Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?

[TEPaul]

First of all, the 12th hole has been pretty well documented through the years before it was redesigned by RTJ in 1960. Not that it's particularly important but as far as I know noone seems sure that the way it was in the photos and aerials was the design and work of Emmet or Travis.  

Again, not that that is all that important---eg it was what it was, even if it was Joe Burbeck who had a hand in it.  

What I mean by that is, in my opinion, one of the real on-going jokes about many of the contributors to this web-site is they actually believe that a guy like Burbeck could not possibly have had a serious and heavy hand in the creation of architectural greatness.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's a supreme irony that Behr's writing style was as old fashioned, odd or grandiloquent as it was because it really does take some time to understand precisely what he was saying and getting at.

But if one takes the time I think they will find he looked more perspicaciouly into not just golf architecture but golf itself and even the psyche of the golfer more than any man ever has.

For either of us to think we are capable, at this point, of putting ourselves on the plane of understanding he had would be perfectly ludicrous.  

Are you saying that you don't know what he said/wrote because his odd writing style obscured his message ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Behr may have held a "purist" view of architecture in the context of natural versus unnatural appearance.

I tend to think he was looking at it in the context of continuity and harmony, versus a disjointed or disconnected presentation.

Certainly, if he played NGLA as many times as you state, he had to be keenly aware of its highly artificial design and construction, especially at the green and tee end.

What's the difference in an anomaly that occurs naturally in the land, versus one that man constructs in the land ?

I think that's the critical question.

I don't think there's a difference.

However, I would add the caveat that the anomaly constructed by man, should not be outside of the boundaries of an anomaly that could be constructed by nature.

And, that may have been what Behr was alluding to.

[TEPaul]

"What's the difference in an anomaly that occurs naturally in the land, versus one that man constructs in the land ?
I think that's the critical question."

Come on Pat, how many times am I going to have to explain that to you?

The difference is in what the golfer perceives. That is Behr's distinction which is the basis of his philosophy on this subject.

Was he right? It would seem that the last 75 years has proven him not right in that particular vein that the golfer would virtually demand something in architecture that was natural or at least looked natural. But we are into a renaissance now and it seems his time and his argument is going to be reviewed and hopefully reconsidered. It has been reviewed and reconsidered on a site like this one for the last six years of its existence.

I'd say that the last 75 years has proven my "Big World" theory to be true. It seems to be saying that it does no good at all for anyone to tell people that one particular way---eg their way---is the way it must be or should be.

[TEPaul]

"Are you saying that you don't know what he said/wrote because his odd writing style obscured his message ?"

Patrick Mucci, I didn't say anything remotely like that and you should know that. Are you capable of reading and understanding the English language or aren't you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"What's the difference in an anomaly that occurs naturally in the land, versus one that man constructs in the land ?
I think that's the critical question."

Come on Pat, how many times am I going to have to explain that to you?

The difference is in what the golfer perceives.

If you're stating that the golfer knows what's natural and what's unnatural, we disagree.  Most golfers don't have a clue.
Typically, only the architect and contractor know whats natural and what was created.

Would you know wherther or not the 13th hole at Pacific Dunes was sand capped ?    

When you approach the 8th green at NGLA would you know whether or not that was natural ?

And different golfers have different perceptions, there's not a universal, solitary perception.

That is Behr's distinction which is the basis of his philosophy on this subject.

The distinction is never defined.

The very word, "perception" can't be defined in the context of thousands of golfers who trod the fairways.

"Perception" to Behr is different than "perception" to Mayday Malone

Was he right?

About what ?
Some vague, non-defined position ?

And, how does a golfer perceive whether an anomaly is natural or unnatural ?

It would seem that the last 75 years has proven him not right in that particular vein that the golfer would virtually demand something in architecture that was natural or at least looked natural.

Let's go back to NGLA.
Certainly you're not going to tell me that that looks natural.
It's anything but, as are many of CBM's, SR's and CB's works.

Do you really believe that the 6th hole at NGLA LOOKS NATURAL ?

And, don't forget that Behr lived prior to the DEP, which is an enormous factor with respect to retaining what is natural versus converting it to a golf hole.

But we are into a renaissance now and it seems his time and his argument is going to be reviewed and hopefully reconsidered. It has been reviewed and reconsidered on a site like this one for the last six years of its existence.

I'd say that the last 75 years has proven my "Big World" theory to be true. It seems to be saying that it does no good at all for anyone to tell people that one particular way---eg their way---is the way it must be or should be.

Then, you're in conflict with Behr himself.

You're stating that the golfer must perceive the golf course as natural on one hand, and advocating unnatural looking golf courses under your "big world" theory on the other, you're contradicting yourself.

But, that doesn't surprise me.

[Chris Cupit]

No, quirky is not neccessarily good.  I like quirky and good more than convential and good but that's just my taste.

If the course is bad, and I still had to endure it, I'd go with quirky over banal every time.  At least it would be different bad instead of the usual bad!