Manifest Destiny and Golf Course Architecture

[Mike_Cirba]

As a group who seems to revere the past, at least in terms of "classic architecture", how do we reconcile such nostalgic longing with the following statement, which I believe to be an accurate and pointed summation that defines the engine of progress in the United States.

"I have come to believe that one of the sources of our national greatness is a refusal to be bogged down in history. We don't spend a lot of time looking back compared to other cultures, except for a nod or two to the founding fathers or historic wars. We are always looking to the future, to what can be, instead of noting what has never been and then figuring we can't do it. We are inventive and resourceful and refuse to believe that bold ideas are not possible. But the flip side of this is that we often miss the lessons and symbols of history."

Are we possibly limiting the art and our appreciation of same by demanding close convention to the successes of the past?  Are our minds closed to new, possibly revolutionary  ideas simply because they are different from what we currently know and appreciate?

Let's hear your thoughts.

[Brad Klein]

Manifest Destiny was the ideology of racist imperialism and Western expansion. Sounds like a great formula to me for golf course design.

[Mike_Cirba]

Brad;

Certainly the historic application of "Manifest Destiny" was  different (not to mention cruel and racist) from some of the more idealistic original hopes, but it's more the ambitious, aggressive, audacious mindset that I was hoping to compare to modern day course architecture and course development.

For instance, would you agree that much of the same chutzpah (arrogance?) that led the westward expansion stemmed from the same seed that would germinate into a Shadow Creek in modern times, for instance?

[Mike Hendren]

"We now have our own history, our own traditions, our own superlative courses; and on account of our different climatic requirements and topographical peculiarities, we need our own technique added to the general rules of standard usage which we have assimilated from our friends across the sea.

In taking this position, we should revere the cradle of golf with its fine spirit and distinct atmosphere; but we also may be proud of our own development, and strive not only to keep up the standards of our past, but to go on and improve our newer productions, for the ultimate in golf and golf architecture is not yet attained." - George C. Thomas, Jr., 1927

Has the ultimate indeed been attained?  Has golf course architecture jumped the shark?

Mike

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
I think "inventive and resourceful" pretty much describes the places to where architecture has been taken in the US.
Just about every conceivable landform and every type of terrain has been used for, created, or built  on American courses and if new ones are thought up I think they'll be tried.
 

[RJ_Daley]

Mike and Mike, first off, I'm beggin ya'all, can we please quit using that goofy term, 'jumping the shark'.  I'm coming to really dislike that term.

It looks like Mike H., was right on top of that thought in his scholarly study and appreciation of GCT.

The dream big and anything is possible sort of thing applies to engineering projects of dams, bridges, skyscrapers, water delivery, moon shots etc.  But, I think those big engineering marvels exceed reason when it comes to creating engineering marvels to design golf courses, because golf courses are just mundane recreational facilities, not historical achievements of human progress.  Even the most highly engineered courses like Shadow Creek, or that mountain moving project of Muirhead's in Korea don't compare to the big engineering dreams of a guy like William Mulholland's water system or John Roebling and his followers like Steinman and Straus who built the great expansion bridges.

I think that the great builders of engineering marvels must have had to respect the predecessors or their field.  They all understood Brunelleschi's inovations with the free form dome of Florence's Cathedral.  They all had to stand on the shoulders of the greats that came before them.  So do golf course architects, I think.

Golf architecture is the same in that regard.  But, it isn't so big of a deal as the true wonders of the engineering world, IMHO.

Yet, arrogance is a factor when golf design for the sake of doing it - just because we can, exceeds reason and common sense or restricts common usage due to rediculous cost.  None of that was the weighing of the arrogant big dream for an expansionist if not imperialist goal of a burgeoning society and nation (at the expense of an indiginous culture) like Manifest Destiny was.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Mike,

What are some of the revolutionary ideas you would consider positive that you have seen in modern design?

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I have, of late, been thinking a lot about a local project of a large nature.  While undertaking some handwringing about whether it will upset the balance of local golf, I have come to realize that the audacity of the people pushing this project is a blend of courage, arrogance and ignorance.  

The particular recipe that these ingredients could lead to any of a number of results along the continuum of total failure to complete mediocrity or blinding success.  It is this alchemy that defies explanantion or quantification.  The Divine Destiny that this and other cultures ahve been built on.  

Does the decision get made on what we might lose or what we might gain?  It is visionaries and risk takers who drive these decisons.  Often men (& Women) who don't live to see their vision fulfilled, like Crump at Pine Valley.  Is it like the gambler who returns from Vegas bragging about his winnings?  Or the gambler returning who doesn't say a word about his losses.  We revere the risk takers who win and forget the risk takers who fail.  This imbalance can be frightening but also drives us to continue to take the risks.

[RJ_Daley]

This all makes me wonder; how is Ocean Trails doing lately?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Wow, so many adding and deleting of messages here that it's tough to keep up...

What I think I'm trying to gain some understanding of is the apparent dichotomy between most areas of human endeavor in this country, where continuing "progress" is almost assumed, and this group's general eschewing of what is known as modern golf course design.  

Instead, most here seem to believe that Golf course architecture reached its zenith in the 20s, entered a long dark age period, only to be sparked to life by Dye in the 70s/80s, ushering in a renewal of sorts in the last decade with courses by C&C, Doak, etc. leading the trend.  That's hardly a pathway of smooth, continual progress.  

But, even with those architects who are creating throwback courses in modern times, 95% of the courses being built today are clearly not in the mode of the classic style, but more modern in style and approach.  

I guess that begs any number of questions;

Is golf such a "traditional" and conservative game that major variations from commonly accepted classical architecture techniques are rejected out of hand before they even see the light of day (while in the planning phase)?

Are there "out of the box" techniques that modern architects should or could be employing in their unceasing battle with technological improvements?

Is golf and its focus on nature and timeless unchanging quality inherently inconsistent with traditional American values of constant change and progress?

Why do we have a negative gut reaction when we hear about "innovations" like fully-lighted golf courses for night play, or automated distance guides, or artificial turf surfaces that would likely be viewed as "progress" by most any other sport or game?

Am I rambling, or does this make sense?        

[Mike_Cirba]

I have to laugh...  

Sometimes a thread takes on a life of its own like my "When did GCA jump..." that ran on for 11+ pages and other times a thread dies quickly and unceremoniously like this one..

Deservedly, I might add.  

[TEPaul]

MikeC;

Not necessarily;

Below is an enormous post on the background and history of "Manifest Destiny" to which I'll add another post of what I think you're trying to say here or what I think you should be trying to say or ask. Of course being long and not on the subject of ranking or whatever it may only be of interest to you;

Let me try to convey how Mike Cirba may be using an analogy with the term "Manifest Destiny", or, in my opinion, should be using it in the context of golf architecture or perhaps an "Amercian" style or type of golf architecture.

I've used the term "Manifest Destiny" on this webiste a number of times in the last five years--I've probably started a few threads based on or even entitled  "Manifest Destiny".

Strictly, the term "Manifest Destiny" was the US's 19th doctrine of pushing west across this continent of ours. But that doctrine became more than that. It became the "belief" that the young burgeoning nation had a destiny or right to push across this continent and basically conquer and in many cases destroy many of the things that stood in the way of that push across the continent with the clear and ultimate goal of basically conquering the continent entirely in the name of the new American nation.

As we all know many things were destroyed in that push West--whole indigenous American Indian tribes, buffalo and in the ultimate analysis much of the raw natural and unadulterated beauty of the Great American West.

Both the conquest and the destruction that conquest caused created in many Americans a dichotomy or duality---in my opinion. Those mostly immigrant west pushing pioneers of the young nation felt the urge to conquer what they perceived to be things adverserial--Indians, wild animals, the harshness of the raw natural continent etc just to survive and settle in it. But a duality was created within our people as many of them could see they were also destroying a beautiful natural majesty within that virgin continent and destroying other peoples, wild animals etc in the process. Both the "Manifest" part as well as the "Destiny" part became overlaid with a Christian fervor that probably was as much to assuage our guilt as to spur us on! Essentially we made “Manifest Destiny” biblical! Our right to conquer more in the name of salvation than destruction became even more than a God given right—it became almost a God given responsibility!

The essence of Manifest Destiny and the results of it I believe eventually became as much the ETHOS of the American nation and its entire culture as anything else about us. The essence of Manifest Destiny in an even larger sense is what we were taught in our schools and by our families and it became basically both our national and personal self-image!

In a nutshell how it represents itself is a culture and a people both individually and collectively that's perhaps history's ultimate "can do" people. Nothing is too big for us to dream and actually accomplish. Change itself is not only not feared it’s basically glorified by us. We aren't restricted by conventions and traditions as are other older cultures because we basically created our own conventions, traditions and culture supposedly out of the raw and presumably harsh wilderness not much more than 200 years previous instead of the eons ago of other older cultures.

We, as a nation and people both collectively and individually feel enormous power within us! We feel deep in our bones that there's nothing we can't conquer or can’t accomplish. But with our breast-beating pride in unlimited power there also resides in us a collective and individual DUALITY that we are a forgiving and compassionate people too! If it were otherwise, if we did not feel this too in our bones and about ourselves we could probably not withstand the guilt for long of the things we know we've done--destroyed and corrupted in our nation's history of the concept of “Manifest Destiny”.

Have we acheived great things with our unique "Manifest Destiny? Yes! Have we destroyed many things and many peoples with our unique "Manifest Destiny"? Yes, and we both collectively and individually basically understand both!

That is our national ETHOS to a very large extent, in my opinion! I call it our ethos of manifest destiny!

So how is Mike Cirba trying to use this analogy of “Manifest Destiny in this thread?

Next….

[TEPaul]

MiikeC;

Having said all that above, my feeling about an analogy to "Manifest Destiny" and what I believe it to be today---eg the basic ETHOS of America and American, I see no way at all that any of us with our penchant or fixation on classic or let's say purist architectural golf principles could EVER halt the innovative engine and ethos of America and American architects to innovate and come up with new ideas or even new principles of golf architecture--for good or bad!

HOWEVER, I do believe that because of that duality I tried to explain above that's a result of our ethos of "Manifest Destiny", I believe that there are some predictable cycles within our American society, culture and ethos which allow us or even make us slow down from time to time from our rapid forward moving "can do" cycles and look back fondly to an early former era which makes us feel good about ourselves, perhaps more innocent or perhaps less frenetic.

That slowing down and looking back part of the cycle has happened many times in our society in intereting little ways--it's the fundamental reason for the success of Ralph Lauren, for the popularity of Reagan and his penchant which was so popular of trucking out former family values and heroes of a former time, it may be well evidenced in the recent war in Iraq and some of the country's eventual reaction to it, and it's also the reason we are now in the midst of a pretty evident cycle of restoration in classic "Golden Age"  courses and their architecture and "Golden Age" principles in some new construction! This is precisely why some of our favorite architects on here are on a real roll right now!

But there may come a time in the not too distance future when American golf architecture, just like the evolution of American society and its culture and ethos, will turn their eyes again to the future and race forward for a time with extreme innovation and change until the time comes again when they will tire of the race and look back again!

And there's not a damn thing any of us can do about these cycles because, in my opinion, it's just part and parcel of that "can do" ethos that derived out of this nation's doctrine and belief in what they came to know as their "Manifest Destiny". But always with that doctrine and belief comes the duality--the guilt and the turning back for a brief respite to a former time of perhaps innocence and relief! But then it's always on again racing into the future with change as the buzzword!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Really good summation.  Thank you for helping to flesh out and detail much of what I was getting at.

You know, though...the problem is that by the year 2050, there will likely be a nostalgic architectural wave to reproduce Rees's mounds, Jack's starkly shelved 1980s greensites, and Fazio's framing.  

What do you think of the quote I used in my initial post on this thread.  I came across it yesterday and the term "Manifest Destiny" came to mind.   I certainly didn't mean it in the negative connotation, but more in terms of the mindset that produced the concept as well as the dichotomous mindset that resulted from it's implementation.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

There very well may be that by 2050--it would not be in the slightest bit surprising to me. Why has some of today's youth reverted back to clothes and some music of a former time or any of the other retro fads they're constantly prone to?

But when a retro cycle happens again in golf architecture it's my real hope and also my strong suggestion that this time we keep ALL the types and styles of architecture DISTINCT from one another---something we clearly failed to do or to understand in the last fifty or so years!

This hope and suggestion of mine is the basis of my "Big World" theory of golf architecture! That architectural types and styles coexist along side one another but this time co-exist as completely DISTINCT from one another. The future of golf architecture, I hope will be one overlaid with a real understanding of preservation of ALL architectural types and styles--again as completely distinct! It's important because in the "Big World" theory of architecture there are many personal tastes out there that are very different and architecture should logically reflect that;

Did I mention that this is based on the phrase and idea that;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone"?  

That's the basis of the "Big World" theory!

[A_Clay_Man]

Mike- If it isn't irony, it's destiny. Using Shadow Creek as your analogy, that is.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the story behind Shadow, but it was TF who had to reign in the over-exuberant Wynn. What would've been, had that not happened, we'll never know, but kind of fun to fantasize.

In your original post, I read what you asked thusly; Does our fixation on the past, stifle our future? I have to say (if thats what you meant) No.

Perhaps if design had showed more reverence to the cradle, we wouldn't have to look back. But now, since a handful have looked back, and created designs that embrace core principles, we should be able to now move forward. ( i use the word we, like I have something to do with it)

Most great art and discoveries are built on the shoulders of giants. In that vien, I see the potential to incorporate positives from different genres and giants as the road to the future.

At great risk, I will throw this out there.

A Par 3 hole with OB long and along the right. The narrow green has an almost Biarritz undulation to it, and a slight camber to the left ala a redan, complete with a road hole bunker on the left, somewhere near the bottom of the Biarritz's swale, very close to the center of the green.

How'd I do?

[Tom_Doak]

It's the equipment manufacturers of golf who believe in Manifest Destiny ... that they should keep "improving" the game no matter what the cost to the current landscape of courses.  (Although, I agree with John Kavanaugh that the best thing we can do as architects is to ignore the pro tours and hope they clean up their act.)

Golf architecture is more of an art form, and as such there is no logical progression from one style (or fad) to the next.  And there is never going to be anything like a quantum leap to those massive engineering projects to which RJ refers, because they make no sense in the economy and scale of developing a golf course.  Manifest Destiny only applies where there is BIG money to be made ... in golf, that's equipment.

[Rick Shefchik]

"In 'The Jerk' (1979), the nouveau riche Steve Martin takes his fiancée to a fancy French restaurant. In his opinion, it's a disaster: First there are snails on the plates, and then they're served old wine. Martin insists on a bottle of their freshest -- and reminds the waiter not to forget to put umbrellas in the glasses this time."

I prefer older wine and older (style) golf courses. Now, if somebody can create a wine on Tuesday that tastes better than '58 Bordeaux on Wednesday -- at a fraction of the cost -- I'll be first in line to buy it. Until then, I'll stick with what I like, and spare me the umbrellas.

[SPDB]

Mike -

Have you read Turner's "The Significance of the Frontier in American History"? Some will argue that it is a less objectionable take on the forming of the American cultural and political identity (subsuming, in part, by necessity the idea of "manifest destiny")?

The paper went a long way to confronting the then-popular germ theory, which held that American institutions are derived from Germanic tribal practices. Rejecting that notion, Turner fostered the idea that the American character was shaped by a rugged individualism forced by life along a continuous expanding frontier and settlement of "free" lands.

Agree or disagree, the essay's impact on American the approach to American history has been profound.

An analogy, i think, might be drawn to the development of golf architecture. Few would argue that Turner's thesis was drawn from the rapid western movement of the 19th century. Before that, expansion was relatively limited.

So too, early architecture was informed by reference to what existed in the British isles. This obviously comes as no surprise since a good many of the practitioners were either british or scottish themselves, or undeniably designed with that influence.  

But gradually, American architecture for better or for worse began to take a life of its own, and no longer looked for to the courses of England and Scotland for guidance or for approval. Ironically, the bellwether for this movement was Robt Trent Jones, a Brit by birth.

But what created this shift? Was it because of the same conditions Turner looked to? it can't be said that there was any frontier mentality in the 1940-50s, or can it?

I'm not sure I know the answers to this, but it certainly makes me think.

[Mike_Cirba]

Sean;

No, I haven't read Turner's book but I appreciate your synopsis and I think that you drew some interesting analogies.  

It does seem clear to me that at some point we made the "clean break" architecturally from the motherland, but I wonder when that might be?  

It's almost as if the early courses in America shared the old world respect for the land, while more modern courses were "BUILT" as needed for play, using American notions of "progress" and industry.  

Perhaps Tom MacWood can weigh in?

[SPDB]

Mike - If you're not averse to wading through scholarly writing (and I suspect a man of your intelligence is not), I would strongly recommend reading it. I know it had a measurable impact on me. It can be found in its entirety at the Hypertexts project at UVA:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/TURNER/

[SPDB]

I also suspect some of the questions we have can be answered by re-reading Tom MacWood's excellent Arts & Crafts series.

[Mike_Cirba]

Sean;

Thank you very much!  Much appreciated.  

I'm still staggering from the "man of your intelligence" comment, though.  I know just enough to be dangerous and less than I knew yesterday.  

[A_Clay_Man]

It's probable that reproductions of the art, caused a rut. Out of which spawned the search for the new art. Innovations on the physical side have cleared the way for the new art to be inspired. Which, if one has an open mind, has been and is being created now.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Mike,

And when you finish with Turner and your head has not exploded, try Ralph Waldo Emerson, definately one whom defined the American character in a similar way.  Beats the hell out of watching TV, especially golf.