[Mark_F]

Modern academic theory contends that the author's meaning of a text is ultimately subsidiary to that of the various readers.

Doesn't this too sum up great golf architecture?

Matt Ward, on a recent thread, postulated that maybe if architects like Coore/Crenshaw and Tom Doak took on as much work as those often demonised, like Rees jones and Tom Fazio, then there would be some slackening of quality that would thus render their output more 'level' with that of busier architectural firms.

Whilst an intriguing thesis, and one that would certainly appear to have a sound basis, couldn't another reason be that Coore/Crenshaw and Doak are more akin to artists, and correspondingly design their work to mean many things to many people?

Maybe your idea of a perfect 18 is a pleasant stroll with your mates and the odd opportunity to pull of something otherwise undreamed of because you're middling them nicely today.

Maybe it's taking on the toughest route and enjoying the challenge, whether you pull it off or not, because there are ways to still stay in the game when you miss.

A good course, like good literature - James Joyce excepting - has peaks and flows that make you anticipate what's on the next page/hole, and is something you can't tear yourself away from because you just have to know what comes next.

Maybe that's why Coore/Crenshaw and Doak succeed where others fail.  They'll do the mass market bestsellers, the others do highbrow only a few understand or want to involve with.

 

[Joe Hancock]

Does Lewis Grizzard count?

Joe

[Mark_F]

What the heck is a Lewis Grizzard?

Some type of sports drink?

A gym in downtown Detroit?

Can't be American literature.  That starts and ends with Stephen King, with a solitary moment for Peter Straub.

[TEPaul]

"Modern academic theory contends that the author's meaning of a text is ultimately subsidiary to that of the various readers.
Doesn't this too sum up great golf architecture?"

MarkF:

Is that what modern academic theory contends? Well, if so, no wonder golf and golf architecture has gone to hell in a handbasket for about the last 75 to 85 years!!!

The fact that the meaning of Max Behr's texts is ultimately subsidiary to what various yahoo readers like a Rich Goodale think it means is a frightening prospect to say the least! The fact is readers like that have no earthly idea what Max's text means and they're so bumble-headed they actually make jokes about Max himself.

The meaning of the texts of Max Behr's writing is definitely NOT subsidiary to what readers think it means. In the true meaning of Max's texts lies the very salvation for golf architecture and even golf itself!!!!



The depressing fact is you can probably never really ask these slo-minded people to really read and to think and understand these basic but cerebral postulates Behr floated--you can only ask them to gloss over that pretty pap a writer like Arnold Haultain left us with that actually says nothing important but only makes those yahoos feel warm and cozy about things like the scent of cut grass or the early morning virgin dew on the course before it becomes corrupted with the footprints of golfers!

Haultain says nothing about the mysteries of golf as Behr does. Haultain only alludes to what it looks like and smells like!

[paul cowley]

TomP....for me to really appreciate Mr Behr , i'd have to conjure up a discussion like 'OK max ,i'm with you to here but you'll have to explain the last again ...here have another swig'.

maybe after that occured 10 times or more ,we just might be able to create an environment where we could let the electrons collide.....or was he a pussy and played dressup with Devereaux  

[TEPaul]

Paul:

The flask does not help in understanding Max Behr. The flask only enhances the imagination and particularly the guts when one needs to build a daring golf hole or solve some routing or design problem. One probably needs to dry out for a week or so and camp out in the some natural wilds before preparing to fully understand Max Behr. Reading everything Bernie Darwin's granddad wrote on evolution and the selection of the species wouldn't hurt either before reading Max's texts!

But who wouldn't love a guy who explained golf should be a contest against Nature (or a damn good facsimile thereof) not some man-made morality play with the architect as the producer or even an actor in it!

Golf is mysterious and it's probably just supreme poetic justice that the only man who really did explain its mysteries wrote mysteriously too!  

[paul cowley]

Tom...nature ,golf and design are my personal mysteries that I endlessly debate but hold internally.....and i'm really just holding off with Max until i'm incarcerated or the like so I have the time to truely appreciate his philosophies  

[TEPaul]

"Tom...nature ,golf and design are my personal mysteries that I endlessly debate but hold internally....."

LET IT OUT BROTHER AND YOU SHALL BE WHOLE!!!!

[TEPaul]

".....and i'm really just holding off with Max until i'm incarcerated or the like so I have the time to truely appreciate his philosophies."

Do not play the modern mind-numbing game of "instant gratification" that's a by product of impatience! (or is it the other way around?). If you insist on doing that you will continue to be incarcerated within your own mind!!!

LET IT OUT BROTHER (and Max will talk to you) AND YE SHALL BE WHOLE!!!!  

[TEPaul]

"Tom...nature ,golf and design are my personal mysteries that I endlessly debate but hold internally.....and i'm really just holding off with Max until i'm incarcerated or the like so I have the time to truely appreciate his philosophies."

Aaah, Paul, I want to say this as delicately as possible---but---with your new found talent in typing in caps I see you still used the little "i" twice in that remark of yours when you typed "i'm". Does this mean you don't think as much of yourself as you rightly should? Does this mean you have too little confidence in your architectural expressions and concepts and do not have the courage of your convictions to discuss them and let them be know openly???

I say;

LET IT OUT BROTHER AND YOU SHALL BE BOTH WHOLE AND FREE!!!  

[Derek_Duncan]

Mark,

I would put it the other way: courses from architects like Doak and C/C are what they are because they communicate depth, inspire thinking, reveal themselves slowly and only with effort, and possess rewards beyond the topical aspect of striking a ball. To me this is more indicative of high literary fiction, not mainstream/best selling fiction. You have to work at it to understand it.

Mass produced architecture is like mass produced fiction: popular, potentially fun, but ultimately shallow and consumable. A place to put you mind for a few hours/a place to strike a ball for a few hours. With little residual magic.

[TEPaul]

redanman:

Definitely! I've been saying that for years now---I call it the "Big World" theory and there should be something for everyone---whatever they want it to be---give it to them. If they like super manicured and pretty photographable waterfalls in the stark desert, give it to them! If they like rugged naturalism on the Oregon coast or the Sand Hills of Nebraska--give it to them. If they like super hard championship courses in Florida---give it to them. If  they want a reversible course on their estate give that to them! Give them anything they want! Who are we to say what others should want or should have? Who am I to say something is right or wrong for someone else? And the same goes for you!

[Mark_F]

derek duncan,

Right on!  That's exactly what i meant.  

Although I do think Stephen King has (or had) a foot in both camps.  

[paul cowley]

TomP......you are one fine,fine piece of work and I can not find an emoticon that properly expresses your grandeur....this recurrent image of you in a multi hued gown of ever changing colors is beyond my poor ability to describe.....and at the risk of going off topic even further ,I won't.

.....but ,some of your previous posts suggest an ancillary question pertaining to this thread....does a person need to create great golf literature while trying to create great architecture?.....who was most successful at doing it in the past or present?.

 In the present ,some who participate here [TomD ,Jeff ,Forrest ,Ian and others ],quite capably express themselves.

...who in the past created the best golf ,but was least able to express themselves beyond their expressions in the dirt?
 Van Goghs written expressions were more about a pilgrims need to describe his quest and journey ,not an attempt to create great art literature.

 Whats really good about this forum is that it provides a venue in which good golf writers ,historians and designers can communicate and express themselves....and even teach others to type  

[Brian_Gracely]

This same topic was similarly compared on this past thread,
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=7581, where the originator tried to look at how the player determines the story of a course vs. just allowing the architect to dictate it to them.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()