The Death of Minimalism

[Charlie Goerges]

We’ve been found wanting!


https://beyondthecontour.com/golfs-post-punks-and-the-catch-22-of-following-the-golden-generation/


I enjoyed this article. It is heavy with references that I found somewhat nonessential. But the author does a good job discussing post-minimalism in my opinion.


I wanted to revive this recent thread with an observation I think the author missed. A significant number of his “post-punk” architects were the principle associates or key contributors to a significant number of the great works of the minimalist era.

I agree with the end of the article where he basically says that we need to give these younger architects a chance to grow into it. I agree with your final point as well Ben.


Beyond that, I felt it amounted to nothing more than "tastes change over time" which is both true and not saying much. Fair play on us sucking though!

[Michael Chadwick]

We’ve been found wanting!


https://beyondthecontour.com/golfs-post-punks-and-the-catch-22-of-following-the-golden-generation/


I enjoyed this article. It is heavy with references that I found somewhat nonessential. But the author does a good job discussing post-minimalism in my opinion.


I wanted to revive this recent thread with an observation I think the author missed. A significant number of his “post-punk” architects were the principle associates or key contributors to a significant number of the great works of the minimalist era.

There's a lot to unpack here, and hopefully it does revive this discussion a bit more, because I agree that there seems to be a hinge point occurring in modern builds.


The problem with anchoring a thesis on analogies is that it can clump items together with a glossed over sameness and disregard the stark differences between these supposedly similar items. I can't comment on the music references, but associating Sweetens Cove, Old Barnwell, Landmand, Cabot Citrus and Tree Farm together, "who all play their architectural cards in-your-facedly," strikes me as an overreach of generalization. I appreciate the effort Zachary's making here, and hopefully he engages with us. I'll try to make time to look back at his other series he references. I will say, however, that for an article poking at post-modernism's tendency to be overly occupied with form, theory, and style, it seems to be a little too burdened by those same ideas at the expense of close reading.     

[Ben Sims]

Charlie,

Thanks for commenting.

I agree with you that this thread and that article, well-reasoned as it may be, is essentially saying that tastes change. I have some issues with the author’s linear connection of Beatles/Led Zep/Phil Spector to punk to post punk (and prog rock too?). I wouldn’t try to make the evolutionary artistic connection between PGA National and Sweetens Cove any more than I’d try to connect Lennon’s All You Need Is Love to Cindy Wilson belting the bare-boned Give Me Back My Man. I just think it’s a really hard evolutionary argument to make. But heck yeah, tastes change.

The bigger issue is selling the idea of minimalism short, as a pervasive style that will eventually die. I lean towards disagreeing with that. I think Naturalism, artistic cohesiveness, and the desire to be more blended with the surrounding world will never be out of style. It isn’t always the best solution however.

I am a member of one of the clubs the author mentioned and there was a deliberate choice to be less concerned with hiding earthmoving. It works because it’s thoughful and purposeful for golf. It’s strikingly beautiful in my opinion. But there are also noticeable aspects of minimalism on that site. Chiefly the routing itself. There’s maximalism and minimalism interspersed. Just as there is on several of the best “minimalist” courses. 

[Charlie Goerges]

I think Naturalism, artistic cohesiveness, and the desire to be more blended with the surrounding world will never be out of style.

I agree with that as well. Not just because it's a good way to design and build a golf course, but also because the golf culture and industry is now so much more mature than when it last (sort of) disappeared. Unlike in the 1940s, it's pretty safe to say that the majority of the golf courses that will ever be built have now been built. It's just a different world now.

I am a member of one of the clubs the author mentioned and there was a deliberate choice to be less concerned with hiding earthmoving. It works because it’s thoughful and purposeful for golf. It’s strikingly beautiful in my opinion. But there are also noticeable aspects of minimalism on that site. Chiefly the routing itself. There’s maximalism and minimalism interspersed. Just as there is on several of the best “minimalist” courses. 

RE the bolded statement above, in a sense, it can be argued to be minimalistic. Especially when it makes for more exciting play. Pure naturalism looks beautiful, but I also doubt a place like Painswick suffers for having an iron-age fort right in the middle of it either.

[Tim_Weiman]

Charlie,

Thanks for commenting.

I agree with you that this thread and that article, well-reasoned as it may be, is essentially saying that tastes change. I have some issues with the author’s linear connection of Beatles/Led Zep/Phil Spector to punk to post punk (and prog rock too?). I wouldn’t try to make the evolutionary artistic connection between PGA National and Sweetens Cove any more than I’d try to connect Lennon’s All You Need Is Love to Cindy Wilson belting the bare-boned Give Me Back My Man. I just think it’s a really hard evolutionary argument to make. But heck yeah, tastes change.

The bigger issue is selling the idea of minimalism short, as a pervasive style that will eventually die. I lean towards disagreeing with that. I think Naturalism, artistic cohesiveness, and the desire to be more blended with the surrounding world will never be out of style. It isn’t always the best solution however.

I am a member of one of the clubs the author mentioned and there was a deliberate choice to be less concerned with hiding earthmoving. It works because it’s thoughful and purposeful for golf. It’s strikingly beautiful in my opinion. But there are also noticeable aspects of minimalism on that site. Chiefly the routing itself. There’s maximalism and minimalism interspersed. Just as there is on several of the best “minimalist” courses. 

Ben,


I didn’t really get much, if anything, out of the beyondthecontour.com,
article, but do agree with your description of maximalism and minimalism being interspersed. It works pretty damn well.

[Buck Wolter]

Charlie,

Thanks for commenting.

I agree with you that this thread and that article, well-reasoned as it may be, is essentially saying that tastes change. I have some issues with the author’s linear connection of Beatles/Led Zep/Phil Spector to punk to post punk (and prog rock too?). I wouldn’t try to make the evolutionary artistic connection between PGA National and Sweetens Cove any more than I’d try to connect Lennon’s All You Need Is Love to Cindy Wilson belting the bare-boned Give Me Back My Man. I just think it’s a really hard evolutionary argument to make. But heck yeah, tastes change.

The bigger issue is selling the idea of minimalism short, as a pervasive style that will eventually die. I lean towards disagreeing with that. I think Naturalism, artistic cohesiveness, and the desire to be more blended with the surrounding world will never be out of style. It isn’t always the best solution however.

I am a member of one of the clubs the author mentioned and there was a deliberate choice to be less concerned with hiding earthmoving. It works because it’s thoughful and purposeful for golf. It’s strikingly beautiful in my opinion. But there are also noticeable aspects of minimalism on that site. Chiefly the routing itself. There’s maximalism and minimalism interspersed. Just as there is on several of the best “minimalist” courses. 

Ben,


I didn’t really get much, if anything, out of the beyondthecontour.com,
article, but do agree with your description of maximalism and minimalism being interspersed. It works pretty damn well.

How dare you --he's a noted skeptic
https://beyondthecontour.com/a-noted-skeptics-first-look-at-the-karoo-at-cabot-citrus-farms/

[Ally Mcintosh]

Minimalism is a philosophy. Naturalism is a style.


Is the way I see it.

[Ira Fishman]

Other than trying way too hard, it was a valuable slice into how to think about/assess different eras of a design form. Of course everything is a reaction to what has become before. The question worth asking is why any particular reaction captures the imagination, mood, historical circumstances, or culture of the time in which the reaction overtakes or overwhelms what came before it. My favorite example is Maya Lin’s design of the Vietnam Memorial.


However, what many of these analyses and analogies (including ones I have put forth) miss is that golf design must fulfill a specific purpose defined by the purpose of the game. That makes it both way more difficult and way more easy because the guard rails are narrower than other design forms.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

I wanted to revive this recent thread with an observation I think the author missed. A significant number of his “post-punk” architects were the principle associates or key contributors to a significant number of the great works of the minimalist era.

Yeah, I wanted to write in to him about that myself.


However, "principal associates or key contributors" is doing a lot of work there.  You might be giving them slightly too much credit. 


They have learned what they are doing by playing for great teams, but there is always a tendency for outsiders to exaggerate the contributions of a particular player years later, as a result of their later success.


One great example would be me:  there was only one Pete Dye / Perry Dye course where I made any significant contribution to the design.  I suspect I would be getting much more credit for my participation at Long Cove if I hadn't made it clear that I was just a laborer who was learning a lot on the job.




Indeed, one of the things all these guys are up against is that our best projects were the result of teamwork, and it will be hard for them to compete with the work of those All-Star teams by themselves.  However, I was surprised to learn last month that Eric Iverson went and shaped for a little bit at Old Barnwell, so maybe Schneider understands what he is up against!

[Mike Hendren]

I do see an analogy in residential construction in the Greater Nashville area.  The 7,000 sf white modern design with all the bells and whistles is in vogue.  By comparison I live in a 2,200 sf Craftsman cottage built in 1912 in a historic neighborhood.  Perhaps architecture  should  be time tested.


What stands out about the Craftsman aside from simplicity of style is its efficiency.  Would you say that so-called classic golf architecture is more efficient as well?  Or is that a misnomer or irrelevant criterion?


As for the “Punks” article the author seems more intent on demonstrating his intellectual chops than debating golf course architecture.  I get it - he has a big brain. I must confess I couldn’t finish reading it.

[Kalen Braley]

As for the “Punks” article the author seems more intent on demonstrating his intellectual chops than debating golf course architecture.  I get it - he has a big brain. I must confess I couldn’t finish reading it.

Mike,

I was hesitant to chime in on this, but you're exactly right.  He seemed more intent on trying to impress with flowery language and abstract analogies that just distracted and came off a bit pretentious.

I'm also in the camp of mixing styles, whether it be minimalism or maximalism.  At the end of the day, its all about putting a compelling and fun-to-play course in the ground.

[Michael Chadwick]

I scanned through this thread again, and there are some wonderful and thoughtful posts, particularly by Paul (reply 10), John (23), Ally (26), Adam (27), and others that I think adequately rebut the thread’s title. Yet isn’t the distinction between minimal v maximal as a construction process kind of silly? You’d have to pick some arbitrary threshold of cubic yards of earth moved to determine which course is minimal and which isn’t, right? That wouldn’t inform anyone about the quality of the course. How much earth got moved does not have a direct correlation to a course’s specific style, its strategy, nor how well or poor it ties into itself, its surrounds, or whether it’s going to suit the eye of a golfer. Hanse’s Ladera, as Jeff brought up, moved an amount of earth comparable to Jackson & Khan’s Other Course at Scottsdale National. Tom and his Renaissance associates have mentioned how a largely minimalist routing may need to be unlocked by a heavily manufactured hole to free the others to exist more naturally (Ballyneal 9, Old Barnwell 16). So I think the more valuable discussion pertains to style, the visual expression of a course’s holes, features, and hazards, regardless of how artificial or natural they may be. 

One reason Zachary likely referenced our thread—apart from using it as an opportunity to take a swipe at its participants—is because in his linked post and previous blogs he takes this thread’s OP premise to be true, that minimalism is effectively dead. I’m interpreting that as a more stylistic claim, since his thesis hangs on the assertion that the architects early on in their original design careers (most of whom are veterans in the industry) are burdened, we are to believe, with the anxiety of influence of having worked for Doak, C&C, or Fazio, and that their design decision making must pass through a self-aware prism of how what they choose will either successfully or fail to differentiate themselves from their predecessors. I personally have always found that line of argument from critics—it is a very common one—to be too focused on interlinking practitioners into artificial groupings, or assuming that just because there’s a social, professional, or epochal association there must be a dialectical (or even more on the nose, Freudian) resistance within the younger practitioner. I find it to be too dismissive of the younger artist’s own practice and development, the limitless challenges of creating a new work of art, and of being responsible for that creation (see how easily Zachary is willing to write off a decade of work for Doak, David Foster Wallace, and others).   

More erroneously, though, Zachary writes, “by wanting to escape the potentially smothering shadow of Doak and co’s golden generation, their [upcoming architects’] directions are slightly wayward: everything is slightly too big, too bold, too manufactured. It’s a fine line that must be toed, a fine balance that must be struck, and none of them have quite done so yet.” This is a blatantly unsubstantiated claim, because it’s unclear how many of these new builds he's played, and he specifically mentions not having seen Old Barnwell yet. While it’s completely fine to characterize this as an initial impression, it’s instead already being presented as a conclusion.     

If Zachary has played Tree Farm, I’d argue he’s misreading a good number of its holes in the following statement: “golf’s “post-punks” whose courses, unlike the decidedly natural ones of their forefathers, are designed to draw the golfer’s eye towards its tricks and tropes. Rather than emphasize the surrounding beauty and integrate themselves into it, as Bandon Trails or Pacific Dunes or even Streamsong Black all do, they seek to stand out, as explicitly manufactured products.” Tree Farm shocked me for how absolutely anti-modern many of its holes appear. Holes like 3, 5, 6, 8-12. Many of them bunker-less. Seemingly lay of land. Quieter than what you find at Old Town, let alone Bandon Trails or Streamsong Black. Those holes are like Pinehurst 2 meets early Augusta without MacKenzie’s rambunctious greens. Yes, Tree Farm also has bolder shaping on most of its back nine, and those are the holes whose images proliferate Instagram, but it’s not the full story. On another note, I’d be curious how the Golden Age work of Macdonald, Raynor, and Banks fits into Zachary’s thesis.

Old Barnwell could even be considered a minimalist course, contrary to Zachary’s brief mentioning of it, insofar as its land wasn’t perceived as an obstacle or hindrance for the design, but served as the base foundation for determining the course’s best routing. The site was picked specifically for its landforms, scale, and soil profile. The built features of its holes correspond to the prevailing tendencies of its land. There are built features, obviously so, but again—the amount of earth moved likely pales in comparison to something like Ladera. The originality of Old Barnwell, I think, is that the course actually achieves a singular moment in American design. It’s not Old Macdonald, which are templates applied through a naturalist process; it’s as if you imagine NGLA without specific templates, but retain its construction style.

What I quite like about golf course design, and its small pool of practitioners we really talk about, is that, unlike other art forms, I very much doubt anyone in this industry has risen through the ranks with work that takes a satirical, ironic, distanced, or disdainful point of view. The same cannot be said for other arts. That’s why I’d much rather accept an invite to play Old Barnwell than one to Art Basel. I’d bet that King/Collins, Franz, Goalby, Schneider, Conant, and unnamed architects are each doing the best work they can do, in the style they think is truest to their vision. Fortunately for us, as players, the results of their work is varied, distinct, evolving, and open for us to experience, interpret, criticize and prefer. I admire the earnestness they have for their vocations. 

For some parting fun, one dig Zachary makes at us is that we don’t consider golf courses enough in academically profuse (and simultaneously hollow) language like what he quotes from Klein: “A recent thread on Golf Club Atlas entitled “The Death of Minimalism” is a perfect example of the inability of most “critics’ of golf architecture to actually consider golf courses not as a series of turfed mounds, humps, hallows, but as “aesthetic and cultural landscapes, with all that entails about their status as negotiated spaces mediating realms of territorial space, human cultural activity, and complex market relations transcending immediate regional boundaries,” to use Klein’s description. Unfortunately, as is common to the discussion board these days, the thread merely devolves into bickering, stock phrases, worn adages, and so it ultimately goes nowhere.”

Now, if I were to edit out the academic stench of the Klein quote it would translate to:
“aesthetic and cultural landscapes” = a built environment
“with all that entails about their status as negotiated spaces mediating realms of territorial space,”  = on a piece of property
“human cultural activity, and complex market relations transcending immediate regional boundaries,” = designed for a game to be played (for a fee)

So: A built environment on a piece of property designed for a game to be played (for a fee).

And if simplified one more time for good measure: “A golf course.”

[Sean_A]

Minimalism is a philosophy. Naturalism is a style.


Is the way I see it.

Wouldn’t naturalism at least potentially lead to minimalist choices?


Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Minimalism is a philosophy. Naturalism is a style.


Is the way I see it.

Wouldn’t naturalism at least potentially lead to minimalist choices?


Ciao

Potentially yes. But not necessarily, particularly on fairly average sites. It sometimes takes a lot of work to make things look like they haven’t been shaped.


For me, minimalism is about doing enough and no more to get the optimal product. Naturalism is about eradicating an obvious engineered / hand of man look.


Many people aspire to both but each has a different driver at heart.

[Sean_A]

Minimalism is a philosophy. Naturalism is a style.


Is the way I see it.

Wouldn’t naturalism at least potentially lead to minimalist choices?


Ciao

Potentially yes. But not necessarily, particularly on fairly average sites. It sometimes takes a lot of work to make things look like they haven’t been shaped.


For me, minimalism is about doing enough and no more to get the optimal product. Naturalism is about eradicating an obvious engineered / hand of man look.


Many people aspire to both but each has a different driver at heart.

That’s fair enough. I had a guy like Willie Park Jr in mind. He wasn’t big on shaping, but his routings didn’t require such as was generally the case. But he would use obviously unnatural hazards. Colt wasn’t all that different, but as you say, he would use a naturalist style to cover the hand of man.

Ciao

[Charlie Goerges]

Lots of cool stuff and this:

And if simplified one more time for good measure: “A golf course.”

I decided to truncate your post for ease, but it's well worth the time for everyone. I especially enjoyed your last line, made me laugh!


Thanks for taking the time on it Michael, I appreciate it. Lots of good stuff, but I especially liked the "artificial groupings" part, because this is always the problem. It's never as neat as that, though it's still worth trying sometimes. I just think he didn't quite get there.


Plus the overly-academic language... he's making Max look succinct!

[Ben Sims]

I really didn’t mean for this to turn into a pile-on. I’m glad someone is thinking academically about this subject. The older I get the more it matters to me. Zachary has written some thoughtful stuff.

[Michael Chadwick]

I really didn’t mean for this to turn into a pile-on. I’m glad someone is thinking academically about this subject. The older I get the more it matters to me. Zachary has written some thoughtful stuff.

Very much so. A lot of golf writing doesn't have the courage to have a stake in its thesis. There are a lot of anodyne reviews on social media that encourage little to no discussion. Zachary's article presents a deliberate point of view and a defensible position, regardless of whether we agree with its points or not. It's a successful article on the basis of that alone.   

[Charlie Goerges]

I really didn’t mean for this to turn into a pile-on. I’m glad someone is thinking academically about this subject. The older I get the more it matters to me. Zachary has written some thoughtful stuff.

I'm glad too, and I don't think it was too much of a pile-on. Just a little dig in kind for the most part.

[Tim_Weiman]

I really didn’t mean for this to turn into a pile-on. I’m glad someone is thinking academically about this subject. The older I get the more it matters to me. Zachary has written some thoughtful stuff.

Charlie,


I remember the old days. This discussion has been pretty tame by comparison.


Tim


I'm glad too, and I don't think it was too much of a pile-on. Just a little dig in kind for the most part.

[Ben Malach]

Well, as I mentioned in the related thread, Zach is a friend of mine and he understands that an article like the one he wrote is apt to provoke such counter-punches. He doesn't take it personally and knows that it'd be hypocritical not to accept criticism considering he's done a quite a bit himself when it comes to Canadian Golf especially. He does apologize for the "swipe" and knows that it probably should have been worded differently looking back.


But he's glad that his article produced some very thoughtful responses, especially from Michael and Tom and Ben S, and they have made him reconsider some aspects of his piece. I know that he's looking forward to seeing Old Barnwell especially and as with CCF's Karoo he's more than willing to be proven wrong in his initial impression of it

[Tim_Weiman]

Well, as I mentioned in the related thread, Zach is a friend of mine and he understands that an article like the one he wrote is apt to provoke such counter-punches. He doesn't take it personally and knows that it'd be hypocritical not to accept criticism considering he's done a quite a bit himself when it comes to Canadian Golf especially. He does apologize for the "swipe" and knows that it probably should have been worded differently looking back.


But he's glad that his article produced some very thoughtful responses, especially from Michael and Tom and Ben S, and they have made him reconsider some aspects of his piece. I know that he's looking forward to seeing Old Barnwell especially and as with CCF's Karoo he's more than willing to be proven wrong in his initial impression of it

Ben,


When Zach sees Old Barnwell, he will observe a course that is big, bold and does have manufactured features. What people question is whether it is “too big, bold and manufactured”.


For discussion sake, let me offer an example of where the line may have been crossed: the original version of what is now the 12th hole on the Cashen course at Ballybunion. Supposedly, RTJ thought of it as comparable to the famous 16th at Cypress Point. Indeed there was a bail out to the left or one could go directly at the green.


I first played it with my friend Kevin Frost, the person who hit balls for Mr. Jones when the Cashen was being designed. Going for this green struck me as kind of insane, but Kevin didn’t hesitate.


Eventually the hole was changed largely in response to complaints from older members who just found the course (and that hole in particular) too difficult to walk.


So yesterday I walked most of Old BarnwellI and tried to view it through that lens: is there anything that members are likely to push to change in years to come? Honestly, nothing came to mind except I probably won’t care to play the back tee on #9 very often and might like to hit from a spot right behind #16 green for my tee shot on #17.


All things considered, IMO those relatively small things don’t add up to “too big, bold or manufactured”. Put another way, I think Brian Schneider and Blake Conant did very well achieving “finality” which for me would be a pretty good test of whether a course was “too big, bold or manufactured”.

[Marty Bonnar]

If you’re going to quote Band names, at least get them right.
Methinks, the lad could do with a game or two in Scotland with a few Scotsmen.
F.

[cary lichtenstein]

I was  certainly in the minority when Minimalism was in its heyday.