[Peter Pallotta]

I have to thank John Vander Borght for this. It's from a thread he started a few years back that had an excerpt from an (unnamed) writer about an architect's voice:

"Although use of the word [voice] is widespread, the intended meaning is vague....[The term] comes from literary criticism, where it suggests the unique aspects of a writer's work that are consistent enough to be recognizable, [and] harks back to oral traditions in which the speaker's voice influenced the listener as much as the story itself. But to apply it to architecture is to focus on the designer's personal expression, implying that what is said is less important than how.  It goes without saying that architectural judgment tends to emphasize form over content, but what is rarely discussed is why consistency of form is important. Young architects strive to establish a personal voice, because critical recognition demands it....We equate such constancy with seriousness and commitment, which the 'art' of architecture demands."

My question is - is any of this true?

Do architectural judgements tend to emphasize form over content? Do we expect a 'consistency of form', and do we equate this constancy with a mature and serious commitment? And if we DO, is that necessarily a good thing?

Peter



 

[TEPaul]

"Although use of the word [voice] is widespread, the intended meaning is vague....[The term] comes from literary criticism, where it suggests the unique aspects of a writer's work that are consistent enough to be recognizable, [and] harks back to oral traditions in which the speaker's voice influenced the listener as much as the story itself. But to apply it to architecture is to focus on the designer's personal expression, implying that what is said is less important than how...."

Peter:

When you talk about things like "oral tradition" put into the form of writing, I can't help but think of the styles of some of the southern born writers who were weaned in the Southern oral story-telling tradition such as Eudora Welty and even Truman Capote.

An architect who had a really unique "voice" in the sense of form?

From all I've heard about him with what he did in the realm of "form" and how he effected those who worked with him that way---that award might have to go to Mike Strantz, God rest his soul, because he really did die so young.

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, Thought provoking post.
 "Architectural judgements" is bothering mean as a concept, but here goes... in the context of your question, in this medium, isn't the form the content?
Too many judges rely so much on a hole by hole analysis, it's my impression many miss the voice, if there is one there, to begin with.

[RJ_Daley]

Do architectural judgements tend to emphasize form over content? Do we expect a 'consistency of form', and do we equate this constancy with a mature and serious commitment? And if we DO, is that necessarily a good thing?

Peter, are you going beyond mere style, or trademark look, or expected design philosophy such as a penal or heroic sort of tendancy in the archie's overall presentation of his body of work?  

I think that some archie's have tried to establish a voice early on, by telling us about their overall approach to design.  Doak established his voice in his writing before he really got any constancy of his design, having barely any work before establishing his philosophies out front in public in his book.  Mike Strantz as TomP states, established his voice in the other medium of expression attached to his in the ground work with his paintings interpreting his ideal visions of course or hole design and textures.

But, I think you might be on to something that some highly commercially motivated archies might not want to have an identifiable voice, in that they are specifically oriented towards any voice that will sell the project.  

I think that some talented designers can also strive not to have a voice of constancy, taking pride in ability to sing in all ranges from mezzo soprano to baritone, depending on the type of terrain, budget, commercial goals, etc.

[Kirk Gill]

What I find interesting in that quote is the notion that the "voice" is created intentionally by an artist as a result of conscious intention to obtain critical recognition. I've always thought of an artist "finding their voice" as a process of growth and maturity mixing with innate talent, and that it is produced through the continual practice of their craft. It doesn't just "happen," per se, but it is a result of personal and professional growth. It's a result of seriousness and commitment and not something that is created for the purpose of showing how serious and commited one might be. And it's a heck of a lot more than just a repeatable style, a "constancy of form." A robot can repeat a form the same way over and over.

It's interesting to me that an artist might think "I need to find my voice so that people will like my work more," and then go and create that voice.

It seems obvious that golf architects have a "voice," but I'd be interested to know if they believe themselves that they do, and if they feel like that voice is something that they created with purpose, or if it occured more organically through their work.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents - four very good posts. Kirk- yes, I'm sure that any genuine development of 'voice' isn't a conscious intention as much as the end result of a process of growth and a mark of dedication. I just think it's interesting that the writer used the term in the context of golf course architecture; in other contexts, there is nothing but talent and time between the artist and the development of a consistent voice; but presumably in gca there is also the land.

Peter    

[Rich Goodale]

Peter

I think that the concept of "voice" is more relevant when looking at individual courses (and even holes) than in looking at architects.  I say this because the architect is only one of the contributors to the personality of any golf course.  Others (most importantly Mother Nature, but also the developer, the owner(s), superintendents, etc.) have a significant influence on how the course looks and feels.  This is very different from writing (or any other expressive art) in that there the artist and his or her work are inextricably entwined, and almost devoid of external influence.  Great works begin with a tabula rasa.  Great golf courses begin with shapes and soils and climates which determine much of their "voice."   Writing is also immutable, so the links between artists and their art can never be severed or compromised.

That being said, I have for some time been very interested in thinking about and trying to express the different voices or "personalities" of different courses, particularly the great or most interesting of them.  I find that such courses do "speak" to you, but they do so in their own words, not the words of any one of their creators or conservators.

Cheers

Rich

[Peter Pallotta]

Rich - thanks, that's really good. It makes me think of how off-putting a golf course is when it speaks in a voice that's not its own (or out of both sides of its mouth). I have some immediate/stock ideas about why that is, but I'm finding those ideas less satisfying and true as time goes on, and as I learn more.  

Peter  

[JESII]

What are the things that enunciate the golf course architects voice? Specific examples.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I think your post is really appropriate to this subject---golf courses just aren't anywhere near as immutable as most other art forms.

As usual, Behr probably said it best in his analogies:

He said that the paint artist's "medium" is his paint and placing it on a blank canvas he has what Behr called 'almost complete freedom to fancy' over his medium, and consequently the paint artist can be the complete master over his medium and his art form. By analogy a writer as an artist is the complete master over his medium of text on a blank page.

But he said a golf course architect can never have such "freedom to fancy" and can never be the master over his "medium" (the earth) and can never be the complete master of his particular art form, and that only Nature herself can be the absolute master over the medium of earth.

And if someone can't understand why that is just look over the years at how constantly and sometimes completely wind and water changes courses, often destroying parts of them, sometimes irreparably.

And it should be added that the very man who said this and apparently understood it well had many of his own courses destroyed by Mother Nature in this way.

Nevertheless, it seems like Behr spoke the last word on these things and why they probably should even be that way. It seems like he just had a fundamental respect for the roll Nature should play in golf and apparently in golf architecture too. He cast it into the roll he believed natural randomness should play born out by the total maintenance of random luck, certainly very much including random bad luck.

He put it something like this in the way he felt golf should be: "She plays the part of the unfaithful lover who lifts your spirits to great heights one moment, and the next casts a dagger into your heart."

That's the way he felt Nature should be in golf. It seems he was a little quieter about the roll he felt she should play regarding her ability to destroy some of his own architecture.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Well JES, for me that's the very question I'm trying to ask on this thread, i.e. whether the term is applicable (and a consistent voice desirable) given the relationship between the architect and his medium, the land. I'm not sure it is applicable (as per Rich's post, and others).

But for what it's worth, and given that these are some of the easy answers that satisfy me less and less:

Does an architect's voice flow smoothly and pleasantly, moving from word to word and idea to idea easily and without hiccups (i.e. routing)? Is the architect's voice a collaborative one, a happy part of the chorus as it were, or is it the soaring solo voice of an opera tenor (i.e. minimalism or manufactured)? Is the architect's voice an original one or a derivative one (i.e. the founder of a school, or a disciple)? Is the architect's voice one with a great range of many octaves or does it stay within just one (i.e. adaptability to differing sites)? Is the architect's voice coloured by sub-tones and rhetoric or is it as pure and simple as a child's (i.e. the use of or limits on bunkers and rough)? Is the architect's voice one that asks questions or make demands (i.e. a strategic or a penal approach)? Is the architect's voice one that risks misunderstanding and criticism, or one that is consistently sound and accessible (i.e. the artist and the craftsman)? Is the architect's voice loud, making its points with gusto, or is it quiet and humble and sometimes not heard at all (as in a hyper naturalism)? Is the architect's voice a challenge or an opportunity (i.e. the game of golf or the experience of golf)? Is it an old voice or a young voice (self confident or out to establish itself)? Is it a rich, pampered voice or does it have a working class accent? Does it welcome or keep one at bay? Does it let the voice of nature speak? etc, etc.

Don't know if that answers your question. I'm not sure of any of it myself.

Peter        

 

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Behr actually got pretty clever it seems about how an architect really could build things that would withstand the ravages of Nature and the forces of wind and water.

He observed that an architect should try to utilize convex angles in what he makes rather than concave angles simply because he observed Nature destroys concave earthen forms so much more readily than convex angles.

To me that sounded pretty smart, at least in theory, and at least until one starts to consider how anyone can make architecture with just convex angles that aren't combined somewhere with concave angles.

Could something like that be done in golf architecture? I don't think so but it might work better if those man-made features that were convex were big enough and tied out far enough into a concave angle.

But if an architect did things like that what would it look like? Would it look natural?

OH MY GOD!!!

Do you know what it would look like?

It would probably look like most of MACDONALD/RAYNOR/BANKS ARCHITECTURE!!??!!

Wayno, WAYNE MORRISON, GET IN HERE RIGHT NOW! THIS SUCKS!

The other night Tommy Nacarrato told me he now believes that the model for the ultra-naturalist, MAX BEHR, was actually CHARLES BLAIR MACDONAL and his NATIONAL SCHOOL architecture!

I think he may be right.

What are we going to do now? This has gotten to be something like a dog chasing his tail.

[TEPaul]

"What are the things that enunciate the golf course architects voice? Specific examples."

Sully:

You've seen some Strantz courses. Wouldn't you say just the very look of it is something of a unique "voice"?

[JESII]

"What are the things that enunciate the golf course architects voice? Specific examples."

Sully:

You've seen some Strantz courses. Wouldn't you say just the very look of it is something of a unique "voice"?

Like playing golf on the moon! That's exactly what I thought as I came up to the drive landing area on #2 at Royal New Kent the first time I played there...



Peter,

I think the question is exremely valid in the context of gca...

Aren't there good and bad things about every course, but if the voice is right...

I think it's a worthwhile study because the greatest angst on this board seems to be an all too common inability of people today to "channel" a golden age architects intent...whether it's Fazio at Riviera or a club green committee at the local golf club...

When that happens, some of the voice is lost, wouldn't you say?

[Peter Pallotta]

JES -

I don't disagree with any of that, and I like the way you put it. It's just that using these kind of analogies comes very easily to me, maybe TOO easily. And I was struck by the other posts on this thread that pointed out how closely the land itself is (or might be) tied to what we later percieve as the architect's "voice".

But even if we think the term useful -- and I tried to give examples of how it might be used -- I wonder what really causes any 'loss of voice' in modern-day renovations? And, if a voice is worthy of the name, can it truly ever be channelled by anyone else?      

Peter

[Adam Clayman]

IMO, the routing is the clearest use of voice possible. All one has to do is play the course in a different configuration to hear the difference.  

[Ray Richard]

I can't combine literary voice with golf course architecture. Literary voice is a subconscous interpretation of the rules of grammar and rhetoric, presented on paper.  It's like a fingerprint, everybody is different. You can't learn it.

 Golf architecture is derived from natural wind forms, subject to repetition, interpretation and strategic revisement. You can learn it from others.

 

[Kirk Gill]

Ray, I get where you're coming from. I'm just trying to go with the analogy. As I said in my earlier post, I don't believe that the voice is something an artist intentionally creates for a purpose, it's something that comes from within them as they develop their artistic process. If you buy into the notion that golf course architecture has an artistic element, which I do, then the question becomes relevant - "does a golf architect have a "voice?""

I think TEPaul said that he feels like Strantz had a strong voice, and he'd be an interesting guy to discuss on this basis just because his architecture doesn't just lay back there, it reaches out and grabs you. I don't know that it necessarily means he has a stronger voice, just that it's easier to discern. What the components are of that voice is less easy to determine. I went out and read some articles about Faulkner's voice, just to see what people had to say about it, and I found that in the few articles I read, each person had a pretty strong and yet totally divergent feeling about what kind of voice he had. So maybe the voice each person  hears is a different one, and maybe that negates the whole idea. And with all the other elements that are in play on a golf course (the land, the wind, the number of people who are actually participating creating the course.....) maybe the idea of a GCA having an artistic voice is a non-starter.

But I don't think so. As Peter alluded to in his last post, I'd be interested in hearing from folks who have played a number of courses by a golden-age architect to see if they sense that gca's voice more strongly on some courses than others, and if alterations and renovations can bring some of that voice back, or if it just gets fainter through time, and is unrecoverable.............maybe it would take a long converstion with someone who has played a particular course for a very long time, though visions and revisions that no number of minutes can reverse........

[Adam Clayman]

Banff Springs, in it's original configuration, has a wonderful feeling to it. I associate that with Thompson's voice. It wasn't primarily from anything Thompson constructed, either. It was mainly from the surrounding natural beauty. Jasper Park's journey has nature's voice too. I'd imagine Cape Breton does too.?   

[Kirk Gill]

Banff Springs, in it's original configuration, has a wonderful feeling to it. I associate that with Thompson's voice. It wasn't primarily from anything Thompson constructed, either. It was mainly from the surrounding natural beauty. Jasper Park's journey has nature's voice too. I'd imagine Cape Breton does too.? 

The question is, if you played enough of Thompson's work, could you go back to Banff Springs and separate the natural beauty from the voice of the architect? Or do you feel like that either doesn't exist, or is so sublimated by nature and the land that it isn't "hear-able?"

[Adam Clayman]

Kirk, What I think is more likely is Thompson's voice was bringing out the natural beauty through his routing.

Whether he had numerous bunkers added over time, as he did at JP, it didn't changed the routing, or the voice.

[Lou_Duran]

Huh?

Voice? "Tabula rasa"?  Personality?  Form over content?  If Behr was alive today he would be in his element here!

Golfers view a course from a variety of perspectives, many of which are highly personal.  Whatever "voice" they hear, it is through the numerous buffers and filters that each has developed over time (which may suggest a question: can a course that has remained relatively fixed over time have a different "voice" for the golfer at different stages of his life?).

Assuming that the architect was conciously trying to project a "voice" in his work, what chances are there that the golfer (the receiver of his message) will actually hear it?  I have a gut feeling that most of the Classical designers would scratch their heads at the questions posed here.  As MacKenzie noted in his writings, he was trying to build challenging, pleasurable courses for the majority of the golfers who would be playing them.  Variety and adaptation to the features of the site were key.  Making a living by collecting commissions and consulting fees was paramount.  I don't think that artistic expression and establishing a legacy were real high objectives.     

Architects do have their style, some more poignant and consistent than others.   In the eyes of some critics, if the architect is a practioner of the classical style (MacKenzie, Raynor, Doak) this is a good thing.  If he is of the modern school (RTJ, Fazio, Nicklaus) the work is repetitive and boring.

As to the issue of form over content, I am reminded of a young pastor who had near perfect control over most facets of effective communications.  His voice was clear with a tone pleasing to the ear.  He enunciated perfectly; his sentences were grammatical and fairly economical.  He had good energy and above average wit.  Unfortunately, I learned little from him and seldom remembered much of what he said.  There was little content in his messages, and what "voice" he had was lost on me.   I would rather play a course with a variety of good holes in a difficult routing than one with a handful of great holes connected by a bunch of mediocre ones linked more closely on a site of considerable beauty.  I vote for content and less thematic consistency.

[paul cowley]

whoa.

[Peter Pallotta]

Kirk, Adam - nice exchange there, thanks.

Lou - I think I understand where you're coming from. I myself like these analogies from other creative arts, and I think 'voice' may have validity when it comes to golf architects (with lots of good posts pro and con on this thread).  But the question of whether in gca that 'voice' can be heard and distilled independently of the land seems a complex one.

Two reactions to your post - first, as mentioned by others, I don't think that in any of the arts an artist can 'manufacture' a voice worthy of the name; it springs/develops over time based on talent, a commitment to a craft and to that craft's particular demands, and the personal uniquess/essence of who that artist IS and is all about. Second - the way that an architect decides (through feeling or experience or talent) to ROUTE a course does seem to me to be less about a personal 'style' and more about some quality that can be identified and described as a 'voice'.  (I think other aspects of the designers art/craft/approach might also.) But -- the way you describe it, I can see why you'd vote "for content and less thematic consistency"....but man, an eight minute solo by John Coltrane can be, despite its occasional lapses in content, absolutely stunning. 
 
Peter

Paul - whoa indeed      

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()