissance".   

Peter

[Joe Lane]

Hi John,


Thank you for the compliments. You can find other pieces (some not golf-related) on my blog, djlane.wordpress.com. (There’s quite a lot. Feel free to wander around.)


As to your questions—well, the greens ARE hard to read on #1. However, I would say that they are easier overall than Streamsong Blue, if only because the slopes are much less severe. (Although that might also be an argument for their difficulty; I’ve never seen anything harder to read than Butler’s, except Augusta’s, and they’re almost dead flat.) I can’t really judge if they are harder than #3, because I could read your putt on #3 if you just called me up and told me where your ball was. (This has actually happened.) So yes, you’re correct about that.


You are also right to want to play #1 as your replay course. #3, while beautiful and a ridiculously big arena, isn’t really the place to have FUN. But #1 is. It’s where you go when you’d like to have a couple of pops and make stupid bets with your friends. I’d suggest taking a forecaddie at least when you go—as you say, you’ll have a lot better time when you have at least a vague idea of what your putt is going to do.


Hope to see you there sometime,


Joe

Joe:

This is a very well written and well thought out piece. 

I was out at the Ryder Cup and knew about what was planned, although it was tough to imagine what would come out with so much of the course paved over, cars parked on it, etc. 

I have been out since and loved the result.  There is so much room out on 1 now.  I can't read the greens to save my life.  As a lesser golfer, 3 really is a bridge too far for me...just the length alone but the rough is better than before.  If the standard is desire for immediate replay, 1 beats 3 for me. 

As someone who has a good body of knowledge before and after, what are your thoughts?

[Joe Lane]

Hi Joel,

[/size]
[/size]I am quite grateful to you to give me the opportunity to explain the title.[size=78%] [/size]One of the secondary meanings of “vanity” is an “empty pleasure,” or “vain pursuit”—that is, something that has no utility. It seems to me that such is precisely what art is, at least from a certain kind of hardheaded perspective—you know, the kind that likes to hold to dictionary definitions, instead of recognizing that words are more like water than like bricks. From that point of view then, what the piece is about is constructing a work of art in perhaps the least likely of places: among a group of shrewd and practical businessmen—the type of people who look for the first definition of a word, and define it simply as that. [size=78%]


Anyway, I hope you take this reply in the spirit with which it was meant, Joel—I mean only to explain what my piece is about. The point is to show what sort of difficulties Mr. Doak must encounter to do what he does, and so how much more impressive what he does really is. Mr. Doak’s job is not really about moving dirt or growing grass—it is about moving minds. And that is an incredible thing, and not something to be taken lightly or carelessly.

The title is intriguing, "The vanity of Art: Tom Doak vs. Medinah".  After all, vanity is "[/size]excessive pride in or admiration of one's own appearance or achievements".[size=78%][/color]


I first thought it was Tom vs. the membership and what has been done at #3 which is counter to almost everything Tom stands for.


After reading the article it's Tom against a piece of property and how to transform it but doesn't every architect face this dilemma?


Thanks for sharing.

[Terry Lavin]

The Course One work has really changed my view of Medinah.  I grew up playing parkland golf courses and Course #3 has always been high in my estimation because of its unforgiveable difficulty and its storied history.  As I've accumulated more knowledge about course architecture, I've noted some significant demerits along the way, but my emotional attachment remains secure, for better or worse.

The amazing thing about what club leaders allowed to happen on Course One is that they hired a guy who was guaranteed to make a statement in his design.  There were many voices that wanted Rees Jones to do the work (he's now redoing #2),  but thankfully they gave Doak the job, because it has introduced the concept of fun and derring-do to Medinah, things that were sadly absent in many ways.  #3 was always a real slog for anybody who isn't a single-digit handicapper and #1 was sort of rundown and tired.  Doak's work has resulted in a golf course that is a blast to play.  Sure the greens are hard to read and maybe one or two could be judged as over-the-top, but there's no doubt that there are a lot more smiles than grimaces when people play Number One.  I know that as a guest, I always say I'll play any of the courses, but that my preference would be to play #1.

[Tom_Doak]

Joe:


Thanks for posting your piece, which I hadn't seen at the time.  Just as well as it might have made me even more self-conscious than it does now.  I continue to be amazed [and occasionally embarrassed] at the response that our work can inspire.


You give me too much credit for the "transformation" at Medinah, and the membership not enough.  At the beginning of the project, even though the board and green committee told me to do my thing, I was skeptical about changing the course very much, because most of the membership seemed to like it the way it was.  In these situations, an architect is never sure of the politics, and just because the board says they are fine with a new direction doesn't mean the members will approve, or be happy with the result.  So, I entered the project with no grand ideas about "art".


The critical factor in the design was that after reviewing the routing, I did not think it was wise to keep the 15th hole in its original position, with players having to drive between Medinah Road and a pond that was tight on the right of the landing area, and actually eroding into the fairway.  However, because the holes were packed together tightly, shifting this one fairway over away from the road had the domino effect of necessitating other changes to the routing ... by the time we were done, we would have to clear a lot of trees in the center of the property and re-route holes 2-3-4-5-6, 10, and 15-16-17, all because of #15 fairway and my dislike for the old 10th hole which your article mentioned. 


The re-routing of several holes right near the start of the course gave it a completely different character than before, even as we retained a lot of the best holes from the previous version [7-8-9].  And the big clearing work opened up long views across the course and changed the feel of having so many parallel fairways.


If you think I visualized all that at the beginning, you'd be mistaken:  we just followed the process to its logical conclusion, and saw that it had the potential to be pretty good.  And then we went out and started building interesting greens and bunkers to make more of it.


In the end, my fears about membership approval were entirely misplaced.  I don't think I've ever done work at a club where something potentially controversial has been so well embraced.  The few times I've been back since the opening, people come out of their way to tell me how much they enjoy the new course.  I don't think I appreciated the culture of the club beforehand:  they treat each course as a different piece of the overall puzzle, and the new Course One enhances that by giving the course a different character than the others. 


I've only seen a couple of other clubs that have three distinct courses for different segments of the membership -- Saucon Valley and Wentworth in England come to mind -- but I think such clubs are much stronger for it.

[Joe Lane]

Dear Mr. Doak,

Thank you very much for your kind (and public!) response. It’s simply amazing to me that you would take the time to write so much regarding what I wrote about Course #1—if I happen to run into any Medinah members in the near future, I will direct them here in order that they might see how complimentary to them you are for themselves. Thank you so much,

Joe

[Joe Lane]

Hi to everyone who’s posted on here!


I thought I’d tell you that I’ve posted the follow-up a number of you have requested on my blog. The web address is


https://djlane.wordpress.com


The new piece is entitled “Eyeless In Medinah.” Thank you for having read the old piece; it’s very much appreciated. I hope you like the new one also.


Thanks,


Joe