Is the WSJ channeling Max Behr?

[BCrosby]

See:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116500955993438428-lMyQjAxMDE2NjA1MjAwMDI5Wj.html

The "golfer as hunter" meme could have been lifted verbatim from Behr.

Everything comes back around sooner or later. Bell bottoms, lava lamps, Jack Kerouac - that sort of thing you expect.

But Max Behr? Great stuff.

BTW, the article also gives GCA a very nice plug.

Bob  

[Mike_Cirba]

Bob,

Don't show this article to Kavanaugh.

After all, he'll only cite it as those damn intellectuals putting parameters around something so they can attempt to understand it.  

You know, it's sort of ironic to think that his contention that intelligent criticism doesn't advance the art is being proven wrong every day.  

[RJ_Daley]

Nice plug and acknowledgement to Mr. Sailor who posts here, but Mr Newport forgot to mention the two main proponents of that whole conversation, Mucci and Huckaby.

With such a widely read pub like the WSJ, I'll bet Ben Dewar and Ran will be getting all kinds of new applications to post here.  Bring'em on for some fresh ideas.

[TEPaul]

"The article also reprised what for me has always been one of the most intriguing notions about golf's appeal, and which I think bears on the art question: namely, that at a subconscious level the game connects us (men especially, I suppose) to our evolutionary past as hunters. We stalk golf courses that themselves often resemble our primordial hunting grounds in East Africa: grassy savannahs with scattered stands of protective trees and abundant watering holes (read: water hazards) that attract prey. In one study Mr. Sailer cited, people in 15 nations were quizzed about what scenes they would most like to see in paintings; the collated responses in 11 of the countries pointed to landscapes that looked very much like golf courses, viewed from elevated tees.

I don't know how much credence to give this charming hunter-golfer idea, but its enduring popularity among pop intellectuals suggests that golf courses work on us in much the same way that great art does: at a very deep level. I dare offer this opinion only because my wife by trade is a painter, and one of her (and thus our) favorite hobbies is debating which paintings, movies, music and books are true art and which aren't.

For her, the real test is how profoundly a work appeals to the gut and lingers in memory."

BobCee (or should it be Bobzee? ).

That probably is some of the essence of Behr---eg his implied comparison between Man's inherent relationship to Nature VS Man's inherent relationship to Man.

This, after-all, is at the heart of Behr's strong assumption that the golfer would object to an obstacle (that tripped him up), for instance, that he feels is created by man (an arcthitect)--eg looks artificially made, but is not so likely to critiicize an obstacle feature (that trips him up) that he feels is wholly the work of Nature---eg "natural" looking.

Obviously Behr's intuition must've been that Man (the golfer) feels that Nature is and should be more dominant over him than some other man should be, and therefore has an inherent right to dominate him where another man does not.

As for that last line of John Paul Newport's about his wife regarding landscape or art or memory you really do need to read Simon Schama's "Landscape and Memory".

There's little question according to it that the two (landscape and Memory) are inextricably intertwined.

[TEPaul]

However, Bob, I believe we need to carefully consider that nevertheless, however, and in the sum and substance of the whole business, and in the premises, neither John Paul Newport or his wife nor Steve Sailer, sound much like Max Behr---thank God and Praise be to the Lord, and in, perhaps, a more grandiloquently manifest manner, to the Mother of the Earth, heretofore and hereinafter known to us as Mother Nature who without our seemingly inconsequential and pathetic dabblings, created those gloriously artistic linksland bunker hazards that sheep and rabbits found it in their hearts and souls and in their otherwise translucent sensibilities to both sleep and copulate within.  

[John Kavanaugh]

The article is written to the lowest common demoninator...Behr was exactly the opposite.

[Dan Kelly]

If anyone hears that one of our architect friends has taken to eating turf, I wanna know about it!

I don't know what John K. means about "lowest common denominator," but I'll say this: Mr. Newport's prose is completely understandable -- whereas Mr. Behr's, based on the little I've struggled through, is nearly the opposite.

[Lou_Duran]

JK,

Funny, but I never looked at the WSJ that way (as containing writing targeted for the lowest common denominator).  I thought that the NY and LA Times, People, The Enquirer, etc. had that market cornered.

The comments about the writer's wife ("For her, the real test is how profoundly a work appeals to the gut and lingers in memory. The type of abstract painting she does, for instance, is not supposed to have a literal meaning any more than jazz or symphonies do; instead, its value is in the viewer's instinctive reactions to the painting's color, light and forms. Vincent Van Gogh, she is fond of pointing out, was so passionate about color (and so crazy) that at one point he actually ate his paints.") are rather provocative.

If I am reading it right, assuming that golf and art have similarities at heart, design intent may be a figment of our over-intellectualized imagination, and popularity trumps critical acclaim.  All the poetic waxing about the multitude of strategic options and how the architect succeeds or fails to tie in the playing grounds to the surrounding natural environment is just that.  For reasons we may not be able to articulate or even understand, if over the long run people like it, it is good.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Any post that ends with:

 "...those gloriously artistic linksland bunker hazards that sheep and rabbits found it in their hearts and souls and in their otherwise translucent sensibilities to both sleep and copulate within."

gets my vote for post of the year.

But I have a question. Which came first, the bunkers or the copulating?

Bob  

[John Kavanaugh]

If anyone hears that one of our architect friends has taken to eating turf, I wanna know about it!

I don't know what John K. means about "lowest common denominator," but I'll say this: Mr. Newport's prose is completely understandable -- whereas Mr. Behr's, based on the little I've struggled through, is nearly the opposite.

Exactly.  I understood every point the guy was making.  How about a little stretch away from such obvious examples like Pine Valley, Pebble Beach and Van Gogh.  I will say that the following quote is offensive to anyone who reads this site on a regular basis: "Any fool can see that Pebble Beach is a special course"...clearly only fools know that Pebble is a special course with all its so so holes and all.  And further, why the cut on Maine golf.  I'd love to know why Maine.

[TEPaul]

"But I have a question. Which came first, the bunkers or the copulating?"

Bob:

Please!

You know as well as I do there were obviously some aspects of natural golf architecture that even Max would never have tried to push past or even equal in time to Nature herself in all her gloriously naked innocence.

So I don't know which actually came first, bunkers or copulating, but I think it's probably safe to say that most all male sheep and rabbits copulated with their bitches long before they figured out they could do their bitches in bunkers.

"Bitches in Bunkers"!?

It has a sort of interesting alliteration to it, don't you think?

How about "Bonking yo Bitch in yon Bunker"?

That has an even better alliteration, don't you think?

Have you ever noticed, Bob, that the physiognamy of almost all rabbits and sheep indicates that they have mouthes that appear to be smiling?

Funny thing that Darwinianism, don't you think?

[TEPaul]

"I don't know what John K. means about "lowest common denominator," but I'll say this: Mr. Newport's prose is completely understandable -- whereas Mr. Behr's, based on the little I've struggled through, is nearly the opposite."

Dan K(R):

I thought you were a smart guy.

If you've read any Behr at all at least you should be able to tell that the last thing Max advocated in golf or golf architecture was instant gratification.

I'd say it was a sign of a highly consistent and intelligent man that he would have thought to carry that into golf and golf architecture with his writing style.

[BCrosby]

"Bonking yo Bitch in yon Bunker"

I've struggled for years to come up with a definition of naturalism in gca. Struggle over. Do you mind if I quote you?

Bob

[Mike_Cirba]

"Bonking yo Bitch in yon Bunker"

I've struggled for years to come up with a definition of naturalism in gca. Struggle over. Do you mind if I quote you?

Bob

Actually, the rugged, irregular bunkers are much better suited for that purpose.   Those too refined clean-edged ones usually have that boring consistently groomed packed sand surface that is good for nothing but brushburns.

[TEPaul]

""Bonking yo Bitch in yon Bunker"
I've struggled for years to come up with a definition of naturalism in gca. Struggle over. Do you mind if I quote you?"

Of course not, Bob, quote away. I would appreciate it, however, and in the premises, if you'd keep a loose tabulation on the amount of times you quote me and pay me 8 cents per quote so I might buy myself a nice bottle of Pinot Noir in about twenty years.

But on reflection, I don't see how or why "Bonking yo Bitch in yon Bunker" would pass for a definition of naturalism in gca in your mind.

To me that remark sounds more like the first thought on seeing a golf course of some guy whose great grandmother was the daughter of a Scottish adventurer in Africa and whose great grandfather was a Hutu, or, at the very least, a Tutsi.

Frankly, that take would fit in a lot better with either or these cats on this thread, Newport or Sailer, and all this business of theirs about East African savannas and our primordial instincts and prey and such like.

[JESII]

Putting all this Bitch Bonking aside momentarily (and hopefully only momentarily), does it seem odd that that article, and the one or two others I have read like it, equate the hazards of a golf course to the oases in a desert or savanah? I feel like their intentions are quite opposite. No?

[TEPaul]

"Putting all this Bitch Bonking aside momentarily (and hopefully only momentarily), does it seem odd that that article, and the one or two others I have read like it, equate the hazards of a golf course to the oases in a desert or savanah? I feel like their intentions are quite opposite. No?"

Sully:

Of course you're right. Of course the intentions of the hazards of a golf course do not equate to and are frankly quite the opposite of the intentions of oases in a desert or savannah, and particularly in East Africa. On the other hand, there may be some vague similarities to oases and savannahs around Edinburgh Scotland, but that would need some serious investigation and expert research to determine.

These people who are writing these articles and trying to sound like Max Behr are just outsiders looking in here at the treehouse and they're trying to sound smart and suck up to Ran Morrissett in hopes he'll register them and let them on here so they can be smart like all of us.

And even if they did get on here and learned real fast it would probably take them years anyway to truly understand the nuances of really good bitch bonking bunkers.

Oh, wait a minute, do you mean the intentions of the hazards on a golf course and the intentions of the oases and savannahs in East Africa or the intentions of the writers? It sounds to me like that Newport guy is just trying to suck up to his wife for some reason. She's probably real pissed at him for some reason. Maybe it's because she thinks he's been spending too much time trying to figure out what the intentions of oases and savannahs in East Africa are instead of what her intentions really are. Maybe her intentions are closer to something to do with really good bitch bonking bunkers.

[JESII]

Sully:

Of course you're right.


And even if they did get on here and learned real fast it would probably take them years anyway to truly understand the nuances of really good bitch bonking bunkers.

I thought so!  

[TEPaul]

"I thought so!"

That's because you are one or the 1483 elite in the world which means you're very smart. It looks like Ran recently identified at least 17 phonies who were trying to act smart but were found not to be and threw them off the website.