Have all the mistakes been eliminated?

[Peter Pallotta]

Architects today have the benefit of hindsight: they can read about or in some rare cases actually see the entire history of golf course architecture, including not only the exemplary work of the past but also the fads and passing fancies and failures that were tried and found wanting - once fashionable approaches to design that proved unpopular and/or didn't stand the test of time.
Do you think that, in general and for the vast majority of architects today, those mistakes have now all been eliminated?
If so, do you think that is an unalloyed good, or have we lost anything of interest/value in this process of purification?
Peter

[JESII]

Mistakes are good...and they're still around.


I play not many more new (meaning new to me) courses than you so it may not be first hand but the courses with something less than a laser focus on long term maintenance costs are making a big mistake.


Some may say this is an owner/client issue. I agree. It's the architects job to cure them of that issue.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


Interesting topics.  In theory, gca ought to be better as time goes on.  Only problem is, the canvass changes, from real estate to environmental considerations, etc.


There is still variance of opinion. First that comes to mind is visibility over blind shots and maybe "definition" which had become standardized concepts.  And naturally, a few architects, seeking fame and fortune by being different, came along and told us "not so fast."  For some reviewers a new course without those elements has some mistakes, for others, the old style is the mistake and the new style has all the answers.  Neither is totally true, of course.


And, that doesn't even begin to address site specific design applications, or Owner's instructions/goals which are infinite. 


Was looking through some old articles last night and saw a critique of a then new course measuring well over 7K set within a seniors community, where most would play under 6K.  Sometimes, entire paradigms, like the CCFAD everywhere, are mistakes, or at least bad fads.  So, we saw the inherent problems with courses like that, but seemed to think other factors (bunkers for visuals, selling real estate, winning awards, etc.) over rode some well known basic considerations, like making it a course you could play every day. 
 
Mistake?  Giving the Owner what he wants (even if mistake) or keeping up with the times, knowing full well times will change again?


Sorry for the long non-answer.

[BCrosby]

Peter -

Or maybe ask a related question: "Have all the excuses been eliminated?"

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

From my post on the continuum thread, but applicable here:


When asked how I knew it was time to leave my mentors and go out on my own, one of my answers was always that I had probably made enough mistakes under their name, and figured I would learn more making mistakes under my own name, where the consequences would have more ramifications.


None would be life threatening, however.


For that matter, what about mistakes owners make, in hiring unqualified people, or doing it on their own? Or hiring the "wrong" architect? (opinion until a bad course results, then it is a mistake, easier to see in hindsight.


Or regulators, who force a bad hole on a course for reasons nothing to do with golf?


I like the topic, but mistakes will never be eliminated, and in some ways, they can't be.

[JJShanley]

The study of human history says, not a chance.  That does not mean that we do not currently enjoy a period of greatness on GCA.  It's just that I typically back humans to make mistakes in any given endeavor.

[Ian Andrew]

1. Not all mistakes are design. For example da Vinci's Last Supper is one of the greatest paintings there is, but da Vinci's tempera-on-stone experiment was a colossal failure. What we look it is more restoration than original brush strokes. It happens in golf too.


2. Don't judge the state of architecture from a handful of architects on GCA, there are just as many horrible ideas being brought forward as ever. Google deepest bunker in the world to find out how stupid some are.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents - you each came at it from a different perspective. Jim's point about *today's* mistake (or what will appear that way in years to come) was striking. So was Ian's suggestion that many more mistakes are still being made. This doesn't seem right, or even understandable to me.

[Ira Fishman]

Peter,


Was Maya Lin's Vietnam Memorial a "mistake" because it was such a departure from tradition? What about Coltrane's departure from Parker? Yes, a lot of gca is neither good nor innovative, but what about Dye? A mistake or pushing the boundaries of imagination? No risk, no mistakes, no progress. And sometimes one has to accept dead ends and cul de sacs.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira - two (different) responses to your good post:

On the one hand: I have a friend who's a research botanist but also a talented musician. We were talking about our respective creative/artistic endeavours, and I was worrying out loud about a project I was working on, i.e. whether it would turn out to be any good, or even worth doing at all. And he said: Science has been a great teacher for me; it's helped free up my music and taught me not to be afraid. In science, there *are* no failures or mistakes - every experiment, every published result, every theory, is a necessary piece of the puzzle - even if no one will recognize what that piece is for another 50 years. No work is not worth doing; all work is a necessary part of the whole.   

On the other hand: I'm sure glad that doctors long ago realized that leeches won't help cure ulcers and that blood-letting won't get rid of pneumonia; and that architects a few decades ago learned that top-shot bunkers didn't really add much to the game.

Peter   

[Sean_A]

Imagine how boring architecture of any sort would be if all mistakes were eliminated.  Codifying and standardizing has their place in design, but they should never be mistaken as the engine of design.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Inspiration is rarely the result of trying to avoid mistakes.


I try to let everyone think freely when we are building a new project, and trust that we will tamp down any "mistakes" between the time a feature is first shaped and when it's grassed.  There's at least a month (and usually more) for introspection.  But to work that way, either you've got to get back often, or you've got to deputize your associates to make the fixes at the last minute.


One of the hard parts at Sebonack was that once we all signed off on something, I couldn't go back in and make a last-minute change as I usually do.  Plus we had to build USGA greens, which makes last minute changes much harder.

[Peter Pallotta]

Only because it occurs to me: just as with writers ("where have they gone"?) there are mistakes of execution and then there are mistakes of intention. As per Tom's thread, I guess sometimes that intention comes from the client. That's almost bound to be less than ideal. But in general: for today's golf architects (and golf writers), what is their main intention? What is their main goal? Interestingly perhaps, it may be as modest as not making any mistakes - delivering solid work, something that is sure to offend no one. John K should be a golf writer (the lazy drunk he describes himself as can easily be managed, and besides he'd be in good company): he makes a lot of mistakes, and some of them big ones, but more than occasionally he absolutely nails it and hits one out the park. Now there's an example of actually not being afraid to make mistakes. The result: when he's good he's the best, and when he's bad there is no writing as awful...

[Tony Ristola]

Architects today have the benefit of hindsight: they can read about or in some rare cases actually see the entire history of golf course architecture, including not only the exemplary work of the past but also the fads and passing fancies and failures that were tried and found wanting - once fashionable approaches to design that proved unpopular and/or didn't stand the test of time.
Do you think that, in general and for the vast majority of architects today, those mistakes have now all been eliminated?
If so, do you think that is an unalloyed good, or have we lost anything of interest/value in this process of purification?
Peter

Would making a bland golf course be considered a mistake? I'd say so.