"But one of his points is that we're in a time when amateur connotes authenticity and I do think this perception is relevant to Tim's original question.
Eric:
Keen's book sounds like an interesting one and I'm going to look for it.
In the meantime, could you expand on what you think he means by suggesting that "amateur" connotes authenticity?
Why would that be? Do you think Keen feels people have become jaded about the concept of "professionalism" or that so-called "professionals", generally speaking, have become jaded for some reason?
I think Tim Liddy's question is a most interesting one, and I suppose I have a lot of diverse opinions about it.
My first impression is that some of these architects on here secretly want to just wholesale cast aspersions on some of the opinions of some of the so-called "Internet Architects" on here who basically are not in the business. I think they secretly want to do that but they just aren't too sure how.
If that's the case, and I sense if they really want to be honest, it is, then I suggest they just go ahead and cast some aspersions and furthermore be very detailed about it.
My personal opinion on this question of Tim's is that on the practical side of golf course architecture, there are very few so-called "Internet Architects" on here, in fact probably none, who can hold a candle to the professional architects. The reasons for that should be patently obvious to most contributors and lurkers on here.
However, on the conceptual side of architecture, I feel there are probably a ton of so-called "Internet Architects" on here who could not only hold a candle to many of the professionals, they could, in fact, probably blow them away in some cases.
I think this has become not just a mild concern but a real concern to professional architects. I don't think they're concerned about this only in a philosophical sense or in some vacuum---I think they're concerned that potential clients and such, even if just a few of them at this point, are beginning to talk to "Internet Architects" or at least consider what some of them say.
Of course, I expect most all the professional architects on here to deny everything I just said.
I don't think they should deny it---I think they should face it and discuss it on here because I feel they think it's true albeit something they'd prefer not to admit or discuss.
And if you in the profession want me to back this up historically, I'd be more than happy to this way:
How in the Hell do you professional architects explain the likes of Herbert Leeds, W.C Fownes. C.B Macdonald, Hugh Wilson, George Crump, George Thomas etc, etc----amateurs all, and probably no different back then than some of the so-called "Internet Architects" on here today? I know how you explain it---you don't---you just constantly and conveniently avoid the subject.
Nevertheless, it's pretty interesting now and historically that those just named so-called amateurs STILL have courses that are considered to be some of the best and best architecture in the world.
You don't try to explain them for the simple reason you can't explain them and continue to maintain the belief that ONLY professional architects have conceptual talent.
Am I dedicatedly trying to piss off the professional architect contingent on here?
Not really, I'd just like them to be more honest, perhaps more blunt about what they really feel than it seems they have been heretofore ON HERE.