"The Golf Architect of Light"

[Mike O'Neill]

Tommy,

That actually looks like Pebble Beach's 18th, only more natural. No fake rock wall.

[Mike O'Neill]

Tom,

You asked what I find similar about Ross's courses. Well, based on the photos in his book, and given that you made a point above of mentioning natural green sites, I will start by mentioning push up greens. I see that he used that style quite a bit it seems. I have no problem with that style. It was the style of the day and it was very functional. Push up greens create drainage automatically. But I do not find push up greens to be natural. They tend to be slightly more natural than tees, which are almost always the most unnatural aspects of any golf course. Push up greens are a contrivance. And Ross used them a lot judging from the photos in his book. Everything in golf is a contrivance to some degree or another, by the way, in my opinion.

By the way, just as another curious parallel to Fazio, I noticed that Ross sometimes mentioned the usefulness of "framing" in his book. In fact, if you look on page 94 of his book, you will see a photo of some very unnatural, Ross describes them as "Artificial", hummocks framing, to use his word, the second green at Brae Burn CC.

[Geoff Shackelford]

SGD,
One of the other interesting things about Kinkade is that recently he's become "THE painter of light," whereas he used to be just painter of light or "a painter of light." I'm sure he has all of them copyrighted though!

But it's particularly funny when you consider that Claude Monet never really felt that he mastered light in his paintings, never conveyed light quite the way he wanted or authentically!

Geoff

[SGD]

Geoff:

Just a crazy, off the cuff thought:

If somebody owned a one-of-a-kind, priceless Monet, would they hire Kinkade to "restore"/"modernize" it in order for the National Art Gallery to display it?  

Sorry...

[Craig Rokke]

He also does a complete line of household funiture. "Solid wood, not laminate!" I can stomach looking at any golf architect's work longer than I can look at a glowing piece Kinkade gingerbread art.

I watched the same story about him on TV. He really seems
to think he has the Midas touch.

[Peter Galea]

Unbelievable! There is a Thomas Kinkade gallery in my town. I just happened by on the way to the grocery. I had never even heard of him before this morning on GCA. So, I had to stop in and have a look and quiz the girl behind the desk. Thomas Kinkade lives in Los Gatos about 15 minutes east of Pasatiempo and is 44 years old. There are many galleries around the country, the oldest is 11 years. His "paintings" are lithograph transfers which he or his staff of assistants "highlight." He no longer sell orignials, they all go to his "museum" in Carmel. After his death they will be sold and the proceeds will be donated to the"people of California." One lith transfer that I saw was 30x40 inches, I don't remember the subject, but it was classic Kinkade. (Lombard St. in SF is his most popular) The price for an assistant "highlighted" painting was $1465.00 If Mr. Kinkade highlighted it personally the price was $7465.00. Periodically his staff will make appearances at the galleries and will personally highlight a Kinkade litho which you bring into the gallery. They do this for free (usually) and will cater to your desires for 15-20 minutes, makng your Thomas Kinkade truly unique. (you have input about where and how much highlight you want.)
He has done one golf litho, (pictured below) in memory of Payne Sterwart with all proceeds going to the Payne Stewart Memorial Golf Course and Learning Center at Kids Across America Kamps.
Mr. Kinkade is quoted from his brochure of 'The 18th of Pebble Beach.'
"My most recent enjoyment of the game was during a trip to Pebble Beach for the special 100th anniversary celebration of the U.S. Open and the 21 Shot Salute and tribute to the late golfing great Payne Stewart. My hope is that after you see this painting, you'll sense the love I have for the game of golf along with my passion for plein air painting that I tried to convey in the exuberant strokes of the brush."


"The 18th at Pebble Beach"          

[Mike O'Neill]

Darn!!!!! There's that fake rock wall!!!!!!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
Well at least he's gone from a money grubbing architect who "produced the same piece of art over and over" to someone who produced unnatural pushed up greens. Of the Ross courses I've seen Pinehurst #2 is the most famous example of pushed up greens, the others have a multitude of green types and sites - including admittedly pushed up. Are pushed-up greens and mounds an indicator of an architect incapable of incorporating natural features into a design? It sounds like you have difficulty excepting my claim that an architect can create man-made features such as pushed-up greens, mounds, severe grass faced bunkers (Raynor & Langford) and still maximize/utilize the natural advantages of a site. Do you have to be a minimalist to produce natural designs? I see a difference between those architects who work with Nature and those who seek to dominate it with their own vision of nature - a la Kincaid. You said "everything in golf is a contrivance in one form or another", but isn't "the one form or another" a major factor and what differentiates good work from not so good work, or are all architects approaches basically the same?

I didn't ask you to compare Ross to Fazio (Ross vs Kincade), but since you did - do you see any difference between the way Fazio utilizes/views nature and Ross? Do you see similarities in their view on stratetgy? I'm curious about Ross's view of framing - what did he say about it?  

[Mike O'Neill]

Tom,

Do you happen to have Ross's book by any chance?

By the way, the first sentence of your last post is kind of sad attempt at misrepresenting what I have said above. You and I both know that the original thread here alluded to "selling" art. Did I use the words "money grubbing"? If you read what I wrote, you will see that I said I was "wondering" if Ross created the same art over and over. Am I not allowed to ask questions or wonder here? Based on your recent thread about bashing etc., I would expect you to be fair to the actual language I use.

Also, I do not have difficulty accepting your claim about architects and man-made features. I am not trying to accept your claim. I am simply telling you that push-up greens do not look natural to me. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder.

And if you do happen to have Ross's book, please look at page 97 for an example of what he calls "irregular" mounds. If you don't have his book, I apologize for pushing this discussion in that direction. I am only trying to back up my comments and questions with whatever back up I may have, speaking of you bashing thread.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I don't think I misrepresented the impression you conveyed(your wondering). You were the one who originally sought to compare Ross to Kincade - citing he came over here to because he could make more money. I assumed since Kincade is painted as a money grubber, that you were indicating that Ross may have been one too. Thus the reason for my commenting we've progressed from a possible money grubber to unnatural green maker - is that an unfair characterization?

You don't have to appologize, I may have been startled by your Ross-Kincaid comparison but I did attempt to address/answer your questions honestly. And what does bashing have to do with my posts on this thread? Did I bash you? Ross? Fazio? Kincade? I don't believe I bashed anyone only stating my view. I do think that if you are going ask hard questions you should be prepared to answer hard questions in return.

[Mike O'Neill]

Tom,

No, it is not a "fair" characterization. You did not use the word "possible" in the post before. You simple said, "money grubbing". And I did not say that you were bashing me. I said that based on your thread regarding bashing, you should be fair to my language. In that thread you asked people to back up what they write here. But twisting my language is not fair back up, in my humble opinion. By the way, if you read carefully what I wrote above when I asked about Ross, I used some of your very language in my questions--the same art over and over, as an example.

What hard questions am I avoiding?

Here's an easy question for you: Do you have Ross's book?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

You've answered all my questions. I'm not realy interested in defending Ross any longer.