Anton Ego - The Critic

[Mike Nuzzo]

“It is the new and different that is always most vulnerable to market research” - Malcolm Gladwell

Our local 4th of July parade was rained out yesterday.  My family got to an early showing of Ratatouille. It was very good. My favorite part was the write up by Anton Ego (pictured above) a very dour critic. Written in his final review was what he thought to be the most important role of the critic – To identify what is new and different and yet still outstanding – as it would be to different for the mainstream to understand or appreciate.
Couple his thoughts with the initial quote by Gladwell and one might better understand why golf is somewhat bland in this modern age, and why a critic can be so important.

Who is the Anton Ego of GCA and do you agree?

[Ken Moum]

I'm inclined to give the title to Shackelford, for a number of reasons.

He's certainly not one to fall in line with conventional wisdom.

And I like his curmudgeonly style.

Asssuming that our Anton needs to be seen by a reasonably large audience, Who are the other candidates?

Whitten? Dr. Klein? Ran?

Ken

[Mike Nuzzo]

Does Tom Doak's help in identifying the work at Crystal Downs fit this ideal?

Does anyone know of a new course that was not well received but has a knowledgable cult/treehouse following.

[George Pazin]

Does Tom Doak's help in identifying the work at Crystal Downs fit this ideal?

If Tom had stayed a critic - and thank the golf gods that he didn't - he certainly would've fit the mold.

Judging by their online reviews, I'd say Brad fits the profile better than Ron Whitten. And I'd say Geoff fits it maybe better than either.

I don't think that picture looks much like Brad, Geoff, or Tom, however.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I found part of Anton's review:

"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new."

[Peter Pallotta]

No, Mike, I'm not sure I agree with any of that (i.e. your first post/question).

To those in the trenches (in various ways, for various reasons, and to various degrees) I'm sure there seems to be dominant trends and conventional wisdoms that need to be supported or attacked or corrected.  

From the outside, though, there seems to be enough room for all, and not much reason for all the rancour.  In fact, perhaps never before has what is new and different but still outstanding (in books, music, gca) been identified and appreciated as quickly as it's being today. Meanwhile, what is old and commonplace but still outstanding also seems to muddle along fairly well.

The role of the critic exists, I think, because there have always been, and always will be, people who want and are most suited to being critics. Not that there's anything wrong with that, or that we can't learn much for the good ones. But the actual work (books, music, gca) has always been done in spite of them, and I think continues to be.

Peter

[Brian_Ewen]

How about 'The Principal'  ?

""It’s ok in parts, it is good in parts and it is bad in parts. The course, I suppose, was a bit of a trend setter back in the days when in opened but like much of the new courses thrust upon the golf world in the eighties and nineties, it had little character, shit loads of water and the obligatory lonely fountain sitting proudly in a bleak looking lake aside a 460 yard finishing hole! In fact, I blame the annual exposure this course gets on the many atrocities that have befell golf course design in the last thirty years; the terrible stadium courses, the Oxfordshire, anything by RTJ II and the K Club to name but a few!""

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I'm not sure there is anybody today really performing the role of critic.  Everybody who might conceivably qualify has one foot in the business and the other in political correctness; and, unlike critical columns for food or movies, the stomach of golf magazine editors for bad reviews is very limited, so the reviews have to be 90% positive instead of 50%.

Peter:

There is room in the golf business for everything, I guess, but the same could be said for crappy movies of all genres.  At least in that business there is someone unafraid to call them out for the crap they are.

Everyone always points out that the "little guy" in golf architecture is succeeding but that is hardly the case.  With everybody getting great reviews, associates with real talent have no chance to attract attention if they should go out on their own, so they stay put or quit the business.  They are the victims of the fact that none of the critics will take the initiative to criticize the big-name architects for the 50% of their work which is completely uninspired.

I tend not to trust great reviews of any new architect's work, because in many cases critics fall in love with an architect who they have gotten to know, and the reviews become all about the personality instead of the work.  

In the end, criticism in the popular arts is just a recommendation -- what matters is whether you like the work yourself.  But the point of movie reviews is to lead you in new directions and to save you from going to see the movies you shouldn't bother with, and it would be nice if golf had more of the latter.

[John Kirk]

I saw Ratatouille last Friday.  I loved it.  The closing monologue by Anton Ego (played by Peter O'Toole) was so beautiful.  After dragging a bit in the middle, the movie finished very strong.  Funny, smart, great animation, and a great story.

There are no Anton Egos here, since most here will grovel for the opportunity to play the great courses.  The great courses don't need approval, like a restaurant would require critical praise.  Anybody who criticizes a great course runs the risk of not getting invited again.  Of course, that shouldn't matter, since he didn't like it in the first place.  

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D - thanks, a thoughtful post, with much that I hadn't considered.

One thing though: Mike asked about the critic's role in golf courses being "somewhat bland in this modern age." I immediately flipped this to wonder instead about the critic's role in whatever was "special" in the golf courses of today. (To me that seemed like a legitimate parallel.)

And in that light, I was suggesting that the actual works/designs that you and others have been doing these past 20 years or so has been a much, much bigger factor in the gca renaissance than any critic's writings (including even yours, I think.)

Yes, there is a lack of truly critical golf course criticism in the mainstream press; but would one “great” critic change the situation much? I’m not so sure. (Even with movies, a great critic might save me from seeing crap, but crap sure seems to dominant the box-office winners month after month and year after year.) But the great work, somehow, still gets done, and speaks louder than any critic.

But I’m still thinking about your post, and might decide I have this all wrong.    

Peter

[Mike Nuzzo]

I asked the question of the less understood getting praise because I couldn't think of any examples.  I guess I'll just have to find an appropriate critic for my work.

It would appear as if it is Tom's work in general that has helped push the comfort boundries of a quite conservative demographic - the golf course owner.
Pete Dye before him.

I am always glad when Tom's newest course doesn't have returning 9s and cart paths ... to give me a new successful project to point too.

[Tags:]

Tags: