Re: Controversy in architecture?

[Norbert P]

...
Not controversial:
Fazio (both)
RTJ
Rees Jones
...

Are you creating a controversy Thomas?  

I suppose it depends on the milieu* of which discussion group investigates the question.  From many here, these fellers works are controversial because results are unworthy of artistic discussion.  So, by some opinions, they become targets of criticism by virtue of creative inactivity.

* Sorry to use a French word amidst the boycott.

[Norbert P]

Zackly.

  Interesting also your mention of Coore and Crenshaw are Moderately Controversial.   Does anybody critique their work as NOT righteous Tau?  Perhaps they do lean a bit to Shintoism but where they harvest their power from is respect for their craft, the land and the spirit of golf.
  
  Along with them, Axland and Proctor come to mind as messengers of impressionism of land as opposed to expressionism of ego.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

For me, Controversial HAS to be the ultimate compliment. If it is in relation to a golf hole, it is inspiring talk and theory, which furthers idea.

Controversy is GREAT.

[paul cowley]

...i'm still relatively new to this site but the ideas aligned with controversy in design and the critisizms and ranking and raving about designers is getting old ...and boring.
    lose the invective..they are just people,probably doing the best they can or could, some better than others,none worthy of the design Inquisition attitude found here at times......

[Willie_Dow]

Tom

How many of the Fazio's are you talking about?

Tom?  Tommy? Jim? Jimmy? George? etc?

[T_MacWood]

Where does Stanley Thompson fall?

[A_Clay_Man]

I agree that an "Inquisition" against any lack of original thinking is appropriate in any art or science.

Original thought creates controversy because it threatens the status quo. Ergo, That status qou is brought about because of a lack of originality.

Those who build on the shoulders of giants rather than just copy, is paramount to advancement.

Pete Dye could be considered the most bold of all, over the last 35 years. And If it were'nt for the "new breed", who seem to appreciate the form as well as the function, there'd be no controversy, there'd just be alot of kavetching from guys like Tommy who aren't afraid to speak out against the regime.

[TEPaul]

I thought this subject might be an interesting one to consider and discuss, but when I see something like this from a post above--I guess not,

"lose the invective..they are just people,probably doing the best they can or could, some better than others,none worthy of the design Inquisition attitude found here at times......"

So I deleted my posts on this thread. I'm not interested in another argument on here that has nothing much to do with golf architecture!

[Willie_Dow]

Tom

This could be an interesting discussion.  When I think back on George Fazio and realize what his talent and creativity of design gave to golf, in a more modern sense than the classic designers, I think Tommy is right on here.  George went to the sandhills of Florida, not just the cool coastline, and his family from various sides is keeping that name growing down here.

[Tom_Doak]

You can scarcely find an article which mentions me which doesn't contain the word "controversial."  I've really gotten sick of it, though.  In most cases it revolves around THE CONFIDENTIAL GUIDE, not around my work, even though I think our work is quite a bit different than most people's.

I believe that a lot of young designers now are going out of their way to try and be controversial ... both in their designs and in what they say about them.  I don't know if that has anything to do with the fact that I've been successful, or not.  

However, I am totally against controversy, for the sake of controversy.  Design the best golf holes you can on the land.  Donald Ross wasn't controversial, and he left a pretty good legacy, too.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

You're so right that a lot of archtects weren't controversial, clealy didn't want to be--and a lot of really good ones too--Donald Ross wasn't--I don't think William Flynn was either or he certainly didn't seem to want to be. But there were others who didn't seem to mind being controversial.

Just the word controversial is actually a tough one to use here! Some people seem to take the idea of the word as a negative. That's not the way I mean to present it at all.

Controversy just seemed to be the inevitable result of what happened when some architects chose to push the envelop--to get creative, maybe in what were to be innovative ideas in architecture. They were obviously adventurous and were using some serious mental excerises in what they were experimenting with and attempting to apply.

Some ideas were clearly duds, but some were sort of revolutionary and I think they thought those ideas had to pass through a certain amount of controversy before becoming sometimes sort of feared but ultimately admired and respected.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul & Tom Doak,

Wasn't the doughnut green at Riviera controversial ?

Isn't it still controversial ?

Wasn't some of Pete Dye's early work controversial ?

I think I understand TEPaul's thrust, and it's not in a contentious context, rather, it could be looked at as unique or unconventional.

Unconventional work is interesting.
Some of it is good, some bad, and some neutral.