News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Peter Pallotta

Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2021, 09:26:51 PM »
...As a designer/ shaper, I’m blessed with a poor memory.
Which means that your best years are still ahead of you, Joe!! Yes, you might have to write Trixie's name on your shirtsleeve, but your design work will be better than ever!

« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 09:43:41 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #26 on: January 25, 2021, 09:48:05 PM »
Mark,I don't use templates...I agree with what Joe Hancock states above.  But when I say I don't use templates let me ask you this...Are the major league baseball parks templates?  Is a curve ball a template no matter who throws it?  Same for knuckle ball...fast ball etc.  Is a straight line a template.  If you call those templates then then we all use templates.  For me it is real simple: tee stake, turn point and green stake...find a designer/shaper with a poor memory and start working on a green that fits the shot values you want and fits... 
Some dudes are so proud to say they use templates that I've seen "templates" stretched as far as you can stretch their definition. If I end up with a Biarritz or a Redan then it just happens but it is not because I tried to copy some dude that never thought about this stuff nearly as much as this site does. 

And that's also why I get so flustered with the restoration "expert" connotation..Think how limiting that really is....it's no where near as much fun to have to try to copy what some ODG guy supposedly did when you could be doing your own thing...
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 09:59:40 PM by Mike_Young »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #27 on: January 25, 2021, 09:53:26 PM »

Getting back to your little quiz - I think if most any of us here other than maybe yourself built a green that someone like Nicklaus or any other noted designer wanted to use somewhere else we would be both surprised and thrilled (and surely not disturbed).  What is to stop them from playing/seeing the hole and then replicating it anyway without saying so.  At least in Nicklaus' case he is being forthright with his intentions.  It would be no different than playing in a pro/am with Tiger Woods and hitting an unconventional recovery shot and Woods says, "Wow, I have to try that shot."  That would be pretty cool, surprising as well, but cool.





I'm not concerned about trying to protect my copyright on those ideas; after all, one of the greens was Brian Schneider's version of the 5th green at Muirfield, built at my request.  [*I do mean Muirfield in Scotland, not the one in Ohio.  That would be too much of a coincidence.]


I was just really bothered that their way of employing them again sounded so cut-and-paste.  Also it wasn't like they told me about doing it, I just happened to overhear the conversation.  But you're right, there's nothing to stop anyone from doing the same, whether they charge less than me to do it, or more than me!




Regarding Macdonald, I was just flipping through his book this evening, and I think he had a very different attitude about the templates than the stereotype most believe today.  Many of his holes at The National were composites; indeed he took great pride in quoting a long passage from Bernard Darwin, which says,


"Apart from the two St Andrews holes there are others modelled on those at home:  the Sahara from Sandwich, the Alps from Prestwick, the Redan from North Berwick, are all good, but better still I think are holes which owe nothing to any model but spring from the unfettered genius of Mr. Macdonald."


He also explains that the now-famous horseshoe mounds in the green of the sixth hole [and many others] came from doodling around with Horace Hutchinson during an R & A meeting.  He wrote of Lido, "I realized that it was not wise to have all the holes on this wonderful lay-out duplicates of holes which I had on my other courses." 


Indeed, a closer study of Macdonald's career would indicate that he built a dozen courses with versions of the templates and other holes, and got bored with architecture before he was even done with those, leaving Seth Raynor to go forth and multiply them.  Macdonald had an artistic temperament; Raynor did not.

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2021, 10:35:13 PM »

By the way, if you happened to come up with some fantastic novel design concept for a golf hole, why would you only want to build it once especially if you built it on some far away ultra exclusive or difficult to get to location where very few golf will ever get to experience it?  You might want to use it elsewhere and just dress it up a little differently.  Just a thought  :D




Spoken like a man who has never had a novel design concept for a hole!


If you had, maybe you would appreciate that part of the genius of the idea is that it fits so perfectly in its spot.  And you would also appreciate that having that great hole is what makes that remote golf course so special.  So you would be less inclined to just knock off your own idea in order to make a buck, and undermine that great course, offering the lame excuse that "others deserved to see it".




If you're going to redefine a template as "any idea you've seen or used before", then the only guys who will not have done that are the guys who have never built anything at all.   But I'm with Peter and Ally, that there is a huge difference between having a green site that falls away and being reminded of a hole somewhere else, vs. idolizing the Redan and finding a place to build it on your next course [or on every course].  It's not a template until you keep doing it.
Tom,


I’ll nominate the Little Devil at Barnbougle as one I haven’t seen elsewhere, fits perfectly at its site and shouldn’t be repeated elsewhere. It helps make the journey special.
Tim Weiman

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2021, 10:38:54 PM »

I’ll nominate the Little Devil at Barnbougle as one I haven’t seen elsewhere, fits perfectly at its site and shouldn’t be repeated elsewhere. It helps make the journey special.


That's funny since I kind of stole the idea [and the name] from you!

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2021, 10:40:17 PM »

Mike,
I didn’t really define “template” but I think you know what I am talking about - a hole or design concept that is fundamentally the same and gets replicated - a pretty woman with different make-up on.  Call that what you want. 


I played a bunch of them today on an Art Hills course which I really enjoy in Palmetto Dunes.  The 12th hole for example is a cape style hole, one that I have played hundreds of times all over including what may or may not be "the original" at Mid Ocean in Bermuda.  I am not complaining about it, I love the hole, and Hills has used the design on many other courses.  I am just pointing out a fact.  Maybe the land called for that on this particular course or maybe Hills just likes cape style holes?? Maybe a cape hole isn’t a template depending on who builds it just  like your curveball analogy?


As far as building something new being more fun than restoring something some dead guy built 100 years ago, I won’t argue with you.  That is part of the reason many older courses have gotten changed (why worry about what was once there when doing your own thing is a heck of a lot more fun).  To each his own. 


My point of this thread is not to argue right or wrong or say one process is better than another.  I am just saying I believe many architects have templates or design concepts that they seem to gravitate toward.  Would you say for example that Pete Dye didn’t have any templates?  He was a pretty successful architect don’t you think :)


Tom,
I would be surprised if Nicklaus just planned to cut and paste those greens designs but who knows.  I’ve played a lot of Nicklaus courses and I think you would agree, he sure has some preferences and hole styles he likes (though much changed from his earlier work).


As far as Macdonald being more artistic than Raynor; you may be right but Raynor did some amazing golf courses in my opinion.  For someone you say had no artistry and who just replicated/sometimes forced a bunch of the same golf holes on each layout, most of his designs turned out pretty awesome and survived the test of time. 


I wonder if Tillinghast were alive and we asked him if he replicated certain golf holes, what he would say?  He might say the same as Fazio - “I have never built the same hole twice”!  But some of us would know better  :D


Tim,
Just think if no one ever tried to replicate the 15th hole at North Berwick?  Would that have made the trip to see "the original" any more or less special than it does to go play it now? 
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 10:42:12 PM by Mark_Fine »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2021, 10:53:22 PM »

Mike,
I didn’t really define “template” but I think you know what I am talking about - a hole or design concept that is fundamentally the same and gets replicated - a pretty woman with different make-up on.  Call that what you want. 


I played a bunch of them today on an Art Hills course which I really enjoy in Palmetto Dunes.  The 12th hole for example is a cape style hole, one that I have played hundreds of times all over including what may or may not be "the original" at Mid Ocean in Bermuda.  I am not complaining about it, I love the hole, and Hills has used the design on many other courses.  I am just pointing out a fact.  Maybe the land called for that on this particular course or maybe Hills just likes cape style holes?? Maybe a cape hole isn’t a template depending on who builds it just  like your curveball analogy?


As far as building something new being more fun than restoring something some dead guy built 100 years ago, I won’t argue with you.  That is part of the reason many older courses have gotten changed (why worry about what was once there when doing your own thing is a heck of a lot more fun).  To each his own. 


My point of this thread is not to argue right or wrong or say one process is better than another.  I am just saying I believe many architects have templates or design concepts that they seem to gravitate toward.  Would you say for example that Pete Dye didn’t have any templates?  He was a pretty successful architect don’t you think :)


Tom,
I would be surprised if Nicklaus just planned to cut and paste those greens designs but who knows.  I’ve played a lot of Nicklaus courses and I think you would agree, he sure has some preferences and hole styles he likes (though much changed from his earlier work).


As far as Macdonald being more artistic than Raynor; you may be right but Raynor did some amazing golf courses in my opinion.  For someone you say had no artistry and who just replicated/sometimes forced a bunch of the same golf holes on each layout, most of his designs turned out pretty awesome and survived the test of time. 


I wonder if Tillinghast were alive and we asked him if he replicated certain golf holes, what he would say?  He might say the same as Fazio - “I have never built the same hole twice”!  But some of us would know better  :D


Tim,
Just think if no one ever tried to replicate the 15th hole at North Berwick?  Would that have made the trip to see "the original" any more or less special than it does to go play it now?
Mark,


Honestly, North Berwick has a lot more than the 15th hole that makes it so much fun and special. Then too, I have seen enough versions of the Redan that I think it is the concept more than the original site at NB that makes it worth repeating.
Tim Weiman

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2021, 11:02:25 PM »

I didn’t really define “template” but I think you know what I am talking about - a hole or design concept that is fundamentally the same and gets replicated - a pretty woman with different make-up on.  Call that what you want. 





Now there is a good analogy.  There are lots of pretty women, and they are all somewhat similar (like par-4's are similar), but they are not copies of each other.  (Although some of them may try to copy the look of another.  But not the prettiest ones.)

Peter Pallotta

Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2021, 11:17:08 PM »
Mark -
to me, what you're asking about here is what makes for quality architecture.
Since all gca has as its only function the creation of fields of play for the game of golf, all course designs -- all golf holes -- are proscribed and shaped and limited by that very same goal, and the very same requirements (ie the need for greens, fairways, hazards, angles, tees, 3 types of Par etc.). So it is literally inevitable -- as it is with furniture makers who design for us many kinds of chairs, all of which we have to be able to sit on -- that different architects at different times and places and on different courses will often create golf holes that look quite similar, or at least quite familiar; and that a given architect might in fact, over a long career, create some golf holes that look almost the same. ['Almost' the same, but not actually the same; none of us can ever step into the same river twice.] The real/important question, it seems to me, is why some architects manage to hide those (necessary) similarities so well, while others don't do it so well at all.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 11:45:56 PM by Peter Pallotta »

mike_beene

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #34 on: January 25, 2021, 11:44:50 PM »
I love North Berwick, and I like template holes. But I don’t get why Redan is so copied. Give me Eden or Short or even Alps or Himalayas or even a fun Road or Birratz. Redan was oddly hilly to me the first time I saw it. It remains so today. Not trying to thread jack but ...

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #35 on: January 26, 2021, 01:14:45 AM »
Joe Hancock & Ted Danson are of the same mindset!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQdEcIj4CgI
"artists should start from zero"
peace
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #36 on: January 26, 2021, 03:30:12 AM »
I am not sure templates as I understand the concept are repeated by all archies. But I do think individual shots are repeated a ton. What usually marks the difference is the terrain and details. I am one to believe that architecture has an alphabet. We can put letters together in many ways, but there are only 26 letters. Consequently patterns emerge, but the ones who know the language the best recognize unusual patterns. Once in a blue moon a new pattern is created or simply revived from a long forgotten time. The thing is, tons of patterns are dismissed as bad, poor etc. Sometimes, these are the very patterns that many of us today lament the loss of. The best archies of today try to find ways to capture the spirit of these questionable patterns while keeping to modern ideals of playability, safety etc. In some ways this explains the fascination with modern naturalist design, especially those courses built on sand. There are visual clues which remind us of 19th century design, but not nearly the hardship which those original courses presented.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #37 on: January 26, 2021, 05:12:38 AM »
Sean good insights and analogies.
I equate it to football (American) plays, as I coached in a former life. 

There are only a certain amount of plays that can be run on offense for example. You have 11 men, 7 have to be on the LOS, one ball etc. That limits your creativity as to what you can run offensively. For those that know football, you notice that offensive football runs in trends. I'll concentrate on the college game for that is what I coached, but in general you have something that starts in the pros, then college, then HS etc.
  • In the 50/60 it was the single wing with many players going both ways (offense and defense) and simple blocking schemes and overwhelmingly running plays.
  • The 70's ushered in the wishbone offense with a triple option attack. However we also saw more passing by the end of the decade and pro formations. Oklahoma specifically and Nebraska
  • The 80's definitely were the start of opening up the offense to throwing the ball and using the eye formation and even a single back was en vogue. Miami, BYU, Florida State
Etc., etc.
So everyone "copied" everyone else but it goes in trends and evolution where someone adds something to an existing play. For example on the off tackle power run play with the tailback. Traditionally it is run with the FB kicking out the Def. End, but when teams started to use 3 WR and no FB they simply used the TE in motion to do the same thing and go kick the DE. Same exact blocking scheme for everyone and the tailback run, however you are using a different player to do one block. Is that copied? Or is that just an evolution?
When you watch a FB game and you see something different it stands out for most plays are run by almost all teams to a degree, very few ideas are novel or new.


Equate that to GCA's, there are only so many ways to design a golf hole and it builds upon what has already been done. Do you take a punchbowl green on a par 4 somewhere and say it is copied, just because someone has made that green complex before? I agree with Sean's description in that there are tools (or alphabet as he calls it) and you use different pieces for different holes as the ground allows (or your client/green committee demands). I enjoy a unique course like North Berwick so much, as the course played over 18 holes is so unique to anywhere else. Now just take one hole, Redan for example, and you can put that elsewhere and not notice it so much perhaps as being unique. So the whole is greater than the sum of the parts over an 18 hole round.
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2021, 07:07:00 AM »
Part of this thread was to see how defensive some posts might get about the idea of “copying or repeating” design concepts.  No artist wants to hear that they are just duplicating past work so I understand the sensitivity.  In that regard, I wonder what Pete Dye would have said about the PGA West/TPC at Sawgrass thread?  Knowing him he wouldn’t care as he knows what he built and what both courses were designed to accomplish. I tried to defend him, not that he needed it, in that thread in that I really don’t think he sold out at all and that the two courses while having some very similar “template” type holes are still very different in my eyes.  I am not sure if Tom Doak liked or didn't like my analogy but you could call those two courses the same beautiful woman dressed up a little differently.  The two courses are set on very different sites with very different surrounds very far away from one another.   I am very much ok with that.  As I also said very few golfers would ever figure the similarities because only a handful will ever play both courses and even then few will recognize the similar holes.  I pointed out the example at Cherry Hills where Flynn used three template holes from Pine Valley and it was not even known at the club even by Pine Valley members that he did this.  Why not let more golfers get to experience that same beautiful woman (Tom Doak called that a lame idea). If I started a thread that Raynor was not one of the greatest architects because he had no artistic talent and just replicated/forced golf holes on the land, this site would have blown up in outrage.  Many would have vigorously defended his use of “the same” golf holes over and over. But when the concept of replicating golf holes in general comes up suggesting many others also do it in some fashion, some freak out that this is not true and not happening and would show no creativity if it were true.  Clearly the details of how two similar holes are finished off are what separates the good from the great.  I have said that many times here and that it often takes more than one quick look around a golf course to determine just how good some of the greatest golf courses really are.  The best designs need to be studied to be learned.  That is in part why sometimes new courses in the Top 100 rankings spike high and then sputter out after people study them a little more and realize there was maybe more sizzle than substance.   It can be the other way around as well. So the takeaway from this thread if anyone wants one is that it helps to look closer at individual golf holes and try to identify what are sometimes subtle details that separate one from the other even though they might essentially be built on the same template.  You might be surprised what you see.  By the way, I wonder if Raynor would say he never built the same hole twice  :D  Technically speaking, he never did but he was damn good at the details.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2021, 07:43:53 AM »
Mike N,


I'm not sure GCA's ought to start from zero on every new design!  If you haven't put your experience to work, you really aren't putting your best design forward.  It would be like a chef deciding to start with chocolate sauce on roast beef, despite pretty well knowing its not going to work, LOL.


Mark F,


Yes, the idea of copying anyone, including yourself, can be sensitive.  In one way, clients love to hear they have your best new original design (despite hiring you based on liking your past work). Years ago, in my year as President of ASGCA, I had the idea to have Jack speak on a panel at our meeting for the first time.  His guys told me never to ask if he copied a golf hole, but me being me, I went ahead and asked him anyway!  He was gracious, not angry, but careful to say he never copied anything, but then rattled off a few holes that he liked the concepts of, including no. 2 at Scioto, which he had played as a kid.


So some of the discussion is really semantics.  TD is an iconoclast, and would rarely admit to ever doing anything but something new and different on every design.  It's been great marketing, but again, some of it is just semantics and him defending his method, which we all understand.  You and I are just more willing to admit the obvious, an idea that has been around as long as at least CBM, who felt every idea had been tried somewhere a century ago.  And, even when I think I am doing something brand new, at some point in my travels I found someone beat me to it.  So, is copying a hole you had no idea exists actually using a template?  After all, its results and not intent that count, right?


For example, I have done Redans, and after modifying for modern conditions (i.e., expecting maybe 10 yards of roll out vs 50 before irrigation) they are nothing like the original, other than the basic slope.  I admit to having two that are the same plan (both on flat ground) but the last one I built was really on a steep reverse slope, and was designed that way out of necessity, but also changed a lot from the basic template I had established for a Redan.


I have heard Pete say that he has 21 holes (same as CBM by coincidence) and he picks the best 18 for any one course.  If two of our best somehow came to the conclusion that of all the possible holes, the best conceptual ones boil down to 21, who are we to argue?  I kind of go through the same thought process, if I had a pure conceptual choice of a Redan or some par 3 hole X, which would I think is better?  If I do it for 37 years, the list does tend to get narrower, LOL.  Much like a football coach tends to get a more consistent style over the years, and yes, often more conservative.


Which gets to the point of is variety and new just for new's sake a great thing in design?  Whose to know, but my bet is, if similar to nearly everything else in life, probably 5-10% of brainstormed new ideas are any good at all, the rest get rejected.  Nothing wrong with adapting workable past ideas perfectly to your green site, or whatever. And, as I mentioned before, in so doing, the hole features change about 5%, and that probably makes it a unique green or hole.  And yes, I agree that always keeping an open mind about things is a requirement of great gca.  I keep designing until the grass seed is dropped (and some keep on beyond that!)


Lastly, what is a template?  Is fw bunker left, greenside bunker right to provide an open angle of play not just a template?  Yes, some would say its a pillar of strategy, but everyone would use that one over and over again without pause.

Well no more, time to go get moring coffee, LOL< at which time I may regret having typed this.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2021, 07:45:58 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #40 on: January 26, 2021, 08:04:16 AM »
I love North Berwick, and I like template holes. But I don’t get why Redan is so copied. Give me Eden or Short or even Alps or Himalayas or even a fun Road or Birratz. Redan was oddly hilly to me the first time I saw it. It remains so today. Not trying to thread jack but ...


The Redan is so popular because any idiot can spot one. I've spent 20 years around you bozo's and I don't know the difference between an Alpine and a Blaupunkt.

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #41 on: January 26, 2021, 08:12:15 AM »
Where is the stigma in copying or using great holes for inspiration? CB Mac and Raynor were pretty successful no?

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2021, 08:32:21 AM »
Jeff,
Pete Dye only had 21 holes to choose from and picked 18  :o  What the hell was he thinking  :D


I'm ready for my morning coffee as well!


John,
Alpine, Blaupunkt, Pioneer, Kenwood,..., I agree we really should be talking more about all these.  What would you like to know  :D

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2021, 09:41:57 AM »
Mark,


To be fair and accurate, Perry actually told me that, but he was referencing his father, so I presumed it was accurate.  And, you only have to look at all the 9/18th holes he built similarly to believe it was mostly true.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #44 on: January 26, 2021, 10:06:17 AM »
Mike N,


I'm not sure GCA's ought to start from zero on every new design!  If you haven't put your experience to work, you really aren't putting your best design forward.  It would be like a chef deciding to start with chocolate sauce on roast beef, despite pretty well knowing its not going to work, LOL.




You're debating Joe Hancock and Ted Danson - good luck with that.
Do you think Ted Danson forgot how to communicate or blink before each role?
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #45 on: January 26, 2021, 10:32:42 AM »
Mike,


I watched the Danson clip, and it does bring up some interesting points.  He said he did the same thing - 30 minute sitcoms - for 18 years and felt he was getting stale.  I agree the same thing can be said about gca's.  I know many who did no style change over their careers, and I know others (including, to some degree me) where golfers can quickly say, well that's an RTJ course.  So, yes, some part of us has to be open to re-thinking our premises from time to time, and occasionally taking a chance to move forward.  Semantics again, but I'm not sure that means throwing out everything you know, just questioning whether it specifically applies here, or depending on time frame, anywhere? 


As a for instance, years ago we worked with an old irrigation designer (mainly out of pity.....) who never graduated from single row systems he designed in the 1950's.  Some gca's never moved off 250 yard dogleg points, even when 266, 283, or 300 became common for most of us to base designs on.  As discussed recently, Mac and Tillie realized that the depression was upon them, and had the epiphany that scattered bunkers were no longer right for the times.


My old mentor pegged the tried and true to something brand new (to them) ratio at 15 holes to 3 holes on any one new course.  That still seems about right to me, at least for most projects with very specific demands, i.e. low budget public.  When given a unique site like the Quarry, I changed my style to fit the site, i.e. more rugged.  At the same time, I didn't change my core principles, like no blind shots, etc. (although I have built a few when the site dictated that)  One occasion when I did, I used a narrow valley as was on the 9th.  It was actually an old haul road into a concrete plant at one time.  So, I consult there last year, and I find it just isn't working, too many balls lost in the native areas that border the fw.  I recommended clearing out the trees and grassing the areas further outside the fw.  Not as dramatic, but if you principle is few lost balls on a resort course, then leaving lots of grass where balls are going to land proved to be a true principle that still stands the test of time, even if it visually diminished one of my favorite self designed holes.


So again, the real debate is probably a bit semantic.  Do we really cleanse our minds of everything we know on a new design?  Even Ted wasn't saying that exactly.  But do we stop short of merely copying ourselves without adaptation and updates?  Hopefully, yes.  I think we both agree that when a gca gets to the point of repetitive designs, he has either stopped trying, and/or probably has replaced the artist's mindset with the businessman's one, probably out of necessity.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #46 on: January 26, 2021, 12:08:42 PM »
Joe Hancock & Ted Danson are of the same mindset!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQdEcIj4CgI
"artists should start from zero"
peace


Mike:


Thanks for the clip.  I got much more out of that than anything Mark has said on this thread, and I don't even know if Ted Danson plays golf.  ;)


It is hard to start at zero, and I don't think very many designers or artists really get there.  I look at it more as diving back into the pool of ideas and trying to open your mind to all of the golf holes that have ever inspired you, instead of going back to the same comfortable play list.


To do that, as Joe said, you have to have a short memory [or a very wide one], and it also helps to employ other people who have their own breadth of experience.  Quite a few of the greens on my courses over the past twenty years were originally inspired by holes I had never seen, which one of my associates used as the start of something I could run with.


I'm a procrastinator by nature, but only because I have confidence that the longer I think about something, the more likely I am to choose correctly in the end.  The key is knowing that you have put the holes in the right place so that you have not boxed yourself into a corner with no good solutions, but instead, that there are a lot of good solutions to choose from.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #47 on: January 26, 2021, 12:20:50 PM »
Tom, Mike -
a semi-related story.
I met Ted Danson once. He'd had his very successful run with Cheers (and many other things) by that point, and was working on his latest television series, Ink. [They were half way through what would prove to be the first and only season.] I was a friend of a friend of a friend, but had done nothing at all in film/television. We were introduced on the set and we chatted a bit; he was very friendly. And then he asked me: 'Have you watched the show?' And when I told him I had, he said 'Okay, tell me honestly -- what do you think?' And when I proceeded to tell him what I thought he listened attentively, without interruption. And then he asked 'How do you think we can make it better?' I was genuinely taken aback -- he seemed to be asking in all sincerity and in good faith. He'd probably forgotten more about what makes for good sitcoms that I'll ever know, and was a big television star then, but he was openly and honestly asking a young unknown writer for his open and honest opinions. So when I saw that clip, it didn't surprise me; from my experience with him, he walks the talk.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2021, 12:30:45 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #48 on: January 26, 2021, 12:27:25 PM »
Joe Hancock & Ted Danson are of the same mindset!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQdEcIj4CgI
"artists should start from zero"
peace


Mike,


As you know, I’m not one to be in tune with celebrities or cultural icons, but that clip with Ted Danson is very good! Thanks!
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Which architects today don't use templates?
« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2021, 12:32:30 PM »
Do we really cleanse our minds of everything we know on a new design?  Even Ted wasn't saying that exactly.  But do we stop short of merely copying ourselves without adaptation and updates?  Hopefully, yes.  I think we both agree that when a gca gets to the point of repetitive designs, he has either stopped trying, and/or probably has replaced the artist's mindset with the businessman's one, probably out of necessity.


Your choice of words made me think of another analogy -- software design.


For a while, companies are debugging a new piece of software to make it better.  But at some point short of Windows 19, the updates produce a bloated thing that any self-respecting software designer could do better from scratch.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back