Louis B Mayer to John Huston - on Realism

[MCirba]

You are a gem, Peter Pallotta.   Please don't ever change.

[DMoriarty]

Peter,  In order to "challenge the premise of the thread" I'd first have to understand that premise, and I don't.  As I read it, various "-isms" are being thrown around, along with anecdotes about watching people shit, and either it is all way above my head or it doesn't make much sense in the context of golf course design.  

Near as I can tell, you and Jeff aren't impressed with the natural aesthetic of Cypress Point or the early photos of the greens at ANGC, and apparently don't think they look "natural" enough for your tastes, and so you both conclude he must not have been trying to emulate nature or create a natural aesthetic.  My interpretation of these same photos is very different.  Given the history of golf course design up to that point, I don't think there is much question that AM was striving toward a more natural aesthetic which was largely absent from some (but not all) earlier designs.  His writings confirm my impression. Does this mean he simply mowed greens on whatever existed?  Of course not. He was still a golf course architect, after all.

Have you seen Geoff Shackelford's excellent book on Cypress Point?  It includes numerous photos which give a pretty good idea of what that site was like before AM built the course.  It is impossible to look at those photos and that course and come away thinking that AM wasn't concerned with a natural aesthetic.  And in my opinion the same applies to Pasatiempo.

[Marty Bonnar]

You are a gem, Peter Pallotta.   Please don't ever change.

Great, great, great thread. You ARE a total gem, Peter. Don't ever change. But, please do change your keyboard. It appears the asterisk key is sticking.
Love*,
F.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I have no idea what naturalism is, and that is kind of the point.  So, maybe it is semantics to a degree, but was Mac a “naturalist?”
While many may take some of their writings as gospel in writing history, I recall the GA guys mostly wrote marketing pieces. I suspect, those kind of phrases were as common then as now.  RTJ had to learn them from somewhere……..

On my take of the old guys, I look at the results of ANGC or CP (which contrary to your post, I like very much) and see what they did.  I see a thought process to build greens they wanted to build.  Sure, they used some general “naturalistic” principles, generally known as:

  Curved lines instead of straight lines
  Hazards at 30-45 deg. Angles instead on 90 (not always, but 90 degrees always looks a little artificial to the eye on the tee)
  Long flowing slopes as opposed to sharp ones. Years ago here, one of our Euro architects postulated   that he followed contours and never more than doubled or halved a slope for practical reasons, believing keeping slopes in those realms best replicated the natural slopes.  Not a bad idea.

I agree he used at least 3 of the 4 as general rules, but they were means to an end.  And, I don’t diminish the greatness of adopting that theory after years of early geometric design in America.  But compare that to the free flowing verse many have written about God designing, following the land, etc.  Where the rubber meets the road, a la, the design of specific greens, at ANGC, Mac admits he is starting with some design concepts from another place and fitting them into the landscape.  Yes, I am sure he is finding the best places he can for the Valley of Sin and others, but the first thought it to get an idea from somewhere else in place, then second, blend it. Not to let the land suggest a design, or use it almost untouched.

Even at that, when I look at the artificial mounding on a hole like 8, it doesn’t fit into the natural landscape at all.  So, maybe he was copying the Dell hole concept, switching it to a par 5, or whatever.  He was first building a specific golf hole, and secondly/maybe being natural about it, if it suited him. If it didn’t, a la 8, he wasn’t worried about it.

I don’t see that as any different than RTJ or anyone else after the war who took those ideas to even greater lengths.  A great playing and visual design was the first goal. Of course, he tried to find natural routings based on the land.  But, letting the land dictate design specifics at the greens was second, even if a close consideration on most holes/greens. 

I am not saying this is any earth shattering point, just my take as someone who has approached design problems and got similar conclusions saying what I see as Mac’s thought process.  No myth or legend, just based on what he built.  But so many here have bought into that old marketing mantra, they don’t have a clear idea of how any architect thinks about things.

Short version - those guys built golf courses, not found them.  At least they built greens, not found them.

Now, I suspect, based on history, that you will tell me that I can't base opinions on what got designed based on designing over 50 golf courses of my own 50-80 years later.  And that somehow, you can devine better based on your research techniques.  And, while I will grant you, some of your research is impressive, and always appreciated, this thread moved me enough to think through what I thought about the OP and present it, and I think it has some value to the group. 

At least to those who don't already think of me as "full of myself" (or full of something else....... )

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff - thanks. That's interesting to me. 

You're a working professional of many decades experience who has garnered much success and respect in your field. I think I understand the fact that such working professionals, in any field, eventually get past the need for/grow tired of thinking about the *process* or the *theory*; they are too busy *doing* to spend their time *talking*. Some of the best professionals, however, past and present, have stayed engaged and interested and growing enough to *occasionally* dip their toes back into the less practical realms of thought. Granted, that might not be some great *praiseworthy* quality, but it is a shame, it seems to me, when the pendulum swings totally the other way and such professionals are accused of being *full of themselves* (which is, frankly, a term and concept most grown ups have left behind in high-school.) And how the *rest of us* can be full of ourselves I just don't understand -- we're self professed geeks!

I know I mostly just post whatever comes into my head -- I read about *one* golden age and it strikes me that it might have parallels with *another* golden age, and so I start typing and watch what emerges. Maybe the thread has legs, maybe it doesn't. But when the alternatives around here are mostly: thinly veiled self promotion; belt-notching; conventional wisdom repeated ad nauseam; day-dreaming and make believe; endless and pointless rankings and ratings; the spouting of bile and grudges; a dating service; and criticism for criticisms sake, then I feel okay about tossing some ramblings into the mix.

In fact, sometimes I think the ramblings fit in (value-wise) just behind the course profiles of posters like Benjamin, Jon, Sean etc; the historical compilations of Joe B and Sven etc; and threads about arranging to meet at a Masters' practice round -- and that's pretty good!

Peter

PS - Sean, thanks - good post there.

Peter,

Just how much architects stay deeply engaged in the thought process over a 30 year career may be a separate subject.

Recently at ASGCA, we played La Costa where Damian Pascuzzo and I collaborated to redo the courses.  We gave a short presentation on it, and we both agreed the biggest thing to come out of the collaboration was that we were forced to rethink our basic tenants, just to assure ourselves we were both on the same page (or pick one) during the design. 

While we were close in many respects of how to go through the process, it was fun to see the theoretical differences, even though we both trained under those '50s style landscape/golf course architects. 

One of the reasons I participate here is that my Dad always told me that if I couldn't write down an idea in a few short sentences, I really hadn't formed it in my head. (and, it probably wasn't a great idea, and adding 100 more sentences to the descriptions didn't make it any better)

I do believe many of my brethren really go on autopilot far too often.  I mean, I do know that one of the advantages of experience is eliminating a lot of unworkable options (some of which I see posters here suggest......) but there is that fine line of getting tired of design theory, or even "true design" of going through the process to come up with a unique solution rather than mail it in, which works, but at 80% efficiency.  Obviously some broad generalizations there.

I don't think I fall in that category, obviously.  Just talking and reading about design theories keeps me interested.

As to typing while thinking......go for it.  While we sometimes get lambasted, in design its called brainstorming out loud.  Yes, the good idea hit is maybe 2%, but those are 2% good ideas that wouldn't have come out had you been cowed into silence by some of the others here.

[Don Mahaffey]

Isn't realism story telling where dreams do not come true?

And isn't golf course architecture more about escapism, and to truly escape don't you need some drama; something to suck you into the story? The Scottish critic William Archer described drama as "anticipation mingled with uncertainty".  Modern golf architecture seems to be heavy on anticipation and very light on uncertainty. Like golfers no longer have the ability to problem solve so we make sure all potential hazards are visible and the line of play clearly defined. We end up with the magical illusion of a natural setting and a challenging game, but the setting is completely manufactured and the mental challenge removed. We don't want any adventure because of potential uncertainty so we sell an experience. 

I believe that if we connect realism to golf architecture then we must be talking about leaving the ground as we found it. But that also means to leave the imperfections, the blind shots, the steep slopes, the uneven lies.  A manufactured, natural looking golf course may be pretty, but it isn't "real" in the true sense of realism. The modern minimalist architects we celebrate nail the juxtaposition of natural realism and the realities of golf course design/construction/maintenance.  And they even mix in a little uncertainty once in a while (although it is constantly being "fixed" like the 14th at BT).

[Norbert P]

 A brief abstracted theory of naturalism . . .

(From Wiki and ASGCA)

"Bendelow's approach to course design is a "naturalist's approach," in that he strove to utilize the natural features of the chosen site to maximum advantage. His courses have often been called "Olmstedian", in that his method of naturalist design was greatly influenced by the work of prominent landscape architects Frederick Law Olmsted Sr. and Jr. "If a site had an especially unique feature –- rock outcrop, stream, grove of trees, scenic view -– he would work his hole placements in such a way as to take full advantage of the features even if that meant working his layout from the middle out," according to the American Society of Golf Course Architects. "Bendelow’s designs changed as the game of golf changed. When given good sites and adequate resources with which to work, he could produce a very challenging lay out, equal to the best work of the day. His personal goal however, was to build good, solid, enjoyable golf courses."[3] . . ."[6]"

[Gib_Papazian]

I’ve never really given a lot of thought to the parallels between golf architecture and movie production - but I suppose it is no accident Neal and I help each other all the time, me with his designs and Neal with our films. The initial post reminded me of a pair of production stills I shot to illustrate a point to a rookie on the crew. It was a B&W murder scene where a psycho enters the house of a novelist and shoots his mother-in-law between the eyes. (In terms of my ex-wife’s mother, this would have been a dark comedy, but I could never have been that lucky).

On one side of the stage line, I took a photo from camera perspective. All the lights were measured and flagged properly - and the 35mm lens framed a well balanced establishing shot. Then, I took the same picture from the opposite side of the room, showing the lights, C-stands, boom operator, dolly and crew. Not only is the mess of equipment, crew and camera a bit unattractive to look at, but actors shot on the opposite side of the key light look mushy and wrong. The point? Don’t break the magic by showing the audience what is under the hood. There is absolutely nothing glamorous about film production (as opposed to the Theater), just as the nuts & bolts of golf design and construction is a sweaty grind in the dirt.

Perhaps the difference between Louis Mayer and John Huston (who I sat next to on a plane right out of film school) is how much reality they wanted to paint into their frame. The old style Hollywood production style was to mock up everything. Sound stages are a wonderful advantage because everything is a blank slate and absolutely under your control - like Tom Fazio at Shadow Creek. However, the problem with a blank slate is that every single element has to be constructed or brought in. Furniture, a clock on the wall, the background through the window, teacups on the shelf . . . . . . everything. There are racks and grids along the ceiling, so lights are hung and shadows end up invisible and on the floor - but no matter what, it never really looks organic. You viscerally feel you’re watching a movie, shot on a closed set with actors who are clearly acting.

Louis Mayer did not like reality based films because his Hollywood was glitz and glamour - bigger than life in a surreal world that only existed in the imagination of the filmmakers. Above the entrance of my old film school, somebody long ago had scrawled in black sharpie “Reality Ends Here.” So really and truly, putting aside documentaries, there is nothing “real” about a theatrical film. Yet there is an enormous difference between telling a story designed and shot behind the studio gates and actually going out and rolling cameras in the real world.

Some golf architects have what amounts to unlimited budgets and thus, every hole is essentially a blank slate on an empty sound stage. If what Jack wants is not there, then let’s bring over the D-9 and push some dirt until there is. But no matter what, it never looks and smells like a hole that’s been sitting there for a thousand years waiting to be found. Shooting on location, for the most part you have to use what you’ve got - especially indie features - but that is precisely how the new breed wanted to communicate realism. It is still a movie, but the reason some images ring truer than others is the way in which reality and space evolve. Trying to create a street scene out of whole cloth is almost impossible. Things settle into their natural place over time, which is why Hollywood almost always uses the real world as inspiration.  

Even something as simple as a rock. Kubrick tried to create plasticine boulders in Full Metal Jacket strewn about the ruins in the battle scenes. He discovered that even "rocks have their own random logic” - which means that fake rocks still look fake. As a result, Stanley ordered some of the buildings dynamited so the rubble would settle where gravity dictated. I think the same can be said for the best golf holes. Some of it is fake, but often the inspiration or selected features were already there - a blending of ideas and land with its own logic makes it ring true.

I’m not sure if this advances Peter’s thesis, confuses it or vectors into an irrelevant direction.  

      

[MCirba]

What's more natural; an obviously man-made golf course where the seams are still showing or one where the architect has taken time to blend in all the lines?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Gib,
Nice post. In situations where we had to shape an entire fairway, I always feel like the dozer guy eventually gets repetitive, whereas nature never does.  I guess there are only so many ways to shape a mound in a matter of a few days, but when nature has eons, much more variety is possible.  To a lesser extend, when using horses, which went slower and presumably weren't as "smart" as architects, more randomness did seem to ensue.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

I always feel like the dozer guy eventually gets repetitive, whereas nature never does.

I think you are right....but...its all in all the way the archie uses nature.  Nature or no, if used the same way too often then the result is the same...predictable road mapping.

Ciao

[MCirba]

The idea of "creating naturalism" or "realism" as a desirable result in golf course architecture is certainly not new as this May 11, 1925 "Evening Public Ledger" (Philadelphia) article recently unearthed by Joe Bausch illustrates.   Certainly A.W. Tillinghast and others were early advocates as well in the US, and the movement here seems to have sprung up organically, likely as a reaction to both the early Victorian steeplechase designs that populated the early US golfing landscape, as well as the idea of strictly copying "ideal" golf holes from abroad.   Every art movement in all mediums generally tend to be trendy in that practitioners may rigorously follow popular styles for a period only to generally fall out of favor as a new generation takes things in a different, and largely reactionary, counter-veiling direction, that both borrows from their predecessors but also attempts to "improve" on those previous efforts through rejection of what made them original in the first place.      

[Norbert P]

 Interesting old article. Thanks Mike and Joe.

Here's the existing course photo link for Country Club of Atlantic City.  Nice stuff.


http://www.accountryclub.com/-virtaul-tour


Birth of the "birdie" !  And "eagle" !

I wish they had more to say about Flynn on their site.

[MCirba]

Hi Norbert,

I don't know all of the history of the Flynn course without looking up the details although his design was a heavy revamping/redesign of the original 18 holes and a new nine holes for 27, which was lost over time.

Tom Doak's work later kept a good deal of the Flynn routing, but significantly changed a lot of the hole internals.   Having played the course prior to Doak and after, I'd say it's been improved, but certainly not "restored".   As tends to happen without a lot of ongoing maintenance work, much of Flynn's work at creating a "natural" look through sand dunes, etc., had grown over (with grass) with time, trees had been planted, and the course had a tired feel to it.  

I truly wonder if the idea of keeping sandy areas "natural" looking along sea courses is maintainable over time?   Certainly Cypress Point (as well as Pebble Beach) look nothing today as they did in the 1920s in that regard.

[MCirba]

Are there any good examples of architects using sandy areas or fake dunes to achieve a natural look that have been maintained well over time?  Or does the grassing fertilization and watering of a golf course inevitably mean that the dunes will become overgrown with greenery as well?

[Gib_Papazian]

I had a further thought on the dangers of ignoring nature, eschewing naturalism and imposing your will on the ground. Some years back, Olympic decided to reclaim some of the holes we lost from landslides in the 1930s - originally routed on a series of rolling bluffs overlooking the Pacific Ocean and Farallon Islands. It seemed like a terrific idea; the old Pacific Links course (now Olympic Ocean) was the marquee layout at the club - good enough to warrant two photos in George C. Thomas’ Golf Architecture in America. These holes were on a lower shelf rising from the beach, but had been abandoned - although the upper shelf included holes #6-8 until 1983.

Some years after landslides ruined the Ocean Course holes on the upper shelf of the bluffs, Morrish and Weiskopf converted the land to a fantastic par-3 course that proved extremely popular. The notion they could do the same on the lower dunes and incorporate the reclaimed land on the west side of Skyline seemed at no-brainer at the time - which would give us a 24 hole golf course with two interchangeable routings. There were all sorts of easement issues because hikers and horse riders had traversed the lower dunes since the 30’s, but plans for six holes were drawn up and the crews set to work.    

I recall standing up at a member meeting after construction began to ask Morrish whether it was a good idea to move so much sand to build the holes. The drawings looked fairly invasive; the last four holes tumbled down to the water - and the land had settled into a series of comfortable humps, bumps and natural ridges.  He asked me to explain further and I responded that over the last sixty years since the Willie Watson holes were lost, the soil had settled where it wanted to be. On what was essentially the same precarious slope of loose sand, the cuts and fills were significant - using a battalion of dozers and other heavy equipment to disturb the ground. Why not gently lay the holes into existing terrain (since slide would be less likely) with a minimum of earth movement?

Morrish acknowledged that was a fair question and answered there were no guarantees in life. As often happens in clubs run by a small, insular cadre disinterested in input from people who actually read books and study the subject, one of the Board members quickly tried to change the subject. The holes opened, but the result was a disaster when El Nino came to visit and one night the saturated ground writhed and collapsed, leaving deep fissures and heaving movement as if a catastrophic earthquake had shook from the bedrock core.

If Jay and Tom had gently nudged things around in the manner of the Scots, would we have suffered this horrific disaster? Maybe, but maybe not. There is something to be said for treading lightly - and remembering there is a reason why things eventually find their place and settle in. Disturb God’s work at your own peril - and we certainly paid the price for our arrogant hubris.

How does this relate to Louie Mayer and John Huston? There is a reason The African Queen was Huston’s magnum opus. A large portion of it was shot on location in Africa - the main reason why the film rings viscerally true. The importance of honoring the authentic environment is crucial to realistic storytelling - the ebb, flow and pacing of a golf course is similar to the story arc of a film script. Even the use of natural light is an essential ingredient. The first thing to do on location is figure out what is naturally occurring - and then do our best to recreate it using correctly placed lights so the camera sensor (or film stock) “sees and records” it the same way. Do we take liberties? Of course, that is the magic and art of making a movie or building a “natural looking” golf hole - but the notion that every single element must be carefully arranged under microscopic control is lunacy.

So often- in both movies and golf design, an architect or Director (and D.P.’s too) fall in love with a location and - instead of trying to preserve what makes it special to begin with - end up presenting it as an overcooked caricature of what made its natural state so charming and attractive in the first place. I’m with Tom Paul in there is plenty of metaphorical room in the tent for Busby Berkeley musicals and gritty realism like Malle’s Atlantic City - just as there is room for both Tom Fazio’s sprawling, Christo-esque expressions and Coore and Crenshaw’s understated elegance.

The trick is to follow the theme from the first tee to the closing credits.        

              

[MCirba]

Gib,

Terrific post and I'm reminded of those old commercials about fake butter with the inevitable tagline, "it's not nice to fool Mother Nature!"

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, thanks Gib - excellent post on several fronts. (By the way, I don't know how you can cope with a situation/development like the one you describe at your home club. If I'd been there I think I might've turned into John Goodman's character from "Barton Fink", i.e. one being asked why I wreacked havoc and torched the place, I'd yell "Because you didn't LISTEN").

Your mention of the terrific African Queen reminded me of another Huston picture, his last one I believe - "The Dead". I have a theory/belief that when a master craftsman striving for realism has enough skill and patience and authority and humility to stay out of the way and not try for anything TOO much (not even being 'realistic') some magical dovetailing can take place, i.e. the truth and the art and the entertainment all become one.

Peter

[Adam Clayman]

Don, Your post describes perfectly the illogical reality we golf in. Well said!

[JMEvensky]

Your mention of the terrific African Queen reminded me of another Huston picture, his last one I believe - "The Dead". I have a theory/belief that when a master craftsman striving for realism has enough skill and patience and authority and humility to stay out of the way and not try for anything TOO much (not even being 'realistic') some magical dovetailing can take place, i.e. the truth and the art and the entertainment all become one.

Peter

Nice.

How about when one master craftsman reimagines the work of another master craftsman (arguably the master-est) in another art form? It would seem to be akin to renovating ODG golf courses. There needs to be the right balance of fealty and re-interpretation. That's a pretty high bar.