It's an entertaining essay, with (now) standard golf course architecture criticism, piling up esoteric references in an effort to impress golf people, and the odd reactionary throwaway line to confirm the author's political credentials.
Finally a thread in which I feel (almost) as qualified as Brad Klein and Tom Doak to comment.
Brad's response was somewhat dismissive of what I thought was fairly well-researched and well-reasoned article. If he is naturally suspicious of the motives of a 'conservative' critic, at least we share that in common. In any case I'd be extremely interested to read Tom Doak's response if he has a chance to read the article.
The author (Sailer) attempts to trace the design of golf courses through the social, artistic and economic trends of the 20th and 21st century. I think he has done a pretty good job. The most interesting thing he has NOT done in this piece is fully examine what is driving the return to golf course design philosophies from the early days of the 20th century and how this does and does not reflect the larger sensibilities from that period.
What are the pre-eminent examples from the golden age of golf course architecture that still exist in recognizably original shape today?
For arguments sake, let's say Cypress Point and NLGA.
Looking at the design philosophies that drove the design of these courses... Mackenzie wanted to use both natural and made-to-look natural hazards to form the golfers opinion (or cloud it) on how to play each hole. An example of form follows function, which in Sailer's article, he believes lead to the downfall of golf architecture. NLGA was essentially built in homage to the design philosophies CB McDonald thought existed after his exhaustive studies of British courses. A careful reading of Sailer's article would indicate that McDonald was performing the job of a critic and artist, by reinterpreting and recreating something that according to Sailer existed basically as 'folk art' in the British Isles. Therefore, it would be reasonable to say that Doak performs the function of reinterpreting and reprocessing McDonald's original intentions of 'recreating' this golf experiece–first as a critic and then as an artist himself.
The other point I would like to make before giving other people a chance to respond is that design and art in the commercial world are now being driven mostly by technology which makes the execution of most things much cheaper. Building golf courses (land, design fees, construction, maintenance, environmental regs.) on the other hand has become vastly more expensive.
Minimalism as it exists today in graphic, advertising, furniture design etc. is driven more by aesthetic concerns-people are communicating their socio-economic status by stripping away ornamentation and frills. In other words. the 'modernism' of form follows function is no longer an artistic statement of intent as it was with MacKenzie, it is political and social signifier. The influence of the Bauhaus movement and modernism wasn't truly felt in this country until WWII and beyond (a result of all the displaced artists who came here when Hitler was CEO of Europe). Although you could make the argument that Frank Lloyd Wright's "prairie style" was the 20's equivalent of Doak and Crenshaw/Coore's design philosphies. (In FLW's case, he was also attempting to put his American spin on things seen during his own trips to Europe.)
Sailer argues that minimalism in golf course design & construction today is mainly a response to today's economic forces. Whereas back in the early part of the 20th century it was a way to make the best of technical limitations. As we have seen from various courses built today, minimalism also exists as a separate design philosphy, not just a response to economic forces. In other words, if you have to spend $50 million dollars to achieve the appropriate amount of minimalism, your design philosphies might be more in sync with the pro-aesthetic design philosopies of a Giorgio Armani, not the reinterpretive "folk design" of CB MacDonald.