Mike
"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?"
I don't believe so. One of the main reasons I have been drawn to golf architecture is because of the diversity of styles and individual expressions. Langford....Thompson....Ross....Macdonald....Travis....Simpson. They all had their own distinct style and preferred motifs--no doubt the result of their unique experiences and influences. But they also shared similar attributes it seems to me. An understanding of strategy and an appreciation for Nature...although both might be manifested is somewhat different ways. For example Raynor's uncanning ability to utilize the outstanding natural features of site and MacKenzie's ability to create naturalistic features that meld beautifully into the site. (On a side note mediocre golf architecture was common during the so-called golden age; the majority of golf courses during that era were not that good...the maestros we recognize today were outnumbered by less talented colleagues ...I'm not sure what that says)
When considering the boundaries of the art, IMO it is important to consider the canvas is Mother Nature. In the relatively short time the art of golf architecture has been around, the experience has been the further one gets from nature the less popular appeal and staying power the design will have. That is why I am very skeptical about any truly revolutionary ideas in the future. There will be new ideas, exciting modenr talents and slight variations on past themes, but I'm not looking for revolutionary...I would think Nature precludes the revolutionary, but who knows.
As I said golf architecture is a relatively young art, but we can look at garden art for possible clue. From Kent, Brown, Repton, Downing, Vaux, Olmsted to today...we've got about three hundred years of a very similar design style dominated by Nature. In China and Japan about 1000 years without a revolution.
I don't consider engineering breakthroughs as design breakthroughs...Lido and Shadow Creek were not revolutionary designs. I love Strantz's Tabocco Road because of his aesthetic talents, fun strategies and grasp of Nature. He's a throwback as far as I can tell.
In regards to America's inventiveness and resourcefulness and how it relates to this subject. I don't really see it. In the formative years many of the most inventive were from outside the US: Strong (British), Fujita (Japan), Arana (Spain) and Thompson (Canadian). Inventiveness and resourcefulness in golf architecture are not the exclusive domain of Americans.
Another observation, if anything, today's most exciting architects are rediscovering the advantages of Nature and quirk (in contrast the over-stylized, over-manipulated work that ran through the 50', 60's and 70's and is still found in some places). In fact they are now going to the ends of the earth to find Nature...that is the revolution...finding canvases in Nebraska, Oregon, Tasmania and New Zealand.