I'd confused Minimalism with Freedom

[Peter Pallotta]

This won't be much of a thread, I think; just an observation and an admission.

With the help of two kindly and experienced posters (who shall remain nameless to protect the innocent) I recently read my first Max Behr article, and I realized that I'd been confusing minimalism with naturalism and 'freedom golf'.  

I don't mean that I now think the two are mutually exclusive (far from it), but that I no longer think of them as necessarily and exclusively IDENTICAL.  

I always appreciated the IDEA of minimalism's simplicity, and the stories about how inexpensively greens could be constructed or fairways laid out (hoping that it would mean lower costs for golf in general).  

On the other hand, I've always wanted as many courses as possible built, on whatever kind of land was available (hoping that it would mean more access and lower costs for golf in general), and was glad that architects took on the challenge of working on some pretty medicore sites.

I play (not very often) on a few different courses, and read about many more, and was trying to understand why I liked some of them so much, and others not so much.  

I began thinking of the courses I liked as minimalist, but I realize now that what I liked most about them was the feeling that the playing corridors were not set in stone, or clearly proscribed for me; or that, even if they were, it SEEMED that this narrowing/proscribing of the corriders was an act of nature and not of human thought.

In short, I'd been thinking minimalism when I was wanting naturalism and freedom, i.e more open corriders and choices (or, given my game, bail-out room). I see now that you don't HAVE to be a minimalist in order to design such a course.

One of the kindly and experienced posters (who shall remain nameless to protect the innocent) told me that, after reading Behr, I wouldn't think of architecture in the same way again. I don't know if THIS is what he meant, but it's starting already.

Anyway, that's it.

Peter


 

 

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Looks like you've got it down pat now, particularly "freedom".

Most everyone considers "minimalism" as simply minimal earth-moving and it certainly is that but I sometimes use a second definition that simply means it looks like very little earth was moved (although in fact, that may not be the case). That's generally an example of very expertly "tying in" what was made with what wasn't, and is generally indicative of a "natural" look in architecture.

Behr went a bit farther and got more specific about architectural construction. He basically felt the convex angle was the best to use for man-made architecture or to protect man-made architecture simply because he felt observation of the forces of Nature showed that angle was more enduring to the destructive forces of wind and water.

That sounds logically and using the convex angle in what one builds seems to make sense even though I'm not too sure how an architect constructing man-made features could solely use the convex angle. I'd think making a lot of convex angled features would inherently create some concave ones too.

I don't know if this has anything to do with the latter paragraph but they say some architects need a lot of dirt brought in to do what they do while a guy like Coore sometimes produces a surplus of dirt from the site.

[Kalen Braley]

Well that seems rather silly.  That extra dirt can be pushed to the side of the fairway to define the direction of the hole and make some sweet little mounds to hide the golf cart paths.  

[Garland Bayley]

Well that seems rather silly.  That extra dirt can be pushed to the side of the fairway to define the direction of the hole and make some sweet little mounds to hide the golf cart paths.  

Don't confuse Fazio with Coore.
 

[Peter Pallotta]

TE,  
thanks - I appreciate the additional insights and information.

For someone like me who's born and raised in the city, my time on the golf course is usually as close to 'nature' as I get.

That's a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. I wonder if that's not part of the reason that courses like Sand Hills and Ballyneal mean so much to some people -- i.e. nature, naturalism, and 'freedom' golf all in one.

Peter      

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:  Interesting that Behr should mention convex forms.  Mr. Nicklaus has been quoted many times as saying he prefers concave forms which collect shots, and at Sebonack (which is naturally a bunch of convex dunes and concave hollows) most of our disagreements centered around the convex parts.

Peter:  I was pleased to see your original post and have been thinking for a while about what it means.

The one place I might disagree with you is that a created group of choices can provide as much freedom as one which appears natural.  Certainly multiple choices can be provided, but one of the reasons I dislike multiple-fairway holes is that they are so clearly contrived and limit the options to two black or white choices, and further, that the architect has generally designed such holes to favor one option over the other.

For us, one of the most important skills in golf construction is to blend in the edges of where we have worked so it's hard to discern where the artificial work started.  And ultimately, I think the reason that's so important is that if you can't tell what is natural or artificial, then in theory you have unlimited options as to how to play any hole, instead of one or more which have been obviously prescribed by the designer.  We've even taken it to the level of trying to blur where the mowing lines stop because even THAT sets limits on where you might be supposed to play ... we can't afford to maintain an unlimited amount of fairway but we can try to make it look that way.

Thanks for your post.

[Jim Nugent]

Most everyone considers "minimalism" as simply minimal earth-moving and it certainly is that but I sometimes use a second definition that simply means it looks like very little earth was moved (although in fact, that may not be the case). That's generally an example of very expertly "tying in" what was made with what wasn't, and is generally indicative of a "natural" look in architecture.

Could places like Bayonne or the Rawls Course be considered minimalist?  

Obviously huge amounts of earth were moved.  Just as obviously they stick out (not like sore thumbs, but maybe more like diamonds) from the surrounding land.  But once you set foot on them, do they give the appearance of being "natural" courses?  i.e. if we could transport Bayonne to Ireland, or wherever inspired its design, could it seem natural and/or minimalist?  

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak said to PeterP:

"The one place I might disagree with you is that a created group of choices can provide as much freedom as one which appears natural.

"For us, one of the most important skills in golf construction is to blend in the edges of where we have worked so it's hard to discern where the artificial work started.  And ultimately, I think the reason that's so important is that if you can't tell what is natural or artificial, then in theory you have unlimited options as to how to play any hole, instead of one or more which have been obviously prescribed by the designer.  We've even taken it to the level of trying to blur where the mowing lines stop because even THAT sets limits on where you might be supposed to play ... we can't afford to maintain an unlimited amount of fairway but we can try to make it look that way."

TomD:

Interesting that you look at it that way, particularly in comparison to Behr's rationale for real naturalism in golf architecture.

Behr did say or strongly implied that the ideal in golf architecture is when an architect can make something that a golfer doesn't much recognize as "man-made", as this serves the purpose of making the golfer feel that he is finding his own "way", his very own unique "strategies", so to speak, of playing holes and courses.

This seems to be right in tune with your own feeling, and this is precisely what Behr meant by "freedom" (that the golfer did not feel he was simply identifying and following some strategic roadmaps clearly erected and put before him by a golf course architect).

However, Behr went a bit deeper into this philosophy in architecture and apparently in human psychology too.

He strongly implied that "man" (the golfer) intuitively and instinctively resists accepting obstacles and such that he can clearly see are artificial and clearly put before him by another man (the architect) to trip him up---to expose his faults. Since he instinctively resists them, the clearly artificial and man-made, he criticizes them---and consequently wishes to change them.

On the other hand, Behr implied that "man" (the golfer) is not so likely to resist and criticize obstacles and features and such that he senses really are natural (whether they actually are or whether an architect has made them appear that way).

The reason for this and what Behr has done here is to make a comparison of man's inherent relationship with Nature vs man's inherent relationship with Man.

And he concludes that Man instinctively feels that Nature and her array of earth-forms, wind, water etc (the entire array of the forces of Nature) are simply far more indominable or should be than something clearly artifically erected by another man. And so he is far more likely to accept what he perceives to be natural and far less likely to criticize it.

It's an interesting theory and philosophy and the fact that we have had approximately 80 years to test and analyze it since Behr wrote it makes it even more interesting.

Was Behr right or was he wrong---or something in between?

Did he overestimate Man's instincts and sensibilities this way?

Have the ensuing years and the architecture that followed, much of which is clearly artificial, proved that Man (the golfer) doesn't really care? Or that Man has become so used to architects actually dominating Nature and natural landforms and changing them that he has just become resigned to artificiality and even forgotten about what looks natural, or even forgotten about the importance of Nature in golf altogether?

Obviously the answer is some do care and probably care very much while others may not even notice, even subliminally.

And that's why I feel that it is probably dangerous and counterproductive in the long run to try to generalize anything in golf architecture and to formalize or standardize it.

It's why I came up with my "Big World" theory that it's probably a good thing in golf and architecture if there's a lot of diversity of type and style out there simply because there probably are many and diverse tastes and sensibilities out there and architecture and golf should address that if it wants to stay strong as a game or even as an art form.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D, TE

Thanks very much - that's really interesting information, in so many ways.

I feel like the guy who's arrived last at party, and everybody's already drunk, and I've got to work hard to catch up.

I'd been thinking the last few days about the differences between "golf as a game" and "golf as an experience".  It seems to me as one possible "lens" through which to look at and understand the last 80 years or so.  

TE's last post has got me thinking:

After WWII, America went through a massive urbanization (or maybe better, 'suburb-inization') as the growing industries and economies created by the war got people moving away from farms and small towns to the big cities. That compounded what had slowly been happening for the 50-100 years before that; so in short, Americans after 1950 were probably more 'out of touch' with nature than ever before, and more 'mechanized' than ever.

I wonder if this helped tilt golf and golf architecture much more towards the "game of golf" and away from the "experience of golf" i.e. towards courses being built fast and without much imagination and clearly with the help of machines, so that more and more people could play the game; and away from more natural settings and the more leisurely experience of companionship and match-play.

Just working out some thoughts.

Peter


 

[BCrosby]

TEP -

Good post. You ask an interesting question. Why didn't Behr's notions of freedom and naturalism have more of a following?

My first thought is that his ideas did have a following. I think you can see MacK at ANGC, maybe at Pasa and other places too, using some of Behr's ideas. MacK certainly knew them well. After Jones, Max Behr is mentioned most often in MacK's SofSA. No one pushed harder on the envelope of strategic design than Behr. But MacK comes in at a respectable second place.

Ultimately, though, Behr's notions of naturalism and freedom did not win out. Certainly not in the radical way he intended. Even with the rise of minimalists in recent years, you still don't get to where Behr wanted to be.

After GCA revived in the 1950's, the courses built by RTJ, Wilson, Lee, Dye et al. drove home the point that Behr's ideas (and MacK's too to an extent) had been boxed up and buried. I'm not clear why that happened. Why, for example, given the aclaim that ANGC got at its opening and then got again very year at Masters time, why the ideas behind that course were pretty much dropped by GCA. And not picked up again until some time in the mid 1990's.

Lots of questions. Interesting stuff.

Bob

P.S. Nobody dug deeper into the implications of design theory than Behr did. Which is why he is still worth slogging through. He undertood better than anyone that a particular design theory implies (in a strong sense) certain views about what is most important in the game. Which - at the end of the day - is why we care about gca.    

[wsmorrison]

Were Behr's philosophies easily seen in his designs?  Did he have clients that bought into his ideas?  Are there enough photos of his courses before alterations such that someone  can post photos along with some of his theories to demonstrate they were put into practice?  Maybe Tom Paul/Geoff/Bob and someone with photos can collaborate on this.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

You're not kidding there are lots of questions, not even considering what the answers may be.

I'd say the basic question of why the architectural (and golf) philosophies of Behr and his fellow travelers didn't catch on better or catch on more is probably most of what we talk about, in one way or another, on this website and always has been.

I bet I could make a list of almost fifty separate things and fifty separate influences that legitimately contributed to it not gaining ground (or being buried as you say) over the years----probably spanning from the fact they just didn't articulate it all that clearly or understandably to the fact that it just may be something that golfers really don't want in the end.

I think we can do something about the former but if the latter turns out to be the case both in the past and in the future it will be some pill for the people who populate this website to swallow and those who think as this site does.

[David Stamm]

Wayne, I have photos of Rancho Santa Fe GC I took over Christmas and posted here, but for whatever reason they don't show now when I searched them here. If you want, I can send them to you, and Tom, if you and Bob want them I can send them as well to both of you.

[BCrosby]

David - I would like to see them too.

I have the club history for Behr's Lakeside. That is the course MacK called one of the best in the world in SofSA. Unfortunately, there aren't many good pictures of the course in the book. I would love to find some.

Wayne -

My understanding is that Lakeside and Rancho Santa Fe did indeed reflect Behr's philosophies. Both courses, however, have undegone some pretty radical changes for the worse over the last 80 years.

Additional examples of how the "evolution" of golf courses - more often than not - is for the worse.

Bob

[wsmorrison]

David,

Please do send them, if you don't mind.  I can forward them to Bob and Tom.  Does the Ralph Miller library have old photos of Lakeside Rancho Santa Fe or other Behr courses?  I would love to see photos that show what he was thinking.  It is hard to follow his writing with much assurance that you are getting it.  That is unless you are Geoff or Tom and spend years considering the Behr's writings and what it means.

[David Stamm]

I'll send them to you Wayne. Since the Miller Library doesn't exist anymore, I don't know if they had anything, but I can comfortably guess that they did. I do have RSFGC club history and if you, Tom and Bob want, I can pickup copies and send them to you. They are not expensive, about $25.00. And yes, if you could when I send the photo's, forward them to Bob, I would appreciate it.

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, It's great to see the lightbulbs go off. And, you should feel most honored to have TePaul give one his "old style posts" to explain all this stuff, to all of us. My only advice would be to relish the information, at the moment you experience it, out on the golf course.

I have a major theory as to why the wrong road was taken by us head strong American's. Ego.  

[Scott Witter]

I have always thought that a golf course like that which Peter describes holds a strong sense of place, an inherent or indigenous landscape character, (naturalism) that we 'feel' and identify with as opposed to 'see' when we experience it.  It fits the eye and seems to be in its place, with purpose to blend in and enhance the landscape, in as much as it realistically can.

I don't think as many people understand what it is exactly that they like, or are comfortable with when on such a site, congrats that you 'get it' Peter and an excellent post as well, but they do know when it is contrived and artificial. Those sites rarely have a connection with the land and Tom Doaks detailed efforts to minimize his evidence are to be commended.  Many other architects and builders do this in many ways, and very well, but perhaps don't take it as far as they should.

[Peter Pallotta]

Gents
thanks to all of you for the great insights and questions and details.

I've got enough material to think about and learn for quite some time -- but please keep the thoughts coming.

In the meantime, maybe Adam can expand on his "major theory as to why the wrong road was taken by us head strong American's. Ego".

I love major theories in general, and especially if they have to do with the ego. Seriously. And if you can tie all that into a discussion on the history of golf course architecture...well...

Thanks
Peter    

[Peter Pallotta]

I found the following such a helpful "overview" of some of Behr's thinking that I wanted to post it here.  It came to me off-line from TEPaul, and I don't think he'd mind me sharing it.

"[Behr] wrote quite a few articles for years on a lot of things to do with golf---rules, construction methods, the importance of "naturalism" in architecture, art in architecture, sand, blindness, what "intelligence" may be in playing the game, legislative administration in golf, even moralism in a sense in golf and golf architecture.

And most interestingly, almost all of it had a very common thread of sort of "a priori" reasoning from one point to the next running through all of it of why it should ultimately be as he concluded. Most of the same articles he rewrote over the years in various iterations but always the same few fundamental themes----eg naturalism, freedom, intelligence and individuality etc.

To me I think we are at the point now all these years later to be able understand if he may've been wrong somehow or partially so and if not why things didn't turn out more the way he proposed.

And it wasn't just Behr----it was this group of them who apparently not only shared the same basic philosophy but clearly talked about it and talked its ramifications through at least amongst themselves. He just wrote about it more than the rest and far more deeply.

It could've been that they were just up against some really basic counter-balancing perceptions in golf, such as the fact that the game and its architecture should really only be to isolate and highlight human physical SKILL. This is like most other sports that involve a ball vied for and basically require a very defined area of competition because of that, and to serve that purpose.

There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not the way those guys thought golf should be in its entirety. Things like a constant super striving for "fairness", "equity" etc in golf sort of got in their way and probably won the day away from them after a time.

Did golf and golfers just lose sight of that fundamental fact or perhaps it never really occured to them enough?

There are so many reasons why they may not have been listened to more and taken more seriously.

It seems almost from the git-go some of them realized, although probably Behr realized it the most, that they were just up against "City Hall", so to speak. Behr tended to call that outlook that he felt was destructive to the essence of golf the "game mind of man".

Behr made a huge distinction (again almost totally misunderstood) between a "game" and a "sport" (....) A "game" was something whose playing field needed to be clearly defined and demarked---eg tennis, baseball, football etc. A "sport" was a recreation that needed a significant participation of Nature itself and its randomness and lack of definition such as fishing or shooting.

I guess it's just pretty odd that golf sort of falls somewhere in between those two things and that in fact is the real dynamic of both why and how it evolved as it did."

Neat, huh?

Peter