Music, Sex and Why?

[Sean_A]

I cooked spag bol tonight.  As one does while cooking, I listened to some music.  I couldn't settle on anything so it was a couple hours of start and stop.  Now, I don't know anything about music, except when I come across a something good.  When I hear the first chords of Little Wing, No Particular Place To Go, Mr. PC or The Great Gig In The Sky, I have no doubt that it took geniuses to create this music.  Even if there was little else of these artists (and the list is very long) that I could hold in such high esteem, these pieces are enough to justify the claim.

Is it the same for architecture?  Can one come across a hole and claim the creator was a genius?  If not, what does it take to be a genius?  Where does one draw the line on who is a genius and who isn't?  Why do we draw that line?  In short, can we treat architecture like any other art form?

I have a theory, which my wife disagrees with, that all pleasure, be it derived from sex, music, literature, sport, etc., turns the same master switch on in our brains.  How we react on any given day to any given stimuli is what differs.  

Ciao

Sean

[THuckaby2]

That's a hell of an provocative question, Sean.  I want some of that wine you used in the sauce.

My personal take is that genius can be found anywhere.  The garbage-man finding a way to save his back a little stress by contorting his body a different way as he throws the bag on the truck, that's genius.  A hockey player going five-hole after a triple deke, that's genius.   A soccer player executing a perfect bicycle kick into the upper corner with a man on him, that's genius.  DaVinci's Last Supper, that's genius.  Such can come in oh so many ways. Human beings are pretty incredible.  And it doesn't take an art form to allow for genius.

So why CAN'T golf course architecture allow for such?  I gotta tell you, many is the time I've stood near a green, or on a tee, or in a fairway, and thought "how the hell did they think of this?"  I am impressed by the genius pretty damn easily.

Which is yet another aspect of the game that shows its greatness, btw.  It does indeed give a pretty large canvass on which genius may be expressed.

[THuckaby2]

Sounds great to me, Sean.  But hey, when it comes to wine, if it's red I'll drink it.  If it's white I'll drink it.  I have very refined tastes.

I do love the genius question.  I wonder if any actual architects will step up and claim it for themselves?

 

[Jack_Marr]

My opinion is that the term genius is overused, wildely overused. I'm sure there were some architectural geniuses, but probably more are given crediit for it than actually deserve it. Same goes for music.

People usually brand someone a genius more because of the respect they want for themselves than for the respect they have for the artist.  

[George Pazin]

I'd probably phrase it more along the lines of "there's a little genius in everyone", as opposed to calling someone a genius for one particular thing. Who knows, that particular thing could have been a happy accident.

One thing is for sure: being a genius in one field does not often translate to many other fields. (Sorry about the butchered English - I'm no writing genius ).

As for wines, I prefer the yeast and barley variety otherwise know as beer. Give me a blindfold and I couldn't even tell white from red. But I can tell white or red from Guinness.

* Addendum: terrific post, Jack.

[THuckaby2]

You guys are quite the curmudgeons.

But I understand the opinion.  Yes, "genius" ought to have a more narrow definition, and yes things that look like genius could be happenstance.

I just prefer to have a sunnier view of life.  

So when I watch Del Rosario of my home-town San Jose Earthquakes curve a free kick around the wall and into the upper V to an extent that would make Beckham weep (as I did recently) I call him a genius.  Why?  Because it takes a genius to even think he can pull that off, let alone make it happen.

By strict definition however, I understand no genius was involved.

But why not celebrate?  The world has too many critics as it is.

So Tom Doak, Pacific Dunes is freakin' genius.  C&C, so is Sand Hills.  I could go on and on.  

 

Addendum:  I claim absolutely no genius for myself.  Let's make that perfectly clear. I am not a garbageman, and while I am a decent soccer coach I suck at playing the game, I don't play hockey, and I've come as close to designing a course as I have to writing the great American novel.  So while Jack's take on that may have merit, it doesn't with me!

[George Pazin]

Huck, I could be misinterpreting Jack, but I took his final statement to be more along the lines of a person calling someone else's work genius is akin to saying "Look at me, I'm a genius for recognizing this other guy's genius, while you mere smart fellows are too dense to get it."

If I'm reading him correctly, then Jack is a genius.

 

[THuckaby2]

George:

Whew!  That's a lot of variables.  But you are a genius for recognizing Jack's genius.  Therefore I am a genius for recognizing yours.  It's a genius party in here!

I any case, if that's what he meant, that's such a cynical view I am embarassed to be Irish along with him.  Come on Jack, the world is rosier than that.  There are indeed those of us who are secure enough to say another is a genius, just because we admit to ourselves and the world that the work/art/feat the other produces is so beyond our own scope of abilities as to be incapable of being understood.  Pointing out this inability is a far different thing than an end-around to establish our own genius.  In fact it's just the opposite!

That being said, I'd guess there are people who do exactly what George interprets.  I call them twits.

 

[Jack_Marr]

Huck, I could be misinterpreting Jack, but I took his final statement to be more along the lines of a person calling someone else's work genius is akin to saying "Look at me, I'm a genius for recognizing this other guy's genius, while you mere smart fellows are too dense to get it."

If I'm reading him correctly, then Jack is a genius.

 

George, that's exactly what I am saying. And I don't want to pour cold water on anything.

There are many gifted people, but some just stand out above the crowd. In scientific terms, Niels Bohr, Einstien, Isaac Newton and Richard Feinman. I also recognize that there is genius in some who I don't appreciate fully, like Motzart, Picasso etc.

The thing is, why should we or anyone else be disappointed with anyone or anything that doesn't quite represent genius? I don't frown on anyting that represents "great but not genius." I like to think I judge everything on its merits and enjoy each thing for what it is.  

[Jack_Marr]

PS - Tom, I think I'm coming across more downbeat about this than I intend. There's much to be celebrated that doesn't quite reach genius.

Sláinte mhaith agut.

[George Pazin]

Don't fret, Jack, Huck always looks at the glass as half empty.

 

In all seriousness, I do agree with your distinction. One can celebrate greatness without having to christen it as genius, or even greatness, for that matter.

Now I have to go google that Gaelic expression....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Your theory won't stand up .... at least in my case.

I've missed many more tee times because of a woman than I've missed rendezvous because of golf course architecture.

 

[Jack_Marr]

I like to think I judge everything on its merits and enjoy each thing for what it is.  

Any genius amongst us will recognize this as a tautology

George - sláinte mhaith agut means "good health to you"

And on the subject of appreciating genius, "is maith An tannlann An t'ocras",

[Bill_McBride]

Sean, my wife and I am taking a rare non-golf trip next week, Thanksgiving week in Lucca, Tuscany, and will raise several glasses of Montepulciano or Brunello d'Abruzzo in your direction.  Love those Italian reds!  

And the whites ain't bad either!

[THuckaby2]

Jack:

OK, love the gaelic and appreciate the sentiment.  As do so many other discussions here, this seems to turn on the definition of a word.  What I choose to celebrate as genius you wouldn't do so.  I feel better in that you say there is much to be celebrated.

TH

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have a theory, which my wife disagrees with, that all pleasure, be it derived from sex, music, literature, sport, etc., turns the same master switch on in our brains.  How we react on any given day to any given stimuli is what differs.  

Regarding sex, there is a cartoon out there somewhere depicting the different "switch" mechanisams to start pleasure for both men and women.  The men switch is just a simple "on-off switch.  The women's switch has a electric diagram more complex than a diagram of a nuclear reactor......

So, in that case, I think not!

[Jim Nugent]

I have a theory, which my wife disagrees with, that all pleasure, be it derived from sex, music, literature, sport, etc., turns the same master switch on in our brains.  How we react on any given day to any given stimuli is what differs.  

Regarding sex, there is a cartoon out there somewhere depicting the different "switch" mechanisams to start pleasure for both men and women.  The men switch is just a simple "on-off switch.  The women's switch has a electric diagram more complex than a diagram of a nuclear reactor......

So, in that case, I think not!

LOL -- true, Jeff, for the masses of us ordinary men.  On the other hand, if you are a Mick Jagger, JFK, Richard Geere, Donald Trump or Mickey Mantle, that electric diagram reverts back to an "on-off" switch in about 3 nano-seconds.