The Instagram Effect on Golf Course Architecture

[John Mayhugh]

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).

Think of all of the money Sleepy Hollow saved by not having to advertise in Executive Golfer.
(joking - I cannot imagine Sleepy Hollow having a membership director, much less needing to recruit members)

If words don't accompany photos, it's hard to imagine most people are picking out anything but the most obvious features. Instagram seems much more about "look where I played" than anything educational. I'm guilty of that too.

[Tim Martin]

It’s an endless source of entertainment depending on the feed. I got sent a link recently where a scorecard and visor are staged with a suit coat like a display table at Barneys. No pictures of the holes or commentary other than the aforementioned items. Why not just say I played XYZ club?

[Jon Cavalier]

I think I bring a fair amount of both experience and bias to this discussion (along with a fair amount of trepidation on entry), but I have a few thoughts, so here they are...
 
1. Social media, and especially Instagram, is not a platform for in-depth discussion or analysis of any topic.  If you are looking for scholarly debate or deep insight into politics, current events, sports, entertainment or, certainly, golf course architecture, you are not likely to find it on Instagram.  Instagram is a photo-driven, photo-centric platform, and as such, it is not built for long form journalism or detailed critique.
 
2. This website is the pinnacle for discussion of golf course architecture, but I think people here tend to lose appreciation for the actual and perceived barriers to entry to participation in the discussion here.  First, to do more than lurk, you need to figure out how to apply and get approved by Ran.  But beyond that, the collective knowledge and experience of people on this board can be quite intimidating to anyone who has interest in golf course architecture but feels they lack the experience to engage in a discussion with the experts here, or even to ask the "right" questions.
 
3. Golf related social media has no such barriers to entry.  As such, anyone with any level of experience can engage, ask questions, enter discussions, make their likes and dislikes known, etc. without difficulty and without fear of embarrassment.
 
4. Due to that, one of the strongest benefits of social media is that it can lead people to what they are seeking in golf -- that might be something as simple as their next course to play, or it might be articles of turf grass science or the strengths and weaknesses of the designs of Perry Maxwell.  You won't get the latter from social media itself, but you'll be able to figure out where to go for it relatively quickly.  You'll find links to third party sites with some exceptionally good writing on as wide a variety of topics as you can imagine.
 
5. On the former point, when done correctly (in my view), social media functions like Tom Doak's Confidential Guides.  As Tom writes in the intros to his books, if you find that you share similar tastes to a particular account, that account will likely lead you to other courses that you will probably enjoy.  Unlike the rankings lists of the various publications, which are black box, it's much easier for people to find and identify accounts with which they share similar interests.
 
6. Social media, and Instagram in particular, provides people with a way to interact directly with others who share those similar tastes.  I get questions like, "I just played my first Raynor course and loved it -- any others near Pittsburgh that you can recommend?" or "My friends and I are planning a golf trip and are trying to decide between Pinehurst and Kiawah. We are mostly public golfers -- Bethpage Black is our favorite course.  Which do you think we should pick?" or "I really want to learn more about classic golf course architecture -- what books should I read?"  The answers to these kinds of questions are undoubtedly painfully obvious to many on these boards, and we’ve all seen what happens on the rare occasion when questions of that sort get posted here.  But there really is no other mechanism through which people who are seeking out these things can get instant feedback and interact with someone with whom they know they already have a common interest without fear of public embarrassment.
 
7. I think we tend to underrate both the number of people out there who have a real interest in learning about golf course architecture and the amount of effort and time it takes to gain an expertise like so many of you have.  Social media gives those people an avenue to explore that interest with minimal investment, minimal effort, and minimal fear.
 
8. There are undoubtedly accounts that, as noted above, seem to focus on selfies or in a "look where I played today" manner.  I try (sometimes unsuccessfully) to avoid that myself, at least as much as possible.  There are many accounts that seem to do this constantly.  But so what?  The beauty of social media is not only that it is free to access, but that you get to curate what you see.  The vitriol over what some people do and don't do on their own channels has always been a bit mystifying to me -- if I don't like something, I just don't follow that account.
 
9. Golf, and in particular, American golf, is in many ways, an exclusionary game - income, class, associations, family background, race, sex and many other demographics and characteristics can and do have an impact on the ability of many people to participate in and enjoy the game at different levels.  Everyone seems to want the gates open for everyone until they are on the other side.  The low barriers to entry for participation in golf related social media push back against this by allowing anyone and everyone a seat at the table for a discussion, provided they want one, and if not, a great place to passively watch and observe others discuss a subject in which they have a burgeoning interest.
 
10.  Beyond that, like it or not, there are just a whole bunch of people out there who could care less about golf course architecture and just want to see pretty photos of golf courses to help them pass the time.
 
11. All that said, I do not believe that Instagram has an impact on golf course architecture (at least, no more so than the golf publications, or the rankings lists, or golf coverage on TV.  Like anything else, the trends in golf course architecture change over time as tastes change.  Instagram makes those tastes more apparent and identifiable.  But it is a reactionary medium, at least as far as GCA goes.

The bottom line for me is that social media, like this website, will give you whatever you want to take from it. If you just want to look at pretty pictures of golf courses, it’s got you covered. If you want to grumble and snark at people showing off where they played or checking off lists, it’s got you covered there too. And if you want to try to find interesting tidbits about golf courses or history and maybe spark an interest in seeking out something deeper, it has that for you as well.

For me, I’ve used it primarily as an outlet for sharing my photos and as a way to find and engage with other like-minded, golf-obsessed people. And for that, it has been a very powerful and effective tool.

At the end of the day, people talking and interacting about golf on social media means people are talking and interacting about golf, and as far as I am concerned, that will never be a bad thing.

[Thomas Dai]

Has there become a competitive element between course managers/superintendents etc on golfing social media over who can produce the nicest looking course, ie "showing off"?
And nicest looking might not be the nicest to play or most appropriate cost/subscription/fee wise to maintain, ie complex mowing lines, bunker edge shaping, trees, streams/ponds (even flower beds and fountains!) etc.
Sometimes simple is best in playability/maintenance terms but simple may not look as attractive in a photo on social media, the more so since photos from drones have become more commonplace.

atb

[Tim Martin]

For me, I’ve used it primarily as an outlet for sharing my photos and as a way to find and engage with other like-minded, golf-obsessed people. And for that, it has been a very powerful and effective tool.

It’s good to know you haven’t used it for access.

[Derek_Duncan]

 
11. All that said, I do not believe that Instagram has an impact on golf course architecture (at least, no more so than the golf publications, or the rankings lists, or golf coverage on TV.  Like anything else, the trends in golf course architecture change over time as tastes change.  Instagram makes those tastes more apparent and identifiable.  But it is a reactionary medium, at least as far as GCA goes.

John,


Everything you wrote is well-reasoned and, to me, true. But I'm not sure about this point.


The cumulative, constant effect of the photography on Instagram (and Twitter), I believe, does have an influence. You mention that architectural trends change as tastes change -- well, powerful photography and commentary, at the fingertips of everyone, can influence tastes, especially among people who come to golf architecture anew.


Established pros like Tom Doak and Bill Coore aren't going to be influenced by social media, but a steady stream of glorious, scalloped bunker-edging and accompanying "likes" might catch the eye of a young shaper or architect and inspire him/her to try to do something similar or one better. In fact, almost every youngish designer entering the field has grown up in the social media age of where photography -- high quality, instantaneous, ubiquitous -- is a shorthand way to convey ideas.


Instagram and Twitter are great ways for them and others in the business to show off their chops, which in a way is playing to the crowd -- a crowd that often coalesces around specific aesthetics that are running through thousands of social media golf feeds right now.


There are architects and firms who are building holes now that look a lot like what Doak or Seth Raynor would build, and they weren't doing that before. Would they have transferred into this new mode without the visual and viral influence of Instagram? Maybe. But social media has the power to amplify and accelerate what's considered cool or seems vital. And that can certainly alter both artistic desires and artistic goals.


These are non-judgmental thoughts and not really directed at you, John. But when certain accounts on Twitter and Instagram have 5,000, 10,000 or 30,000+ followers and are pumping out content that registers hundreds or thousands of likes, people notice.

[Scott Weersing]

I would say Instagram provides a timeline of golf course construction and architecture.


Have you seen the timeline of photos for Ballyshear?


https://www.instagram.com/ballyshear_golf_links/?hl=en


Yea, it is completely fabricated course but interesting to see how they are taking a flat site, in a rainy climate, that is going to be cart golf, and building a one of a kind course.


I am more interested in seeing the photos in Instagram that show the progress rather than the finished product.


But I also like seeing a different version of the same course, https://www.instagram.com/p/B08_hoTlyw8/


I have not seen this view of no. 18 at Banff Springs before.

[V_Halyard]

If you want to sell a house, do you put a picture of the Sunday after a Saturday night graduation party or do you dress it up?


I think Instagram give courses, architects and golf positive photographers a platform to show off their work. Just like any photography, garbage in garbage out.


If it is used to promote membership and play or the excellence of investments in golf facilities, I clearly have no problem with it.
Plus this crusty cabal has no problem calling bullshit something over photoshopped.

[V_Halyard]

What John said.
Also, it is essential to recognize and recall that imagery drove expansion. The Big Three, Big courses in black and white then ColorTV, big trees, white “sand” at the Masters, and for me, Stephen Szurlej. Today, it’s a daily dose of Cavalier, Fried Egg, JWay, and Schiller.

Yes, social media imagery influences impressions of golf. Yes it can be marketing. It always has been.

To imply it is new, or any different than the past is inaccurate. It has been the same since the days of the rail brochures featuring Pinehurst or North Berwick, the Crosby Clam Bake and the 100% made for TV, real estate and desert tourism Skins Game in the 60s and 70s.

As an architect, club, course, or developer, it is best practice to have your investment represented with premier imagery in golden light. Poor imagery hurts your brand. It is unlikely that your neighbor’s non-golfing nephew with his brand new drone is your best bet to represent your $3 million investment of craft and cash.

Hence great imagery rises and leaves impressions, as it always has.

[Michael Dugger]

What I like about instagram is when it's used exactly as it was designed to use.  Capture a moment, post it for others to see.  Doesn't need an accompanying diatribe about what it is you are looking at.

[Tom_Doak]

Vaughn:


I would argue that Instagram p.r. Is markedly different than the last generation because it is affordable to everyone.


In one way, that's obviously a good thing.  But as a counterbalance to that, the volume of p.r. has gotten so much louder overall that it's all about shaping and bold features and less about how well the golf holes work ... even though the latter has always been under emphasized in p.r.

[Kalen Braley]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/voices/my-friends-obsession-with-getting-perfect-instagram-photos-ruined-our-vacation/ar-AADw8Ls?li=BBnbcA0

[V_Halyard]

Vaughn:


I would argue that Instagram p.r. Is markedly different than the last generation because it is affordable to everyone.


In one way, that's obviously a good thing.  But as a counterbalance to that, the volume of p.r. has gotten so much louder overall that it's all about shaping and bold features and less about how well the golf holes work ... even though the latter has always been under emphasized in p.r.

Tom, don’t necessarily disagree. Instagram effect expands credibility to independent non-media-professionals such as John vs Instagram accounts only pushing commercial drama-by-feature.
Previously, the only golf architecture the mass market saw was on TV with Johnny Miller et al or in the GolfWeek/Digest/World/ of dramatic pictures.
IGram offers some expanded conversation of architectural variety. This has bled into TV with significant architecture features such as the Raynor segments on the Country Club of Charleston and the pieces that spoke of the guy that did the Renaissance Club in Scotland. 


Ha. In all seriousness, it’s a process and Instagram has impacted and expanded the reach of the architectural conversation. For pondering, archived footage of the US Open with Payne Stewart or the Crosby Clam bakes at CPC, there is little if any mention of Mackenzie or Ross.

[Sean_A]

 
11. All that said, I do not believe that Instagram has an impact on golf course architecture (at least, no more so than the golf publications, or the rankings lists, or golf coverage on TV.  Like anything else, the trends in golf course architecture change over time as tastes change.  Instagram makes those tastes more apparent and identifiable.  But it is a reactionary medium, at least as far as GCA goes.

John,


Everything you wrote is well-reasoned and, to me, true. But I'm not sure about this point.


The cumulative, constant effect of the photography on Instagram (and Twitter), I believe, does have an influence. You mention that architectural trends change as tastes change -- well, powerful photography and commentary, at the fingertips of everyone, can influence tastes, especially among people who come to golf architecture anew.


Established pros like Tom Doak and Bill Coore aren't going to be influenced by social media, but a steady stream of glorious, scalloped bunker-edging and accompanying "likes" might catch the eye of a young shaper or architect and inspire him/her to try to do something similar or one better. In fact, almost every youngish designer entering the field has grown up in the social media age of where photography -- high quality, instantaneous, ubiquitous -- is a shorthand way to convey ideas.


Instagram and Twitter are great ways for them and others in the business to show off their chops, which in a way is playing to the crowd -- a crowd that often coalesces around specific aesthetics that are running through thousands of social media golf feeds right now.


There are architects and firms who are building holes now that look a lot like what Doak or Seth Raynor would build, and they weren't doing that before. Would they have transferred into this new mode without the visual and viral influence of Instagram? Maybe. But social media has the power to amplify and accelerate what's considered cool or seems vital. And that can certainly alter both artistic desires and artistic goals.


These are non-judgmental thoughts and not really directed at you, John. But when certain accounts on Twitter and Instagram have 5,000, 10,000 or 30,000+ followers and are pumping out content that registers hundreds or thousands of likes, people notice.

I too am interested in the reactionary comment. It rings true in that a photo captures what already exists. The leading lights and the odd outlier or two tend to be ahead of the game, but only just because many are compelled to self market themselves. It does seem as if concepts which get at the heart of architecture and its visceral edges spread like a virus these days via social media. That said, it often takes the saavy media person to shed light on these concepts in an organized manner which Instagram cannot do.

Ciao