[Mike_Young]

People with artistic temperament know what TD is saying.

"You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

Indigo Montoya

Artistic Temperament - A disposition towards obsession and extremes of emotion, especially depression and anger.

I understand what it means..
As Larry McQuire says:"
"Artistic Temperament And The Challenge Working With Others I'm gonna let you in on something… sometimes I don't work well with other people. Maybe it's my artistic temperament or maybe I'm just an asshole.
I have a tendency to get under people's skin, make them uncomfortable, frustrated, upset or at worst, even angry.
When I lead a project I have an idea of how the end result and the route to that result should look. In the interim, I can become irritable, blunt and intolerant with others who are not up to speed.
The outcome of these working relationships is usually that these people either leave or comply with the standards I need.
This has caused me problems in the past. However, although many people find it difficult to handle an uncompromising approach, it's great when a collective effort works out."

[Sven Nilsen]

But is that what Tom was describing with respect to CBM?  Or was he describing the man's love for the game and how that enhanced his work.


There is a difference.  And if it is the latter, I'll stand by my earlier post.

[Mike_Young]

But is that what Tom was describing with respect to CBM?  Or was he describing the man's love for the game and how that enhanced his work.


There is a difference.  And if it is the latter, I'll stand by my earlier post.

I can't speak for TD...

[Gib_Papazian]

With respect to Raynor being adept at self-promotion, there was really no need. You can easily make the argument he worked himself to death (remember, travel was train and boat) and died at an early age. Banks ended up finishing quite a few courses after Raynor passed, so not sure they could have taken on many more new design commissions.

Referencing the 1918 Olympian Interview, my recollection is the writer strongly implied Raynor was a taciturn subject. BTW, since I am the one who may - or may not - have swiped an original copy of the magazine out of our archives, Raynor was planning on building a "west coast" Lido . . . . . . when WWI ended, there was a golf boom and the club decided it needed 36 holes, not 18.

To this day, his plans hang on our clubhouse wall, sticking their tongue out at me every time I walk into the locker room. When the club was considering a complete redesign of our Ocean Course, I insisted those plans to be a fantastic starting point, even though the orientation and topography would have to be altered quite a bit.

Our GC at the time: "Who is Seth Raynor? And what is a "Lido?"

That was the day I mostly hung up any hope for us . . . . . .
 
   

[Paul Rudovsky]

I have funny feeling some of the above confuses "artistic temperament" with being an "artist"...and some people think people who are very organized and think in very clear patterns are not creative.  The world is full of geniuses and I believe they act in ways that are very different from other geniuses.


The disorganized ones (generally viewed as those with an "artistic temperament") start with at the disadvantage of have to get some organization to their output or it stays a jumbled mess...but with an advantage in that they are more likely to be able to "think outside the box".  While the well organized ones (some of the posters here tend to refer to these folks as "engineers") are the opposite...that does not mean they cannot "think outside of the box". 


And BTW...if Raynor created one or two great golf courses without thinking about golf or understanding the game...that might be luck.  But if he created 10+ great courses without thinking about golf or understanding the game....from a probabilistic standpoint that is NOT luck, that is a sign of a TRUE genius!  Just because others (including a good number of us) do not understand how he "got there" does't carry much weight, at least to moi.  If you have ever known many brilliant mathematicians or physicists, you many notice many of them tend to be deep on the "spectrum".  That is because to develop the thoughts they think, they have to see things the rest of us mortals cannot visualize.  If we cannot visualize these thoughts, no way can we conceive of the thought process of their minds and we have a difficult time recognizing their genius.

One last note...the differences between extroverts and introverts exacerbates the above "difficult time".  If a genius is an introvert, they tend to not give hints about their thought processes...and folks on the spectrum tend to be introverts (and have a higher propensity for genius that the rest of us mortals).

[Jeff Schley]

With respect to Raynor being adept at self-promotion, there was really no need. You can easily make the argument he worked himself to death (remember, travel was train and boat) and died at an early age. Banks ended up finishing quite a few courses after Raynor passed, so not sure they could have taken on many more new design commissions.

Referencing the 1918 Olympian Interview, my recollection is the writer strongly implied Raynor was a taciturn subject. BTW, since I am the one who may - or may not - have swiped an original copy of the magazine out of our archives, Raynor was planning on building a "west coast" Lido . . . . . . when WWI ended, there was a golf boom and the club decided it needed 36 holes, not 18.

To this day, his plans hang on our clubhouse wall, sticking their tongue out at me every time I walk into the locker room. When the club was considering a complete redesign of our Ocean Course, I insisted those plans to be a fantastic starting point, even though the orientation and topography would have to be altered quite a bit.

Our GC at the time: "Who is Seth Raynor? And what is a "Lido?"

That was the day I mostly hung up any hope for us . . . . . .
 
   

I know Raynor dies earlier than what we would have expected I checked a couple sources and someone born in 1874 had a life expectancy of 39.4 years of age. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-united-states-all-time/
Now the Spanish flu (we know about that now) and WW1 were the main culprits, but Raynor actually dodges some bullets to live to be 51.

[Tim Martin]

I have funny feeling some of the above confuses "artistic temperament" with being an "artist"...and some people think people who are very organized and think in very clear patterns are not creative.  The world is full of geniuses and I believe they act in ways that are very different from other geniuses.


The disorganized ones (generally viewed as those with an "artistic temperament") start with at the disadvantage of have to get some organization to their output or it stays a jumbled mess...but with an advantage in that they are more likely to be able to "think outside the box".  While the well organized ones (some of the posters here tend to refer to these folks as "engineers") are the opposite...that does not mean they cannot "think outside of the box". 


And BTW...if Raynor created one or two great golf courses without thinking about golf or understanding the game...that might be luck.  But if he created 10+ great courses without thinking about golf or understanding the game....from a probabilistic standpoint that is NOT luck, that is a sign of a TRUE genius!  Just because others (including a good number of us) do not understand how he "got there" does't carry much weight, at least to moi.  If you have ever known many brilliant mathematicians or physicists, you many notice many of them tend to be deep on the "spectrum".  That is because to develop the thoughts they think, they have to see things the rest of us mortals cannot visualize.  If we cannot visualize these thoughts, no way can we conceive of the thought process of their minds and we have a difficult time recognizing their genius.

One last note...the differences between extroverts and introverts exacerbates the above "difficult time".  If a genius is an introvert, they tend to not give hints about their thought processes...and folks on the spectrum tend to be introverts (and have a higher propensity for genius that the rest of us mortals).

So he was a genius.....

[Paul Rudovsky]

So he was a genius.....

no question IMHO

[Tom_Doak]

"You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

Indigo Montoya

Artistic Temperament - A disposition towards obsession and extremes of emotion, especially depression and anger.

Sven:


That's a definition written by someone who was not an artist. 


IMO, the two things go hand in hand.  Most of the artists I know are motivated and driven by emotion far more than the average person.  Some have a genius, too, but they also have a passion for their work and in many cases they have a hard time letting go of it for that same reason.


It is also possible to be very successful at golf course design without that, certainly.  From what I have read of him, I don't think Donald Ross had that sort of temperament, or Harry Colt or George Thomas, and from meeting them I would say the same of Robert Trent Jones and Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus.


On the other hand, Alister MacKenzie surely had an artistic temperament.  Tom Simpson certainly did.  And Pete Dye absolutely did; that was who I learned it from.




P.S. to Paul R:  I went to M.I.T. briefly, too, so I have met a few of that sort of geniuses, and I think you are right that Seth Raynor would probably have fit in very well with them.  But then you would agree with me that he did not have an artistic temperament, which is the statement that Tim called me out for in this thread.

[Tim Martin]

"You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

Indigo Montoya

Artistic Temperament - A disposition towards obsession and extremes of emotion, especially depression and anger.

Sven:


That's a definition written by someone who was not an artist. 


IMO, the two things go hand in hand.  Most of the artists I know are motivated and driven by emotion far more than the average person.  Some have a genius, too, but they also have a passion for their work and in many cases they have a hard time letting go of it for that same reason.


It is also possible to be very successful at golf course design without that, certainly.  From what I have read of him, I don't think Donald Ross had that sort of temperament, or Harry Colt or George Thomas, and from meeting them I would say the same of Robert Trent Jones and Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus.


On the other hand, Alister MacKenzie surely had an artistic temperament.  Tom Simpson certainly did.  And Pete Dye absolutely did; that was who I learned it from.




P.S. to Paul R:  I went to M.I.T. briefly, too, so I have met a few of that sort of geniuses, and I think you are right that Seth Raynor would probably have fit in very well with them.  But then you would agree with me that he did not have an artistic temperament, which is the statement that Tim called me out for in this thread.

What I called you out on as you did in turn with me is that neither of us has enough anecdotal information to make that judgement.

[Tom_Doak]

What I called you out on as you did in turn with me is that neither of us has enough anecdotal information to make that judgement.

Fair point.  It's others who have argued over the definitions.

[Sven Nilsen]

That's a definition written by someone who was not an artist. 

Search around, I think you'll find that you're not using the term the way it is commonly used.  The difference is the inclination towards the borderline between sanity and chopping off your own ear.


In any case, I'm still not sold that CBM had what you are calling an artistic temperament (at least you haven't proven it to me yet).


Here's that 1907 article in full.  Reads much more like a piece written by someone driven by logic rather than emotion. 


That's not to say that CBM didn't have an emotional attachment to his work, especially when they were his projects ala NGLA.  But that is a far cry from him being "driven by emotion far more than the average person." 


Jan. 1907 Golfers Magazine -

[Paul Rudovsky]

Tom and Tim (and others posting here)--


After reading this thread around midnight last night I was too tired to figure out who said what!!  In any case, it seems clear to me that we can only guess about the temperament (given how that world is pronounced and constructed I cannot for the life of me understand that the "a" is doing in it!!) of Raynor, CBM, Ross or any of the other great architects of 100 years ago as no one live ever met them and golf architecture was not important enough to generate a burst of biographies (not the case with folks like Edison, Frank Lloyd Wright, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Churchill, Wilson, Roosevelt etc.). 


That is not to say w should not muse about it or debate the questions...just to say do not expect definitive answers.  And I agree w Tom D. that Raynor probably had an "engineer's" temperament and not an artistic one.  My guess is that he was an introvert a a bit "nerdy" (not at all meant as an insult...these days nerds rule the world) 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sven,


I enjoyed reading that again.  TD seems to be against almost any form of codifying ideas and preferences, it seems like most of us like to do it.  I've never found a philosophy of no philosophy to be particularly useful in design.....In a way it makes sense.  Human nature seems to be to try to organize things, rank them, evaluate them, etc.  While rankings are public, gca's internal thoughts about what drives their designs usually isn't.


A basic philosophy isn't a bad thing.  Many think if it is too rigid the gca can't ever or doesn't look hard enough for those occasions when it makes sense to break the rules.  I think I can.  Or, as I once joked, "I have a ten commandments of golf course architecture, but in design, as in life, I have trouble ever following more than 8 at one time."


And, didn't Ron Whitten explore the right brain left brain split among gca's?  It's there, and maybe TD is just projecting his strongly held opinions as fact across the gca universe.  Also a very human trait!

[Tommy Williamsen]

With respect to Raynor being adept at self-promotion, there was really no need. You can easily make the argument he worked himself to death (remember, travel was train and boat) and died at an early age. Banks ended up finishing quite a few courses after Raynor passed, so not sure they could have taken on many more new design commissions.

Referencing the 1918 Olympian Interview, my recollection is the writer strongly implied Raynor was a taciturn subject. BTW, since I am the one who may - or may not - have swiped an original copy of the magazine out of our archives, Raynor was planning on building a "west coast" Lido . . . . . . when WWI ended, there was a golf boom and the club decided it needed 36 holes, not 18.

To this day, his plans hang on our clubhouse wall, sticking their tongue out at me every time I walk into the locker room. When the club was considering a complete redesign of our Ocean Course, I insisted those plans to be a fantastic starting point, even though the orientation and topography would have to be altered quite a bit.

Our GC at the time: "Who is Seth Raynor? And what is a "Lido?"

That was the day I mostly hung up any hope for us . . . . . .
 
   

I know Raynor dies earlier than what we would have expected I checked a couple sources and someone born in 1874 had a life expectancy of 39.4 years of age. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-united-states-all-time/
Now the Spanish flu (we know about that now) and WW1 were the main culprits, but Raynor actually dodges some bullets to live to be 51.

What brought down the average life expectancy in 1874 was the child (under five years old) mortality rate of 32%.

[Mike_Young]

On the other hand, Alister MacKenzie surely had an artistic temperament.  Tom Simpson certainly did.  And Pete Dye absolutely did; that was who I learned it from.

Don't forget Dick Wilson...why do you think Jones couldn't stand him?

[Tom_Doak]

I enjoyed reading that again.  TD seems to be against almost any form of codifying ideas and preferences, it seems like most of us like to do it.  I've never found a philosophy of no philosophy to be particularly useful in design.....In a way it makes sense.  Human nature seems to be to try to organize things, rank them, evaluate them, etc.  While rankings are public, gca's internal thoughts about what drives their designs usually isn't.

Jeff:


This conversation is funny to me because I have one foot planted deep in each side.  Most everyone who knew me as a kid / teenager would describe me as smart, nerdy, and very much an introvert -- it took me decades to sort out that I wasn't really an introvert so much as I was raised and conditioned to act like one.  You yourself described an early meeting with me as that I came across as "aloof" when it was probably just a general wariness of people I didn't know.


When I was 18-22 years old I was pretty obsessive about making notes about golf courses and analyzing what made them great and ranking them and ranking every hole on them.  Mr. Dye drilled that out of me, or maybe I just got to the point where I had internalized it all and to keep doing it was just a waste of time, I'm not sure.  You've probably noticed that when you and others start trying to analyze what makes a course great, I'm quick to provide the counter-examples from the top 100 lists, because I've already done the math!


But it's not marketing to say that I stopped wanting to have an "ideal" for design after working on the Stadium course at PGA West, because that's the truth.  Mr. Dye was the most creative person I'd ever known, but it seemed to me that his ideals had boxed him into a corner there, as did the change of focus toward thinking about Tour pros in so much of his work. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


I always thought it was because he was Jone's biggest competitor, the only one of that era who could really beat him out for a job.  I only have gotten a glimpse of Jone's personality from having seen and dined with him a half dozen times, and never really considered that deeply.


Interesting point.  I can't even imagine that Jones wasn't a passionate architect, at least when younger.  What happens when passion leads to success, and then you have to become a businessman to sustain you in performing your craft?  I can say, even from my modest success in the biz, I went from starving artist to supporting the staff by finding the next job pretty quickly.  I still have a notepad page with my "business plan" on it.  The point I remember most is, "Design at night, when everyone has gone home."  Even then, it was hard not to delegate the basic designs (or associated grading plans) to someone else once you got past one big project at a time.


BTW, I noticed you mentioned the "drafting board" in another post.  Have you given up on Vectorworks?

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting thread.
I suppose one simplistic definition of an artistic temperament is: 'one who is most of all concerned with making art', rather than, say, making a living or building a career. Yes, many can & do make a living and build careers *through* art, with art as their vehicle to success. But in those cases, the ultimate goal is the success, not the art. There's nothing wrong with that, striving for success, and the difference between these two types of art-makers is sometimes subtle, but think I can see it; with the latter the work tends to be more derivative in nature -- it has more to do with copying than creating. There are many, say, documentary filmmakers these days, working in the 'arts' and doing 'artistic work' -- but look at a hundred different documentaries by a hundred different filmmakers and it's hard to tell them apart: ie at a basic level, they all look & feel the same, using the same proven techniques and organized around the same well-worn narrative structures and following the same well-established template (no pun intended). It's probably a dead-end to try to identify past examples of 'artistic temperaments' and how they stand out from others, but if you've seen the movie I might say it's the difference between a Mozart and a Salieri: both needing to make a living, but one living as a flashing comet of art and the other studying the trigonometry of space flight.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


I always thought it was because he was Jone's biggest competitor, the only one of that era who could really beat him out for a job.  I only have gotten a glimpse of Jone's personality from having seen and dined with him a half dozen times, and never really considered that deeply.


Interesting point.  I can't even imagine that Jones wasn't a passionate architect, at least when younger.  What happens when passion leads to success, and then you have to become a businessman to sustain you in performing your craft?  I can say, even from my modest success in the biz, I went from starving artist to supporting the staff by finding the next job pretty quickly.  I still have a notepad page with my "business plan" on it.  The point I remember most is, "Design at night, when everyone has gone home."  Even then, it was hard not to delegate the basic designs (or associated grading plans) to someone else once you got past one big project at a time.


BTW, I noticed you mentioned the "drafting board" in another post.  Have you given up on Vectorworks?

Yes, wary would have been a better word for you to describe our first meeting, LOL.  I stand corrected.


In the end, I don't think we vary too much on the basic thought process.  All design is a combination of experience, personality type, etc.  We just seem to like approaching it from the opposite end of the spectrums in describing it.  And, you tend to emphasize the exceptions that prove the rule every time I mention the possibility of a rule.  That's fine, but to me, it still proves the rule....After many posts in another thread, your last one did admit most of us had copied or adapted other ideas, which was my simple point all along, one that seems so obvious that I don't have problems admitting it.  I get starting from the viewpoint of questioning everything. 


Like your analysis of courses, I still do it to learn.  For instance, in the last year, I used a digital level to see what % of slope on a tight cut Bermuda fw would still hold a ball up.  (8%, BTW)  I also used one on my own project to see just what slope on the edge of a green puts it on the edge of drying out and/or mowing stress  (Coincidentally, also 8%) so I don't make the same mistakes again, only new ones, LOL.  Again, supporting my view that many people can conceptualize a golf hole, but we get paid to deliver on the details that make it really work for all involved.  It doesn't mean I don't start design on a conceptual level, even if that is not what I choose to focus on here.

I have seen you espouse limited multiple tees here, but build them in real life.  I wonder what's more conceptually pure - me accepting they are necessary (as a general rule) and incorporating them.  Or you saying they aren't necessary, but acquiescing because the client wants them?  Ditto with cart paths, avoiding blind shots and a few other hot button issues where you have done well pointing out the contrarian view. 


Yes, in part, I come here to provide a more "practical" look at design for the gca fans here.  And, to gently tweak you and Mike Young just a bit, hopefully within the confines of friendly banter.  Who was it who thought refraining from the frank discussion of others' work wasn't a good thing? 

[Tom_Doak]

I suppose one simplistic definition of an artistic temperament is: 'one who is most concerned with making art', rather than, say, making a living or building a career.

Yes, that is a good part of the distinction for me.  Of course, some guys have had the privilege, like Macdonald and Pete Dye and indeed quite a few of the famous designers, of not having to worry about making a living.  In fact I had that when starting out myself, on a much lesser level.  But when I re-read Macdonald's book I see him passionately arguing that "architecture is one of the five arts" and it is not hard to think that he was driven by "art" even if he invented his own templates to do it.


[And actually, I don't think Macdonald thought at all about templates.  He was a golfer who had a list of holes he admired.  Raynor was the one who had the background to turn that list into reproducible examples.]


And to incorporate Jeff and Mike's discussion about Mr. Jones:  reading James Hansen's book, it seems clear that RTJ had that artistic passion at the beginning of his career, but that the Depression forced him to refocus on the commercial realities, and the need to associate himself with people who had the money to support his art.  Thus an amateur psychoanalyst might conclude that part of the reason Jones hated Dick Wilson was that Wilson was NOT making the same trade-off.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Good points, and I have seen that at least the artistic personality isn't really as concerned about money.  I think RTJ retained most of his passion.  I don't think you spend 300 days a year traveling the world just to make money.  Success, practicalities, family, age, etc. all can work that direction, though.


In speaking on all the other gca's retaining passion is something to keep track of.  In good times, maybe you could ride it out even if you have lost your passion, I suppose.  At worst, being a gca has to beat almost any other job you might find.


Lastly, it's all a grey scale.  For instance, if you have been fortunate to have designed, as Mike says, 20-30 new courses, and a master plan for new forward tees is the best opportunity this year, you might consider it a let down after having been in the biz in the good times.  But, you might also have to take that as one of your jobs to pay the overhead among hopefully a few more interesting ones.


In fact, isn't the cadre of restoration architects driven by the early ones who had a passion for old courses, even when new courses were available for design.

[Tom_Doak]

Good points, and I have seen that at least the artistic personality isn't really as concerned about money.  I think RTJ retained most of his passion.  I don't think you spend 300 days a year traveling the world just to make money.  Success, practicalities, family, age, etc. all can work that direction, though.

When I went to Mr. Jones' office to interview with him in 1983 [at someone else's behest], on my return from overseas, he made an offer to me and then said to Roger Rulewich as an aside, "Of course he will want to work with the best in the business," referring to himself.  Based on that, I've just always assumed that it was the ego driving him at that point, not the money.


I was glad to get to spend a little more time with him later on, to soften my view from that first encounter.


Anyway, he was right to a point; the difference was I thought Mr. Dye was the best.

[Tim Martin]

I suppose one simplistic definition of an artistic temperament is: 'one who is most concerned with making art', rather than, say, making a living or building a career.

Yes, that is a good part of the distinction for me.  Of course, some guys have had the privilege, like Macdonald and Pete Dye and indeed quite a few of the famous designers, of not having to worry about making a living.  In fact I had that when starting out myself, on a much lesser level.  But when I re-read Macdonald's book I see him passionately arguing that "architecture is one of the five arts" and it is not hard to think that he was driven by "art" even if he invented his own templates to do it.


[And actually, I don't think Macdonald thought at all about templates.  He was a golfer who had a list of holes he admired.  Raynor was the one who had the background to turn that list into reproducible examples.]


And to incorporate Jeff and Mike's discussion about Mr. Jones:  reading James Hansen's book, it seems clear that RTJ had that artistic passion at the beginning of his career, but that the Depression forced him to refocus on the commercial realities, and the need to associate himself with people who had the money to support his art.  Thus an amateur psychoanalyst might conclude that part of the reason Jones hated Dick Wilson was that Wilson was NOT making the same trade-off.

Maybe the word “template” is a sticking point but it’s hard for me to believe Macdonald didn’t think at all about them. That he used a bunch of the same ones on all his courses was not random.

[JC Jones]

In today's day and age, does the determination that Raynor's courses are "great" and therefore he is a "genius" come before or after learning the golf course is a Raynor design?


Inertia is a powerful force.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()