"The Audience Comes Last"

[David Kelly]

The audience/customer should never be dismissed but remember what Henry Ford said, "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

[Mike Nuzzo]

When Al told me what he wanted in a golf course it sounded very much a subset of what I would want if I had my own course.
His mission statement was not wasting time looking for lost balls, challenging, and he wanted to be entertained almost every day, and not much else.
Wolf Point was more than anything else the golf course I wanted to play, which included all the other design and art golf things I loved.
Cheers

[Tim Gavrich]

When Al told me what he wanted in a golf course it sounded very much a subset of what I would want if I had my own course.
His mission statement was not wasting time looking for lost balls, challenging, and he wanted to be entertained almost every day, and not much else.
Wolf Point was more than anything else the golf course I wanted to play, which included all the other design and art golf things I loved.
Cheers

Mike's post gets at an aspect of this discussion that had been missing as I read it.


When Rubin talks about the artist makes something true and authentic, I think it's implied that the artist has expertise and taste enough that what he or she creates, if it's true and authentic is inevitably going to be well received because the artist is *part of the audience.* Rubin has shaped some people's musical tastes for sure, but his own inherent (and very broad) tastes overlap with a large portion of "the audience" already. So it's inevitable that he's going to work with artists he is already somewhat predisposed to appreciating. That being the case, I take him at his word when he argues that all he's trying to do is facilitate the most authentic expression of any artist's work. The four-part Showtime documentary on Rubin, called "Shangri-La," is a must-watch for anyone interested in the creative process. I need to order his book, The Creative Act, too...


Let's extrapolate this to golf. I can get behind the argument that the best courses are authentic expressions of their architects' particular skills and tastes, and that they are often subject to relatively little outside meddling. Those architects' tastes line up with the tastes of "the audience" pretty well, too. The architect doesn't really need to consider "the audience" because that would be redundant.

[Sean_A]

When Al told me what he wanted in a golf course it sounded very much a subset of what I would want if I had my own course.
His mission statement was not wasting time looking for lost balls, challenging, and he wanted to be entertained almost every day, and not much else.
Wolf Point was more than anything else the golf course I wanted to play, which included all the other design and art golf things I loved.
Cheers

Mike's post gets at an aspect of this discussion that had been missing as I read it.


When Rubin talks about the artist makes something true and authentic, I think it's implied that the artist has expertise and taste enough that what he or she creates, if it's true and authentic is inevitably going to be well received because the artist is *part of the audience.* Rubin has shaped some people's musical tastes for sure, but his own inherent (and very broad) tastes overlap with a large portion of "the audience" already. So it's inevitable that he's going to work with artists he is already somewhat predisposed to appreciating. That being the case, I take him at his word when he argues that all he's trying to do is facilitate the most authentic expression of any artist's work. The four-part Showtime documentary on Rubin, called "Shangri-La," is a must-watch for anyone interested in the creative process. I need to order his book, The Creative Act, too...


Let's extrapolate this to golf. I can get behind the argument that the best courses are authentic expressions of their architects' particular skills and tastes, and that they are often subject to relatively little outside meddling. Those architects' tastes line up with the tastes of "the audience" pretty well, too. The architect doesn't really need to consider "the audience" because that would be redundant.

I don’t think credit is exactly the way to phrase it, but archies have to some degree shaped audience taste. Over these past three decades I have clearly seen tastes change following the words and work of the “post” Dye generation. I don’t believe the audience was ignored because it was intentionally groomed with loads of hard work and patience.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Would it be correct to suggest that the influence of marketing on course design has increased more and more over the decades?
Likely the same for equipment as well, especially Drivers, over the last decade or so.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

When Rubin talks about the artist makes something true and authentic, I think it's implied that the artist has expertise and taste enough that what he or she creates, if it's true and authentic is inevitably going to be well received because the artist is *part of the audience.* Rubin has shaped some people's musical tastes for sure, but his own inherent (and very broad) tastes overlap with a large portion of "the audience" already. So it's inevitable that he's going to work with artists he is already somewhat predisposed to appreciating. That being the case, I take him at his word when he argues that all he's trying to do is facilitate the most authentic expression of any artist's work. The four-part Showtime documentary on Rubin, called "Shangri-La," is a must-watch for anyone interested in the creative process. I need to order his book, The Creative Act, too...

Let's extrapolate this to golf. I can get behind the argument that the best courses are authentic expressions of their architects' particular skills and tastes, and that they are often subject to relatively little outside meddling. Those architects' tastes line up with the tastes of "the audience" pretty well, too. The architect doesn't really need to consider "the audience" because that would be redundant.

Tim:


Exactly.  That's what I was trying to say a few posts back:

[/size]But I am a golfer.  Most architects are.  Everything we do is based on the golf experience we want to deliver . . . but we can do that without worrying about what other golfers or raters will think, if we trust our own instincts.

[Ronald Montesano]

Don't bury the lede

"he has some of the best taste in music of anyone living in this era"

really should be written "from my vantage point, he has some of the best taste in music of anyone that I know living in this era" or

"he has some of the most diverse, wide-ranging, taste in music of anyone living in this era.

There are few certainties; the rest are opinions. Same goes for thoughts from teachers of Spanish, scholarship chairmen from smallish organizations, amateur photographers, and part-time writers.

more to come ...

[Matt Schoolfield]

It turns out that when you make something truly for yourself you're doing the best thing you possibly can for the audience.

---

That's not how art works... that something else. That's not art, that's commerce... It's almost like a diary entry; so, could I be concerned that someone else doesn't like my diary entry? Doesn't make sense.

Okay, I've been mulling over why I don't really care for these statements (apart from the loudness wars issue, and mainly because I thought my previous argument was pretty weak). I think his point seems perfectly reasonable, but I just disagree with his idea of the scope of what art is.

I definitely understand and agree with this thrust of what he's saying: outsider art that I like is some of the most interesting art I can consume, period. My hometown's Daniel Johnston is a real testament to that. Much of outsider art that appeals to me does feel like a diary entry. However, the simile to the diary entry also seems odd, because people generally don't write a diary for public consumption and I think most diary entries are, well, not appealing. When we see very bad, genuine art piece, we can either celebrate its terribleness or more likely consider it forgettable. I guess that's all fine and good if you're like Gillian Welch and would make your art no matter what. Where I would push back on Rubin's position is, well, this is a needlessly narrow view of art (and it's one that I see fitting neatly with a lifetime of success in the counter-culture).

In contrast, I think of stand up comedians building a set, and preforming and performing in front of an audience to see which jokes and delivery work, and which don't. That's certainly catering to an audience, and I would say definitely it's still art. Killing your darlings is probably good advice. I would go farther than this though, and push back against the dichotomy between art and commerce. I see industrial design as an art form that goes so overlooked, that we often don't even see it. I think it would be very difficult to parse the art from the commerce in industrial design in Rubin's way.

There is an artistic skill in creating something amazing for yourself, and as Tim thoughtfully points out, this works well when the audience and the artist are in the same cohort. However, there is also an skill (as in gift-giving) that is seeing what others like and creating/procuring that specifically for others. I don't think we should count that out.

I've been mulling over some ideas recently about Howard Moskowitz, and applying his ideas on horizontal segmentation juxtaposed with golf's rankings, and I think that's why Rubin's platitudes rubbed me the wrong way.

[Tom_Doak]

You’re quoting a guy whose main contribution to life in America is Cherry Vanilla Dr Pepper?

[Matt Schoolfield]

You’re quoting a guy whose main contribution to life in America is Cherry Vanilla Dr Pepper?

I agree that the Wikipedia entry is not great. His main contribution is demonstrating that more people will be satisfied by product differentiation rather than finding an ideal product. His biggest influence on the culture is probably creating thick and chunky pasta sauce, which captured a major portion of the pasta sauce market at the time.
 
Malcolm Gladwell did talk about him some time back (though Gladwell isn't my favorite thinker). It's probably the most accessible summary of his career. The writing and interviews Moskowitz has done have really changed the way I see aesthetics.

[Craig Sweet]

For me it's Russell Chatham

[Tom_Doak]

You’re quoting a guy whose main contribution to life in America is Cherry Vanilla Dr Pepper?

I agree that the Wikipedia entry is not great. His main contribution is demonstrating that more people will be satisfied by product differentiation rather than finding an ideal product. His biggest influence on the culture is probably creating thick and chunky pasta sauce, which captured a major portion of the pasta sauce market at the time.
 
Malcolm Gladwell did talk about him some time back (though Gladwell isn't my favorite thinker). It's probably the most accessible summary of his career. The writing and interviews Moskowitz has done have really changed the way I see aesthetics.

But isn’t product differentiation where we all do our own thing, instead of all trying to find the ideal course that appeals to every customer? 


The latter is where some customers think we should go - considering the retail golfer - but I’m close enough to the retail golfer not to think about the least common denominator.

[Matt Schoolfield]

But isn’t product differentiation where we all do our own thing, instead of all trying to find the ideal course that appeals to every customer? 

It is if we want take a trial and error approach. Whereas what Moskowitz trying to deliberately look at what the audience demonstrates they prefer, and provide a quality product catered to the subgroups even if what they want is “incorrect” (like Cherry Vanilla Dr Pepper)

[Tim Gavrich]

There is an artistic skill in creating something amazing for yourself, and as Tim thoughtfully points out, this works well when the audience and the artist are in the same cohort. However, there is also an skill (as in gift-giving) that is seeing what others like and creating/procuring that specifically for others. I don't think we should count that out.

I don't presume to speak for Rick Rubin here, but my sense is that the point where the thing that is being made crosses the rubicon between art and a commercial product is the point at which the artist/maker subordinates his or her authentic vision of the thing being made and instead tries to inhabit the audience. Even if no money has changed hands, the thing is still a commercial product. The specifically-for-ness of it is what makes it commercial.


It might still be an interesting and nice thing when regarded by people outside the pool of who the thing was made for, but the point where the maker's authenticity ebbs is the point where the artist becomes an artisan. There's nothing wrong with being an artisan, but it is not the same as being an artist.

[Mike Nuzzo]

There was an interview in the fall of Stephen King where he was characterized as "writing what he likes to read"
cheers

[Buck Wolter]

You’re quoting a guy whose main contribution to life in America is Cherry Vanilla Dr Pepper?

I agree that the Wikipedia entry is not great. His main contribution is demonstrating that more people will be satisfied by product differentiation rather than finding an ideal product. His biggest influence on the culture is probably creating thick and chunky pasta sauce, which captured a major portion of the pasta sauce market at the time.
 
Malcolm Gladwell did talk about him some time back (though Gladwell isn't my favorite thinker). It's probably the most accessible summary of his career. The writing and interviews Moskowitz has done have really changed the way I see aesthetics.

The Gladwell/Rubin combo has created Broken Record podcast on Gladwell's 'channel'


Here's one where Gladwell interviews Rubin about his book


https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/broken-record/rick-rubin-2


Today the interviewer becomes the interviewee.In his nearly 40-year career as a producer, Rick Rubin has helped unlock creativity and inspire musical genius time and time again. The artists he’s worked with often say that one of Rick’s superpowers is his expert ability to listen deeply, and to help guide whoever he’s working with to find their deepest expression of truth.
[/size]This month Rick released his first book, called The Creative Act: A Way Of Being. In it he shares practical principles on how anyone can generate creative authenticity and ultimately find their voice.[/color]
[/size]On today’s episode Malcolm Gladwell talks to Rick about The Creative Act, and they explore the principles in the book that are applicable to feelings of stagnation beyond artistic life. Rick talks about why he believes creativity comes from external forces rather than internal ones, and he explains why he believes that self expression isn’t actually about you.[/color]

[Michael Morandi]

Tom-Do you find yourself pushing back at all on the client stimp request? It would seem the effect of such a request would equate to a more moderate set of greens than you might normally build.

Sooty, Tom, but I’m your post you said the owner told you up front he wanted 12 stimp greens.


Tim:


If you want to push back against the client's first priorities, you should just turn down the job.  I learned the first time around that I don't have any control over what happens to the course once I'm done, so if a client says he wants fast greens, he is by God going to have them, even if it's not appropriate for what's built.  Building severe greens anyway would be a form of malpractice.


The reality is that a lot of clients nowadays want the greens at 12, and it means that I can't build the kind of greens I love for those clients.  It's their loss.  But to Joe's question, if I was doing it for myself, you'd still get to see some of those greens.

[Michael Morandi]

As a writer, unless I'm commissioned to write a specific piece, I write the story I want to write and mold it until it fits into the vision I have for the project.  The consumer only factors into the process at the very end when I'm contemplating how to market a book and what kind of audience it appeals to.  That gets to how you develop the cover, the marketing blurbs, and all of that other stuff that really falls into the authorly/commerce realm instead of the writerly/artist realm in my opinion.
There is a very vocal section of the market who suggest that consumer recognition plays a much larger part of the initial conception of the story.  This group is also closely tied to the concept of you only make it big through traditional publishers.  To me that borders on what Rubin labels as commerce.  And the more dependent on that product you are for your livelihood, the more that probably plays a part into the artistic design.  There is a reason authors like Sarah J Maas and Colleen Hoover are so fervently followed on TikTok and appeal to very similar audiences.  They write their stories to appeal to a particular market.  Perhaps you can argue about their artistic merit, but you can't deny their commercial success. 
My guess, this a constant tug of war that most artists deal with from painters, sculptors, writers, to golf course architects.
As for his comments on movies, the issue there is the producers of the media needed content and they believed for a while all they had to do was produce content, not quality, through their studio machines and the dollars would follow.  That mindset might be changing in Hollywood after the disaster at the box office that was 2023.

Producers will always be guessing what will sell at the box office. Even when they appear edgy they are chasing financial returns. I’m assuming that is true of writers chasing recognition and awards.

[Michael Morandi]

Is it even possible to ignore the "audience", client, or customer in today's business?

I can't help but think about the distinction of Art vs Design in this context. While Art has patrons, has those who support the artist and their work, what those patrons want more than anything from the artist is a true expression of the Artist vision. Design CAN work that way, but more often than not, what the client wants from the designer is the designers expression of the Clients vision.

If you were a client who commissioned an architect to build you a house, you have hired a specialist to solve a problem for you. Now there are quite a few specialist who could all solve the problem, but you picked that one because they have demonstrated to you a unique/special/inviting way of solving problems that you find captivating and desirable. Even if you can not perfectly articulate all facets of the problem you're wanting them to solve, you expect them to work with you to develop a clear understanding and present not only a successful, but also unique/special/inviting solution to the problem.

The Architects job is to consider the audience (client) first in everything they're doing. If the designer goes rogue and builds what they want, they might solve the clients problem, but good chance they would not have been as successful to meeting all the clients needs.

Developing a golf course is not quite the same thing as commissioning a house for yourself.  The house is obviously personal, but the golf course is ultimately for a bunch of golfers, not just the client.  If I met a potential client and his vision for the course was too specific, I would most likely not take that job.


What if the client's goal is to build a "top 50" course, as I've heard once or twice? At that point, it doesn't matter so much what THEY think it will take as what I think it will take.  The work is not an expression of THEM.  They could very well get in their own way because they want to fit in a certain type of hole in a certain place.


My deal with Ric Kayne was that I would get a substantial bonus if I met his top 50 objective.  After we shook hands on that, I realized and said to him that meant if he wanted me to change something, he would have to pay me the bonus, or he might prevent the course from getting such a lofty ranking!  In the end, he let me run mostly free, and the one time he asked for a change, we did it because I agreed with him after some consideration.

This is not a good look.  When I was on Wall St I never cut a deal with a client  where I compromised myself for a bonus. I remember a very powerful client asking  me to test accounting standards. I declined. Cost me a fair amount of  money. There was no room for education where we’d end up in agreement because there were no shared values.

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:  I don’t know, I think Tara Iti turned out very well for all involved.


But I would not have made the deal I did if I hadn’t believed Ric Kayne and I would get along well.  I have not made the same sort of deal with anyone else, for the reasons you state.

[Ira Fishman]

In a simplified version, I think that there are two categories of artists. The first is those who are initially driven to express something new about which they have a confident point of view or at least express against the prevailing, popular norm. The second category is those who stay within the confines of the prevailing, popular norm even though they may be doing new riffs upon it.


To me, the interesting question is what happens when those in the first category find an audience. Do they become less willing to break new ground for commercial and/or popularity reasons? Did they have an artistic comfort zone that can become formulaic? Is there brand so strong that they can take risks? Or do they move in new directions just because they are wired that way?


Ira

[Michael Morandi]

Michael:  I don’t know, I think Tara Iti turned out very well for all involved.


But I would not have made the deal I did if I hadn’t believed Ric Kayne and I would get along well.  I have not made the same sort of deal with anyone else, for the reasons you state.

Tom,


The quality of your work stands for itself. I’m sure you don’t compromise your values and don’t need to do so.


MM