[Lloyd_Cole]

Isn't it likely that if something doesn't jump out at you in the first few return visits that it's unlikely that something will jump out at you over a longer period of time ?

That after a few visits the process is one of fine tuning rather than change.

And doesn't that reinforce the quality of the original product ?

Pat

Unfortunately, artists are prone to blind spots. This is, I think, tied to the commitment of the artist. If one commits 100%, and follows through, one finds it hard to accept flaws in ones work.
So when 17 holes/songs/buildings are perfect and all (except he) agree that the 18th could be better, the artist may be unable to see a possible improvement, because he has designed the hole, or song, or building, exactly as he wished to, and cannot get out of that perspective - his goal being the ideal. He cannot accept that the basic concept was flawed, or at least not ideal... The ego involved may allow reevaluation, after a period of time has passed, and may accept that mistakes were made, but acknowledgement at the actual time of the confict is most unlikely.
This argument is based on my personal experiences, and readings, some quite embarrasing, I was not the only 'artist' involved...

[JESII]

Kalen:

Every time I go to Bandon I go around the course with Jeff or Ken at some point and look at whatever concerns they have about how the course is holding up ... the same is true for most of the courses we've built.  That's one of the nice things about doing course openings, it's one of the only times that someone isn't wanting you to change something or look at something.

Tom Doak,

Isn't it likely that if something doesn't jump out at you in the first few return visits that it's unlikely that something will jump out at you over a longer period of time ?

That after a few visits the process is one of fine tuning rather than change.

And doesn't that reinforce the quality of the original product ?

Pat,


Wouldn't that theory depend on Tom's views and opinions remaining static?

[Mark Pearce]

Kirk:

The subject of copyright in golf course design is often addressed in the contract between owner and designer.  In my most recent contracts I retain the copyright to all plans for the course, and the client is granted a license to use the plans.

I don't know that there are any design ideas that are clearly original enough to deserve copyright protection.  I do know that those "Tour 18" courses were told by court order to quit using certain trademarked names of other courses as part of their advertising and promotion, but there was never a suggestion that the holes themselves were protected from duplication.

A couple of designers (Nicklaus included) have clauses in their contracts that if the course is "materially changed," they have the right to withdraw the licensing use of their name as the architect.  I don't know if Jack has ever exercised the clause or not ... generally, if a client was unhappy with the finished product, an architect would want to do something so they'd be happy, unless the relationship with the client is beyond repair.  And ultimately, all designers understand that if they sell their work to someone else, it's at their disposal forever more.

My suggestion of nominating three courses to be preserved (first suggested some months back) was an attempt to find a middle ground.  If a modern designer were to nominate three courses as worth preserving, that would grant them some special status among the many which bear his name.  I would guess there are some owners who would think that special status was worth the same sort of hassles associated with owning a "landmark" building -- in fact, I suggested limiting it to three per architect so that it wouldn't become just another level of "signature" design that everyone would want to claim.  

If the owner doesn't want to register his course, then it's a moot point, and let me reiterate, I'm okay with that ... it IS his course.  And, for that matter, if a future owner wanted to violate that landmark status, I don't know that anyone could stop him from doing so.  Oakmont is supposedly on the National Historic Register, and that hasn't kept them from planting trees, tearing out trees, building ridiculous back tees, or getting their greens too fast.    

The only purposes of my suggested program would be to hold up some courses as the best remaining examples of a designer's work, and to try and put a few speed bumps in the path of course owners who are constantly finding silly little things to change for the sake of change itself, which (despite everything I've heard from Paul and Jeff and Mike) is still, in my experience, one of the main reasons stuff happens on older golf courses.

And I know I can get Mike Young on my side with this simple hook ... just imagine, what if the Donald Ross Society only had three courses to preserve, and would stop meddling with the rest?

Interesting post, Tom, thanks.  The threshold of originality for copyright to subsist (at least in the UK) is low and I'm pretty certain that any drawing not copied prettty much direct from another drawing or hole/course will attract copyright protection.  Whether that right is infringed by creating a hole similar to the drawing but also similar to another, earlier work, would be an interesting question which in each case would turn on the facts of the case.

The contractual issues you mention around naming make a lot of sense and I can see that withdrawal of a valuable endorsement (such as the use of the Nicklaus name) might well be sufficient to dissuade an owner from altering a design.  That's not to say that they couldn't, if they were happy to lose that endorsement.

[paul cowley]

I'm still trying to decide if it would bother me more to have my work improved by others.....or meddled with.
I guess I'll go with the later.

TomD....having only been involved in two restorations and both went well, I really can't comment on your question except to say it would probably piss me off too if it happened to me.

Good posts BTW.

[Patrick_Mucci]

As an alternative to constantly trying to maintain the faces of bunkers and shape of the greens, couldn't an agreement be reached with the course and designer to come back every  5 years and do a bit of touch up work?

Kalen,

In an effort to preserve an architect's work, I appointed him to the club's green committee and had a by-law passed that stated that nothing could be done to the golf course without his prior consent.

That worked as long as I was green chairman and on the board.

As time went by, and new green chairmen and boards came and went, so did the discipline and desire to abide by the by-law, let alone its intent.

You just can't obligate a membership, to embrace in perpetuity, the integrity of the architect's design or design principles.

UNLESS, the club is run by a dictator, who grooms his successor.

Some, if not many or most memberships are fickle and fad driven when it comes to golf course architecture.

Hence, preserving an architect's work is a constant battle.

[Lloyd_Cole]

As an alternative to constantly trying to maintain the faces of bunkers and shape of the greens, couldn't an agreement be reached with the course and designer to come back every  5 years and do a bit of touch up work?

Kalen,

In an effort to preserve an architect's work, I appointed him to the club's green committee and had a by-law passed that stated that nothing could be done to the golf course without his prior consent.

That worked as long as I was green chairman and on the board.

As time went by, and new green chairmen and boards came and went, so did the discipline and desire to abide by the by-law, let alone its intent.

You just can't obligate a membership, to embrace in perpetuity, the integrity of the architect's design or design principles.

UNLESS, the club is run by a dictator, who grooms his successor.

Some, if not many or most memberships are fickle and fad driven when it comes to golf course architecture.

Hence, preserving an architect's work is a constant battle.

Pat

This and other discussions, and re-reading MacKenzie, have got me wondering. Would clubs maybe be happier without greens committes? I would think that a motion to elect a member, ideally a retired person studied, at least somewhat, in GCA, to a long term position of Greens Chairman might be welcomed. The position could be similar to the Honorary Secretary that many UK clubs have. He would be answerable to the general club committe, but be given sufficient autonomy to be able to ride trends and fads, and to resist moves of extreme factions within the club. This person could groom a successor, like your benevolent dictators would.

As to who this person should be - interested parties should put forward a manifesto, and the members, not the current committe, elect their choice.

I'll vote for you, Pat.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()