What minimalism means -- or who cares?

[Tin Man]

 

I think manmade things can be really minimal.  <:<))

I think the old guys would have really loved to have a D-7 Cat instead of horse and mule-teams.  Then perhaps we wouldn't be having this thread decrying the act of earth moving and ignoring the fact that in the end architecture is the act of building something, with form and function leading and following each other as necessary from start until finish.  

I think gca isn't any different than any other "architectural" domain, they must all be judged over time.  The only ones that really should care whether something demonstrates minimalism or not should be the historians while they re-write history to differentiate this from that.

Does tin rust, why did that smithy use those cheap chinese bolts?

[MarkT]

Main Entry: min·i·mal·ism
Pronunciation: 'mi-n&-m&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1969
1 : MINIMAL ART
2 : a style or technique (as in music, literature, or design) that is characterized by extreme spareness and simplicity

---------------------------------------------------------

IMHO, Minilmalism is the end result, not the effort put forth to build or design it. Did it look simple to design and build?

I think the opposite of minimalism is not  "manufactured" but "complexity". Building an island green supported with a wooden bulkhead looks complex. Filling in part of a lake with dirt to make a peninsula for a green is difficult but the end result makes it look like the land was there and placing the green on it was a simple project. And I don't think you can equate minimalism with a naturalist. A naturalist would move very little dirt where a minimalist might move a whole lot of dirt but in the end, it looks as if none was moved.

Any of that make sense?

[Thomas_Brown]

Is the Cardinal hole(#3) at Prestwick min.?
Tee shot - maybe.
Fairways bunkers - maybe not
Fairway in front of green - wow - has to be
Green - maybe

[Carlyle Rood]

I think everyone here needs to invest some time thinking of a new term besides "minimalist."  That terminology has already been "trademarked" by landscape and architectural design theorists.  

Minimalist design would have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of earth moved.  Minimalism was a movement to express architecture and landscapes into its simplist functional requirements.  In the case of a golf course, that would be reducing the design into the simplest elements that would still yield the strategy or entertainment you intended.  Ironically, a good example of a minimalist golf course design might be the chocolate drop mounds at Pinehurst years ago.

If you're sincerely interested in minimalist design, then you may want to spend some time reading about Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and the Bauhaus.  If you're interested in landscape works that (at least seem to) have required little manipulation, then I would recommend reading about Lancelot "Capability" Brown.  I think Geoff Shackelford may have even suggested that Brown influenced Alister MacKenzie in one of his books.  If he did, then he deserves kudos.

[Brian Phillips]

Rood,

I have been waiting for months for someone to bring up the connection between Lancelot "Capability" Brown and MacKenzie.  The connection was brought up in Geoff's fictional book 'The Good Doctor Returns'.

People are greatly mistaken if they believe that Brown did not change the landscape. He did, in fact he changed the face of the english garden.  Some of his work is so false you can still see that it is false to this day.

I cannot understand how MacKenzie would be influenced by Brown as Brown changed the landscape totally and planted all sorts of trees on hillsides where did not belong and basically did not adhere to any type of minimalism or the look of naturalism at all.  He totally changed the landscape in a Fazio sort of style.  Look at the pictures of Repton or Brown gardens and put them alongside a Fazio photograph and they look very similar.

I have a theory that the C&C's, MacKenzies, Doak of this world are more of the 'Picturesque' (Uvedale Price and Richard Knight) where things were meant to look very natural and rough.

Whereas Fazio and Nicklaus come under the Brown and Repton umbrella where everything looks tidy and calm and nice to walk in.

Of the Landscape Architects I mentioned it is Repton and Brown that earned the most contracts and in turn money because people, like most golfers, like a  relaxing walk in their garden (or golf course).

You know, even my wife (who is surrounded by my opinions of architecture) still loves seeing a lake on a golf course even if it is manufactured.

The average golfer wants to relax on the golf course especially when on holiday.  I live in Norway and I have a saying that I tease Norwegian golfers with and that is:

'You are not a true golfer unless you have played in Scotland'

However, the majority of golfers in Norway would much rather go and play golf in Portugal or Spain rather than visit the minimalist courses of the Scotland.

Why?

Because it is damn cold, it rains in Scotland.

But also because golf courses in Spain and Portugal are prettier.  Most humans love water and the dark green of these over watered and over fertilised courses.

I suppose the same is for Florida.

Brian

[TEPaul]

Brian:

That's a first rate post of yours--really terrific. We use a lot of terms on here and sometimes far too interchangeably. That post of yours pins things down far more in an historical sense and ties that in to some of the things going on in architecture today.

In a general sense your examples of what's "pretty" in golf architecture and what's more "rugged" and who does either says a great deal.

Clearly many on here like better the more "rugged" type and those that do them but one of these days this website probably must come to grips with some of the things you said in your post--namely that many golfers, perhaps most, seem to like the "pretty" type--it just may make them feel better somehow, probably just like a relaxing "walk in the park", as you imply.

The more "rugged" type seems to be more important to those that like more of the challenge of the essence of golf itself in an environment that is, or appears to be basically one against "nature" unadorned. This is the type that people like Max Behr, and now the Geoff Shackelfords speak of as "golf the sport" instead of just "golf the game".

Great post! Why did you have to wait for someone else to bring these sort of specific distinctions to your mind? Why didn't you just say it yourself months ago?

[ForkaB]

This is a great thread, with lots of thoughtful comments.  It does, however, seem to be slippling into the morass of relativism, not that I am particularly disappointed........

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Relativism? Would you care to clarify what you mean by that?

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

I do not think it is the architects duty to give the client or the public what they think they want.  Don't take that statement to an extreme.  It is the architects duty to give what they most believe in, it is the clients duty to know what kind of animal they have hired.  It seems better to educate the public rather than to pander to them.  Show me what is really meaningful to you, don't give me what you think I want or what you think I can handle.  Hopefully, some day as a member of the public I can come to fully appreciate what you are all about, but as in the case of some of the modernist, artist and architects, I will know to ignore you because your work for me is shallow.  

[Andy Levett]

Relativism is prejudice against your in-laws.

On MacKenzie and Capability Brown, MacK is known for blowing most of an inadequate budget at Moortown on manufacturing one outstanding hole, Gibraltar.
Punters were so impressed with the hole MacK had no problem attracting the money to do the rest of the course the way he wanted it.
 

[Tom_Doak]

Kelly:

I'd like to agree entirely with what you said above, as I did not so many years ago, but I'm not sure I can now.  I'm not suggesting we pander to the golfer, or to the client, but I've found it is best to be on the same wavelength as the client if you want the work to last.  If you really get into a disagreement with your client over how something should look -- even though they hired you and should have done their homework and let you be free -- you may come back in ten years and cringe.

Your statement could also be used to justify the mass production of "signature" courses, if the architects of those really believe that they are building great stuff, and not repeating themselves because it's simpler and more lucrative.

Don't take me wrong, though; you are probably the most idealistic of any architect who participates here, and we would all like to see what you really want to build, instead of what Pat Mucci wants you to build!

For Carlyle:  I did look up that definition of minimalism in other fields of art a few years ago, and it didn't sound like it fit what we do.  I don't think Ron Whitten knows any more about modern art than I do.

For Brian:  You are dead right, Tom Fazio IS Capability Brown, MacKenzie certainly was not.  But to digress:  how many times have you seen an artificial pond on a golf course that really looked natural?

[Scott_Burroughs]

If you really get into a disagreement with your client over how something should look -- even though they hired you and should have done their homework and let you be free -- you may come back in ten years and cringe

You mean like waterfalls?  In the desert?

[A_Clay_Man]

It really isn't a shock that us humans feel better looking at water, we're 87% of the stuff. But any justifying of designing for the lowest common denominator, is what my Aunt Molly would call "mickey mouse". It may look good, but when crossing the palette, the sophisticated nose knows.

Would  Simpleism be a better term for the, less is more crowd?

A rose?

[Brian Phillips]

Adam,

It is often about designing for the masses because it is the masses that pay.  This website with 2000 members is probably not even 1% of the normal golf population.  It is hard to convince a client to build courses like C&C with the rugged bunkers.

I have just been consulting on a course in the west of Norway.  One of the bunkers has been left unattended for about 3 months and I pointed out that it lookd fantastic as the sheeps fescue had come up and it look like a RCD bunker.  The client just laughed and said the members would go mad if he left the bunkers like that.  It is that sort of arguement we get everyday...not just from clients but also from members.

I just attended a conference in Southport where there were many talking about maintenance budgets, grass and construction.

One of the courses being discussed was an Arnold Palmer design.  The Super. wanted to cap the fairways and was refused.  However, the client wanted a quarry on one hole, so this had to be built at the cost of £3.5 million.  A waterfall and quarry alonside a fairway but the Super. was not allowed to cap the fairways.....to me that is mad..

Robert Trent Jones jr. also gave a talk and he was very, very interesting.  One of the questions I asked him was if he thought the art of routing has been lost.  He answered that he was taught a certain way of studying topo maps by his father, and that helped him route the course.  He said one of the problems with architects these days is that many come from a Landscape Architecture background (and he didn't mean that in a negative way) and they have learnt to design golf courses on top of the ground and use catch basins instead of routing the course around problem areas.

The routing is in my opinion one of the best ways to achieve some sort of minimalist design.  Work with the contours not against them.  I don't know if Kelly or Tom agree with me on this.

Brian

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Brian,

I think the routing plan is a construction document in so far as a good routing plan that works with the existing topo could nearly become the grading plan as well!  Ideal, not achieveable in many instances but definately a worthy adventure.  Not just reading topo, but walking the land continually looking for the holes and ways to work with topo, you know like RTJ, Jr. does walking the land all the time trying to rout that course around problem areas...god, where is Triumph the Insult Dog when you need him.  How do you know its a problem area if only seen on a topo map, field work is needed as well, maybe that problem area should be right in the middle of the fairway!  Maybe that problem area becomes a strategic problem once you see it in the field.  Maybe that problem area has not been sufficiently described by the topo map.

[ForkaB]

Rich:

Relativism? Would you care to clarify what you mean by that?

Tom

I mean that most value judgements vis a vis GCA are relative to the individuals involved and their own particular history and environment.  Or, to put it another way, there are no absolute values regarding GCA.  You can make great courses by moving tons of dirt and great ones while moving little, or vice versa.  And the same applies to big greens/small greens, tidy bunkers and wooly bunkers, width/narrowness, blind shots/open vistas, and all the other characteristics we "debate" on this site soemtimes seemingly interminably.

All that counts is what is on the ground and how it works for the incredibly wide variety of types and abilities of golfers who play over that ground

Some like 'em hot, some don't.

[THuckaby2]

THAT was the post of the year.  Well done Mr. Goodale.  There is no one "right" answer re any of this, as much as dogma here would try to suggest otherwise.

TH

ps - my apologies if by saying this I hurt your case!  

[A_Clay_Man]

Kelly- Not to mention the new problem areas caused by the alterations.

Brian- I appreciate your comments and I am not proposing designing for a certain level of golfer. I believe a great course can be great for all levels. But, I do perceive all this superfulous stuff that "dumbs down" (for lack of a better term) a course isn't justified to the costs. Throw in the possibility that all this dumbing down has hurt the bottomline of the industry, in the long run, and the cost of designing for the LCD, is Priceless.

[Brian Phillips]

Sorry to bring this to the top again.  But to just clarify one point I think Geoff wrote that Humphry Repton was the man that MacKenzie admired or studied...

Repton was just the same as Brown and in fact copied his style and used before and after paintings in red books to show to clients how he would transform their gardens..

Brian

[TEPaul]

"All that counts is what is on the ground and how it works for the incredibly wide variety of types and abilities of golfers who play over that ground
Some like 'em hot, some don't."

Rich:

If that's what you call relativism I can't see that it's the slightest different from;

"Golf and and its architecture is a great big thing and there's room in it for everyone."

However, I believe that indicates that difference is good, difference is even necessary, perhaps even the essence of it all! So why would you say this thread is 'slipping into the MORASS of relativism'? What's wrong with relativism then, in golf, in architecture or on this thread?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Don't take me wrong, though; you are probably the most idealistic of any architect who participates here, and we would all like to see what you really want to build, instead of what Pat Mucci wants you to build!

Were you refering to what Arthur Goldberg directed you to build at Atlantic City Country Club

You did work at his bequest there, didn't you ?

I believe that came out rather nicely.

I have no doubt that if I had a property to be developed and Kelly Blake Moran was the architect that the product would be superior.

Twelve years ago Kelly and I might have come into artistic conflict, but, today, I believe we're in harmony.

[TEPaul]

"Twelve years ago Kelly and I might have come into artistic conflict, but, today, I believe we're in harmony."

Pat:

Gracious! It took Kelly twelve years to finally get through to you? I'm dedicated to completing your architectural education but I sure don't want it to take anything like twelve years! At that rate it'd mean as of now you're just barely out of first grade!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You might recall, and then again, you probably won't, that Kelly was one of our featured speakers at last years winter's GCA get together at Alpine and told you and the audience that his philosophy had gone through a transformation.

When I first met Kelly, twelve years ago, he was aligned with a manuafactured, flashier show time, build it philosophy.

Today, he feels quite differently, and I believe, we are in harmony.

How are you and rpurd getting along these days ?  

P.S.  Don't forget to feed Coorshaw !

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:  My last point above wasn't a reflection on Atlantic City, or on any project in particular.  It was general in nature.

I actually only met Arthur Goldberg once, and I never felt like I was being "told what to do" in the work there.  We agreed about what needed work on the old Atlantic City CC.  The road crossings needed to go, the finishing holes were pretty dull, and it needed to be opened up to the marsh.  [I would not have felt the need to give them more privacy from the homes along 1 & 2, but I didn't object to it, and it was their money.]  If I hadn't agreed in principle about what should be done, I would not have taken the job.

[ForkaB]

why would you say this thread is 'slipping into the MORASS of relativism'? What's wrong with relativism then, in golf, in architecture or on this thread?

Tom

I was being ironic, which is why I added:

...."not that I am particularly disappointed........"

Welcome to the EA!  Your secret decoder ring will be in the mail shortly.