"You're pretty sure that an "Arts and Crafts" ideology had nothing to do with the direction golf architecture took during the early 1900s, eh. I disagree."
JeffM:
Let me try to get something very clear here. Not once---not one time--have I EVER said that the "arts and crafts" movement had NOTHING to do with golf architecture or NO influence on it at all. It was Tom MacWood and perhaps David Moriarty who have said on some of these threads on the A/C Movement that I, and others, have said that.
All I have ever said is this;
1. I do not think the Arts and Crafts Movement was the primary influence on the direction golf architecture took in the English Heathlands and later in America into the Golden Age of golf architecture---certainly nowhere near the extent that era now deserves to be described or to be renamed or relabeled "arts and crafts golf architecture" as Tom MacWood is continuously trying to do on here and in his essay on the "Arts and Crafts" Movement.
2. Although Hutchinson was a fine golf writer, and he was extant and influential on golf architecture in some ways after the Heathlands, I certainly do not think he remotely deserves to be referred to as "The Father of golf architecture" as Tom MacWood concludes and suggests.
3. I do not believe that Hutchinson informed Park Jr what to do and how to do it in the Heathlands with the break-through courses of Sunningdale and Huntercombe. Tom MacWood is still trying to make the point that Hutchison must have informed him of how to do that because Park Jr built some rudimentary features previous to Sunningdale and Huntercombe. I think I've fairly well proven that even Hutchinson was not critical of those types of early features even at the time he edited "British Golf Links"---in 1897.
4. What I am saying is I believe that the voluminous literature of golf and golf architecture for over the last 100 years has gotten right and reported accurately what the real and primary influences were on the so-called Golden Age of golf architecture. I am saying that I do not believe that at this point those primary influences need to be viewed now as the "arts and crafts" movement because that is simply not the historical case and the historical truth. Claiming so is simply trying to supply "revisionist history", in my opinion.
Tom MacWood gives us a ton of background on the actual "Arts and Crafts" Movement which did influence to some extent other art forms---particularly building architecture for a time and furniture and many other art and craft design forms. But because it may have somewhat influenced those other design and art forms he makes this leap of logic without any proof or even really establishing a logical connection that it also had to have influenced to the same extent golf course architecture of this time. That logic simply does not follow, in my opinion, when other influences have clearly been identified as far more influential on golf course architecture.
Tom MacWood's other convenient technique to continue to establish his point of the massive influence of the arts and crafts movement is to use real GENERALIZATION---eg to basically claim that the A/C movement was so broad and massive in extent, even if un-named (Tom MacWood states in his essay, “The movement became aware of itself in 1880’s when it first gave itself a name”, but perhaps now it’s convenient for him to not exactly admit to that for the purposes of his point of how broadly influential if was even if amorphous and perhaps even un-named
), and even if amorphous in direction that most everything of that time may've been influenced by it more than is actually the case. His more specific implication seems to be that any turning back to the essence of nature in anything, be it a game, in any art form, social construct etc was influenced by it. I not only do not believe that is historically the case, I know it isn't.
If one wants to see what Tom MacWood is probably trying to do here, and what his underlying philosophy in all this may be, I suggest one carefully read the philosophy and the motivation of one William Morris---a man who had nothing to do with golf or golf architecture.
What William Morris was trying to do and hoping to do (according to Tom MacWood’s essay) is to unify in some way all art forms, to bring ALL art forms of any kind under this philosophy known as the "Arts and Crafts" Movement---a philosophy and movement he primarily helped create. His motivations for doing that are interesting, for sure, and naturalism in art, the redirecting of Man from the dehumanizations of Industrial life and power and perhaps even some personal revulsion of certain building architecture that was influenced by Greece and Roman classicism seemed to be his reasons. Obviously Morris, as did Pugin, had an affinity for the Gothic as opposed to the classic balance and symmetry of Greece and Roman classicism which had a large influence on British life and style (and probably still does!
).
I think the A/C Movement was interesting, albeit probably not as prevalent or influential on building, furniture or art and craft as Tom MacWood thinks it was or would like to see it have been. It didn't exactly sustain itself either.
Morris had a grand philosophy that never became what he apparently hoped it one day would---and in a sense I'm glad it didn't as I don't really see the purpose, facility or benefit of attempting to combine all art forms under any philosophy or movement. I'd prefer to focus on their interesting differences and distinctions and the varying influences upon them that make them distinct for one another.
Morris, among other things, was a preservationist, probably primarily regarding Gothic architecture he seemed so fond of. SPAB was one of his contributions.
Ever wonder why most everything Tom MacWood fixates on in golf architecture is "preservtion"---even almost at the expense of memberships, of the playing of the game and the evolution of the game and its architecture? If you do, look at William Morris's philosophy very carefully. Even look at it as described in Tom MacWood's essay.
And this is precisely why, in my opinion, Tom MacWood has attempted to make these otherwise tenuous connections of the A/C Movement to golf course architecture. He has to do that first to get to the point of suggesting that the A/C Movement was the primary influence on golf architecture of the heathlands and the Golden Age.
It wasn't, and again, the generally excellent literature of golf and golf architecture of the last 100 or more years has more than made that clear.