Golf Architecture - Art versus Science

[Dan Herrmann]

Just curious to see what folks think - how much of golf architecture today is art versus science/engineering?

I'll take a crack and say that it's 25% art and 75% science.   Things like drainage, environmental concerns, turfgrass, and "USGA Specs" seem to have made today's architect more of a engineer than an artist.  Heck, I think Mr. Doak and Mr. Hanse went to Cornell!

I'll also hazard a guess that the Golden Age architects were 50% art, 50% science.

I wonder how the greats of the Golden Age would handle today's engineering/science problems?

[Marty Bonnar]

Dan
I'm not so sure that there is only one blend of skills that a GCArchie could have which would make him/her any more capable than another with a different blend. Imagine if all GCArchies, like any other, let's call them, 'creative' people, had only one stregth or one group of strengths. What a boring collection of identical golf courses/buildings/sculptures/paintings/urban spaces....we'd have!
Sure, there are obvious candidates in Landscape/Turf Science/Agronomy, but I'd say the 'scientific' stuff has to be equally balanced with Design Ability/Knowledge of History/Knowledge of Golf.
The 'X' Factor definitely comes into play too. The Love of the Game, the ability to 'see' golf holes, and so on...


FBD.

[Forrest Richardson]

Golf Course Architecture is an art. The science is embedded within and should no more be evident than special effects in the movies — the technology behind the effect should not dwarf the story line and the thrill.

[Dan Herrmann]

.... the technology behind the effect should not dwarf the story line and the thrill.

I Love that quote!