The Sistine Chapel vs The Comic Book

[Marty Bonnar]

Watching the Players, I’m struck by the graphic simplicity of the landscape design. There’s an elegance in the pared-back economy of detail. Nothing wasted, nothing frilly. Simple lines joining one point to another. Almost cartoon-like in the junctions between colours, surfaces and materials.
Compare with CPC, for example. Complex relationships between bunker edges and fairways/rough, much more ‘movement’ in the third dimension. Blurred distinctions between edges.
I like both executions though. The landscape designer in me sees joy and pleasure in both.
I liked the Sistine Chapel greatly, but also loved the Guggenheim, for example.
It’s a great big architectural world out there and there’s a place for everything.
F.

[Tom_Doak]

Marty:


I agree with your take and yet surely the two styles are largely a matter of what the designers started with.


MacKenzie started with all the fractals of contour and cypress tree forms, and all of his work was a reaction to that.


Mr. Dye started with a swamp and no elevation, and simply getting the place dry was a major achievement.  Trying to create even more complexity in the third dimension would have been the work of designing two or three courses, not just one.  And they built that whole course in a ridiculously shortened timeline . . . they finished the last four holes under floodlights!  The TPC was a bit more commercial than the Sistine Chapel.

[Marty Bonnar]

Absolutely, Tom,
Executing the correct response(s) to a particular site is surely the very definition of good design. E.g., the light touch at places like Mach Dunes compared to major earth-moving or tree clearance, etc at otherwise less than ideal locations. There’s always way more nuance in a designer’s choices than most people are aware of. Luckily for the great unwashed here at Golfclubatlas, you and a few others are more than prepared to share the detail of your design journeys. Keep it coming!
Cheers,
M.
PS Love a good fractal!