The Instagram Effect on Golf Course Architecture

[Bernie Bell]

Is there such a thing?  If so, is it positive, negative, perhaps a mixture of both? 


From the preamble to the 147 Custodians:


"Long form writing is dwindling on a popular basis; Herbert Warren Wind, Pat Ward-Thomas and Charlie Price are no longer here to remind us how the joy of the written word can bring a golf course to life. Instead, splashy photos of sprawling bunkers blitz the senses on social media. Courses continue to increase in size and, therefore, in maintenance expense and time required to play. This is a dangerous trend, as both time and money remain the great threats to any leisure activity, especially golf. A course with hundreds of bunkers along a lake can be spectacular to the eye, but if you as a golfer only want to wrangle with it once year, is that design to be lauded as much as one you wish to play all the time? To date, the various rankings have valued spectacular over playable and that is a mistake, as it encourages developers to build more of the same. Not only is this ill-considered formula destructive to pace of play, it foists on the architect the prerequisite to build easy-to-photograph features that often have nothing to do with good golf. We as a community of golfers need to move the conversation away from the spectacular, but superficial, and reorient the game back to features rooted in nature, subtle (and challenging to photograph) though they may be."

[Tom_Doak]

Instagram is mostly a marketing tool.


There is no doubt that modern golf architecture is more influenced by photography than before, although, even 35 years ago, I remember Pete Dye complaining to me about how clients now wanted "18 postcards" instead of 18 holes.


The golf magazines are responsible, especially for developing a ranking process based mostly on first impressions.  Developers are also responsible, for spending lots of money promoting their golf courses by photo, instead of paying someone a fraction as much to write something original about them.  [Note that 35 years ago, there were 200 writers and 5 photographers making a living in golf; now it's the other way around.]


But golf course architects are also responsible, when they pander to their clients and the masses, and build courses that don't have lasting interest.


The thing is, since all courses are marketed by photo whether they are interesting or not, and since photographers shoot golf holes out of context in many cases, it is hard for most people to tell the difference.  Indeed, the point of marketing an average golf course is to MAKE IT HARD TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE.  But, since the better courses don't look much different in photos, it behooves us as designers to write about what we do and try to explain the differences.

[Thomas Dai]

Maintenance seems to have become more photograph influenced too.
Nice and green, yellow sand, mowing patterns, contrasts in fairway-rough lengths.
The one area that photography etc doesn’t yet seem to have influenced however, is tree removal to enhance on-course and off-course views. Guess a few posting herein would be pleased if it did!


And there’s another aspect .. golf history ... highlighting how classic and other golf courses used to be, how construction used to be undertaken etc .. and how history can be useful in influencing the future .. restorations/reinstatement’s etc the .


Atb

[David Davis]

Tom,


It's definitely used as a marketing tool, no doubt about it! However, you kind of make that sound negative and I'd be willing to bet that the marketing tool aspect of it hugely benefits you and your clients specifically. Imagine how many people have seen the amazing photos of the likes of Barnbougle, Tara Iti, Pacific Dunes, The Loop and Ballyneal just to name a few. I promise you it's benefited you much more than the written word has in the past few years. You do realize that the younger generations can't read anymore don't you - or maybe that's can but don't.


There is also a huge social media effect that Instagram is having on golf. For example, I try to make a post a day, mine are only about golf holes and courses, not selfies (to the benefit of all followers). Point is it's so specific that unless someone is really into GCA there is little reason to follow me and as a result I've met more people from it in the last 2 years than I have met from GCA in the last 5 (that I didn't already know). Most of them were lurkers here as well or in a couple cases didn't know about it yet. So I think it's another avenue providing a niche for people interested in GCA and I think that helps raise the level of education out there. Plus the barrier to entry in terms of asking questions or making comments from people is significantly lower. Hopefully all this results in further improvements to golf courses in some ways, even if it's only from a small elevation in the general knowledge levels.

[Tim Martin]

Unlike those photos used specifically on club websites and print marketing materials most Instagram posts that showcase golf course photos are actually made to promote the Instagrammer. It invariably takes on a “scrap booker” effect of people only taking pictures so that they can later post them to social media.

[Jason Topp]

Two of the most interesting aspects of playing a golf course - slope and wind - are very difficult to communicate through photos and video.  By contrast - water, bunkers and trees all are easy to decipher on video.

The stuff that stands out tends to be rewarded by media/social media coverage over the stuff that does not stand out. 


[/size]

[Peter Pallotta]

Overheard recently in a bar, one late 20-something to her friend, while both are staring at the same i-Phone:
A: Was that from the Cuba trip?
B: (nodding) That’s outside our hotel.
A: You look gorgeous.
B: Thanks - but everyone looks beautiful on Instagram.

Interestingly, ‘A’ didn’t debate the point, even just to reaffirm the compliment.  It’s as if everyone knows that it’s fake but no one cares — as if the goal/ideal is simply to be (or ‘appear to be’) the *best looking* fake.

Must be hard for architects these days to ‘separate themselves’ from the pack — both because ‘every course looks beautiful on Instagram’ and, more so, because of the wide-spread belief amongst media-savvy moderns that ‘every course looks beautiful on Instagram’.

[Tom_Doak]

Well, yes, Instagram is 99% shameless self-promotion, and every course is the greatest course ever.  And that's without even looking at the photo!


David:  yes, I get a lot of requests on Instagram now, too.  None of it is likely to lead to paying work, as far as I can tell; just like participating here, it's a tax on time for putting myself in the public eye.  As a famous golfer once said to me, it's just part of the job.

[Garland Bayley]

...
There is no doubt that modern golf architecture is more influenced by photography than before, although, even 35 years ago, I remember Pete Dye complaining to me about how clients now wanted "18 postcards" instead of 18 holes.
...

Or, is it the Tom Fazio effect, who wrote in his book that people want pretty, so I give them pretty.

[Mike_Young]

Social media can be good but if you don't read between the lines you can think some dudes are the next coming and when you get thru with what has actually been done they might have just done a putting green etc....knowing how to self promote is extremely valuable now since places that could not afford advertising in the past can get it for free today...lots of BS in it...

[Guy Nicholson]

Digital media has wreaked havoc on the business of journalism, but social media is full of amazing writers doing great work on every subject, mostly charging us nothing for the privilege of reading it. I wouldn’t be trying very hard if I couldn’t find something worth reading in about 60 seconds on Twitter.

The problem with Instagram is that its ability to spread an image far and wide isn’t matched by the user experience of looking at that image on a phone screen. How can you get any context about the design of a golf course when the image is barely bigger than a postage stamp? Virtually all the golf photographers I worked with for Catalogue 18 agreed that their material is both more striking and more representative in large format.

The funny part is that with digital cameras, drones and post-production software, the quality of golf photography is way up. Better detail, better angles, better context.

[Ryan Carey]

This may be an admittedly hot take for the average GCAer, but Instagram has singlehandedly caused more people between the ages of 15-40 to care about golf architecture than arguably anything before it.


This is especially true for restoration efforts by Doak, Hanse, and others. It’s giving the average golf fan access to photos of Doak’s work at Pasatiempo, Bel Air, Essex, Somerset Hills, etc, and Hanse’s work at Myopia Hunt, LACC, The Creek, etc. As well as new work at Streamsong, Ohoopee, and so forth. And perhaps the greatest Instagram darling of them all - Sleepy Hollow (their membership director should pay Jon Cavalier/LinksGems royalties for his photos of 16 that set the internet on fire).


And, most importantly in my mind, Instagram is doing an exceptional job of teaching youngish golfers which holes/courses are great, which are architecturally significant, etc. You can surely make the argument that it favors visually appealing golf courses and holes, but that argument (see every discussion about Pebble Beach) existed long before Instagram. Photos posted on Instagram simply mirror what we see with our own eyes.


Instagram has been great for golf course architecture, and it thrives in bringing GCA to a more mainstream audience.

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,


I am guessing that the Instagram effect is a mixed bag. That old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words comes to mind. But in this instance is it really so?


As Jason mentioned slope and wind severity aren't going to be accounted for. With hollows and bumps "flattened" out in the image the neatest line of play from that spot may not be revealed. In that instance I would find a wee bit of the written word by an architect/golf writer, a description of the kind of shot, a comment on the lie of the land in front of you, an account of the architecture underlying this approach for instance to be delightful. I think the image alone doesn't do justice to the complexity of the (w)hole.


I accept that Instagram may well be exposing many a golfing whippersnapper to the delights of the game, and that's terrific, but why not enhance their experience by exposure to delicious golf writing to boot!


So, for me, golf writing is the medium that I would like to see nurtured and used to augment the fleeting image. But then that's just me ...... sounding like a bit of an old fogey as I look back on what I have written!


Given all I have written I may be missing out on some good informative writing but then I dinner ken how to "follow" the likes of David Davis.


Cheers Colin

[Sean_A]

I spose the archies need to speak up.  That said, I don't expect many archies would say Instagram effects their work...they already know about the power of visual marketing.

There is no question Instagram is about marketing, but there is an element of social connecting as well...bigger than most will admit in that for many Instagram is an extension of Facebook because they are basically communicating with friends. 

Instagrammers (and podcasters) can and sometimes do a great job of pointing people back toward the books, people and courses of the golden age.  Many of the best magazine articles did the same thing and just as is the case with Instagram, much of the content is a waste of time. 

Ciao   

[Bernie Bell]

Ryan -  not sure I agree with this.  It’s kind of like a dating app. 


Photos posted on Instagram simply mirror what we see with our own eyes.

[Bernie Bell]

Garland -


Fazio courses are not the darlings of Instagram and Fazio is not among the architects active on IG.  If anything, I would argue that the medium favors architects whose work feeds the bunker fetish.  Not sure Fazio fits that bill, although I’ve probably not seen enough with my own eyes to judge that. 

[Dale_McCallon]

I think IG falls into 2 groups.  When I scroll through the search on IG you really have 2 camps.  Yes, there are the scrapbook type pics of the group on the first tee of XXXX Country Club and those photos are great to keep and show off for to your friends.  But follow the real photographers who know what they are doing and you can get a real perspective of holes.  Some of them may be the money shot with the sun setting in the background; but like Ryan said if the pic of 16 at Sleepy Hollow hasn't made you say "Wow" then you probably aren't a golfer.  Give a photographer the right light and the bumps and hollows of so many courses come to life. 


I hate to sound like the "get off my lawn guy", but in a world where we get our news from Twitter and Facebook headlines these type of mediums are going to draw a younger set much more than a couple thousand words on why the left side of the fairway is better than the right at XXX.


IG has given us  a look inside a lot of clubs that even as a longtime member of this site I had heard little about or very few pics of and I see that as a positive. 

[Derek_Duncan]

 

Instagrammers (and podcasters) can and sometimes do a great job of pointing people back toward the books, people and courses of the golden age.  Many of the best magazine articles did the same thing and just as is the case with Instagram, much of the content is a waste of time. 

Ciao

Sean,


Not so much Instagram, but on Twitter there are a number of people (like here) who diligently post passages and links to books and articles written in the days of yore. Lee Patterson, Simon Haines and Society of Golf Historians (Connor Lewis), just to name a few, have done quite a lot to familiarize the digital golf audience with the formative days of golf and course design.

[Derek_Duncan]

Garland -


Fazio courses are not the darlings of Instagram and Fazio is not among the architects active on IG.  If anything, I would argue that the medium favors architects whose work feeds the bunker fetish.  Not sure Fazio fits that bill, although I’ve probably not seen enough with my own eyes to judge that.

On the contrary, my Instagram feed is stuffed with photos from courses and designers all over the world, from scruffy publics to golf porn drone shots to, yes, Fazio. A lot depends on the net you cast.

[Bernie Bell]

Derek -  I agree with that.  I cast my net pretty widely, including your excellent site, and spend too much time looking at my feed.  I meant to suggest that I don't think the Fazio courses are favored by the IG "influencers" with the largest followings, and that the Fazio shop does not have its own IG account to promote their work (at least that I know of), unlike others whose work is more highly regarded by those influencers and on this site.  I wonder whether you and others with far more golf and media savvy than I think Instagram leads to more or less homogeneity in architectural fashion/taste.  And do you think IG emphasizes bunkering and green complexes over routing, turf and more subtle features that emerge after multiple plays.  Maybe it just emphasizes clouds. 

[Ronald Montesano]

Tom Fazio has a book? What could it possibly contain?

...
There is no doubt that modern golf architecture is more influenced by photography than before, although, even 35 years ago, I remember Pete Dye complaining to me about how clients now wanted "18 postcards" instead of 18 holes.
...

Or, is it the Tom Fazio effect, who wrote in his book that people want pretty, so I give them pretty.

[Thomas Dai]

Not so much Instagram, but on Twitter there are a number of people (like here) who diligently post passages and links to books and articles written in the days of yore. Lee Patterson, Simon Haines and Society of Golf Historians (Connor Lewis), just to name a few, have done quite a lot to familiarize the digital golf audience with the formative days of golf and course design.

+1 Derek.
The history aspect is vital and the names you mention make a huge contribution via their Twitter accounts as do you and several others with Podcasts and the like.
Spread the word is key ... like with the rollback debate.
Indeed there is so much golf architecture information, particularly history, restoration etc details, old articles and photos, being spread on Twitter these days that perhaps the GCA Twitter account should be used more to avoid being ‘left out’.
Atb

[Garland Bayley]

Tom Fazio has a book? What could it possibly contain?

...
There is no doubt that modern golf architecture is more influenced by photography than before, although, even 35 years ago, I remember Pete Dye complaining to me about how clients now wanted "18 postcards" instead of 18 holes.
...

Or, is it the Tom Fazio effect, who wrote in his book that people want pretty, so I give them pretty.

Lots of pictures of pretty golf holes.

[Derek_Duncan]

Derek -  I agree with that.  I cast my net pretty widely, including your excellent site, and spend too much time looking at my feed.  I meant to suggest that I don't think the Fazio courses are favored by the IG "influencers" with the largest followings, and that the Fazio shop does not have its own IG account to promote their work (at least that I know of), unlike others whose work is more highly regarded by those influencers and on this site.  I wonder whether you and others with far more golf and media savvy than I think Instagram leads to more or less homogeneity in architectural fashion/taste.  And do you think IG emphasizes bunkering and green complexes over routing, turf and more subtle features that emerge after multiple plays.  Maybe it just emphasizes clouds.

Bernie,


I was going to respond to your post in lengthier fashion, essentially saying that yes, "influencers" have an ability to shrink the range of accepted architectural tastes by oversupplying their favorites. There's no need to go into it any deeper than that. I will just add that it's up to viewers, followers and consumers to discover their own sense of what they like and respect, just as it was when the glossy magazines were promoting certain courses and styles and not others.


To your last point, it's hard to capture turf and routing on film -- it's pretty hard to capture contour at all (at least for me). So bunkers get the attention. And clouds! Great observation!

[Kyle Harris]

Think of how this influences things in several decades when restorations of modern courses are required.

Heck, I already use the several thousands of photos and posts on Instagram, Facebook, etc. from myself and others to reference the evolution of the golf courses at Streamsong. As with any tool, it is what you make of it.

I do balk online a bit at those with an agenda, even if I agree with the premise. Jingoism and groupthink rarely produce long-lasting net positive results.