Does historical perspective (or a lack of) affect design?

Sean,
They are.

"Legitimate historians don't like the term revisionist history."

I'd say it's much more appropriate to say that legitimate historians like the revision of the accuracy of an historical event a whole lot less than they like the term "revisionist history".

It's obviously fair to say that we on here use the term "history" in at least two ways; 1. The historical event itself, and; 2. The accumulated chronicling of that event and its meaning.

Without historic accuracy of the first there never will be accuracy of the second.

Interesting question, Tom.  I think that an "historical perspective" is very different from and less important to design than an understanding of the craft of historical artefacts.

For example, a painter will learn much more from viewing and studying Michaelangelo's technique at the Sistine Chapel than from reading "The Agony and the Ecstasy" (or more scholarly treatises on the social, political, economic and personal reasons as to how that work of art came to be).

For a personal example, the secondary focus of my college career (after wine, women, song and golf) was poetry.  The courses devoted to understanding poetry were very different from the courses devoted to writing poetry.  In the former you looked for clues as to the motivation of the poet.  In the latter you looked for clues in how the poet expressed that motivation.

Vis a vis GCA, I think that studying the end product of the past (i.e. the great and not so great courses) is far more important than studying why they were built, or under whatever influences of the time.

Are the architects of 2055 going to learn more by analysing if Tom Doak was influenced by the Morrisett-Naccarato Conjuncture of the Noughties or by viewing and playing his body of work?

I suspect the latter.

Mike:

I don't disagree that it takes a different sort of artistic ability to design a really good golf course than it does to restore one.  But I would dispute that "anyone" can do a good job rebuilding the original features of a golf course.  A lot of the attempts I've seen would get a poor grade for accuracy.

You shouldn't let me near a Michelangelo with a paint brush, either.

Yet many here wish for golf architecture to stand still, at a time 50 years ago...

Mike- I'm not sure if this is as true as you may perceive it to be.

From my novice perch a mile high, it's the principles that are needed to carry forward to create an interesting artful golf course. In other words, those principle have been ignored by many and even poo poo'd in the mainstream press, as being unwarrented and unnecessary.

It's again my perception that the new breed of archie, that embraces those 50+ yr. old principles, while still creating original art, will be the ones that are some day considered classic.
 
Please leave the framing for the wall art.

Tom,
I used the term "anyone" very loosely.  I too have seen what you describe.
Adam,
You are correct. I agree that it is in the principles.  I am sure there are some Michelangelo principles in Van Gogh.  
I think in the cases where you see these principles ignored, it is by an architect that evolved into golf architecture without really meaning to go there.  And there are a few.
In the post where Bob Crosby is discussing his dating 80 year old women that can only stand still he mentions using the best of the old.  That is the key.  But history doesn't stand still thus respect would consist of studying and evaluating the work of today's big names.  Some may not like it but it will definitely be a big part of golf architecture history.  There will be some good in this era that is carried forward.  Fact is much of what is being built now could not have bbeen built on the land available during the 80's and 90's.

Kirk,
You must be one of those guys that Bob Crosby says "is as smart as the old guys".  Well said.
Mike

TE,
Who will be the first golf architect to cut his ear off?

"TE,
Who will be the first golf architect to cut his ear off?"

Are you referring to Van Gogh, Mike?

If so, it may be you when I finally get around to getting over to that fancy tabacco and do-dad shop in Bryn Mawr, buying and sending you a flask and making sure you really will promise do use it in the field. When and if you do use that flask--eg practice "flask architecure" regularly in the field some really imaginative and wonderful and wild and crazy things start to happen both within you and consequently on the golf course. Unfortunately, if you go as far as Vincent Van Gogh did in the "crazy" area----well, that's when people tend to lose ears!  

I've already got about 4-5 flasks out there amongst architects but I'm not sure that many or even any of them are actually using their flask in the field which is disappointing to me and defeats the purpose. I suspect some of these guys actually think it's important to stay physically healthy which in my opinion contributes to the waste of a good and active mind! I might get Tom Doak one too because as good as he is and as much as he's now hit his stride I'm still a bit worried he suffers from some residual effects of concern for what people think about some of the things he does or may want to do that he hasn't tried yet---for whatever reason. There's no question that "flask architecture" will fix that problem in a Sebonac second. Can you imagine how the dialogue and decision making may change if Tom's got that flask half drained in the field if and when Jack Nicklaus tells him he can't do this or that or he doesn't really agree. I might even get Doak a shooting stick and megaphone along with the flask!  

BobC:

Go easy on this thing about dying young to be great. There's enough about "flask architecture" already that scares the shit out of these modern guys who think it's important to stay fit or whatever. Statstics on golf architecture and architects truly do prove that to be a really great golf architect it is a better idea if you do die young.

Park Jr, Crump, Flynn, Wilson H, S. Thompson and Wilson D are certainly irrefutable evidence of that. No wonder a guy like RTJ's architecture really wasn't much good in the end of the day.

This is also why I'll never be able to get into golf architecture and make my name forever with one golf course in one shining moment like an architectural meteorite. I'm already too old to die young!  

We like those guys because of the WAY in which they are different. And that WAY, I would posit, is that they design with an awareness of what was best from the Golden Age, reinterpret it and actually use it in their courses.

Well sure, but I'd argue that their designs aren't great just because they use elements of golden age architecture. It's the use of those elements in addition to their own new contributions, their creativity, their personal history, and their own new ideas. A designer could be "old school" and still be lame.

Tom -

You could add MacK to your list of wacko's. He did some in-yo-face, nutty stuff. People made fun of "MacKenzie greens". ANGC when it opened looked like it was designed by an architect on acid. It was Fear and Loathing in Augusta. Wild, daring stuff that he might not have gotten away with without a Bobby Jones there to support him.

(It will always be a mark against MacK, however, that he didn't die younger. A bit of bad form, that. )

That wildness is missing from so much modern stuff. Maybe it has to do with the fact that so many people these days do architecture in order to put food on the table.

Even the very best moderns don't take the design chances that MacK, Leeds, H. Wilson, MacD, Thomas and others took.

Why? I have a pet theory. Take it out to the backyard and shoot it if you want, but it goes like this:

Might the prevalence of water on modern courses make a difference? Instead of building difficulty into the design, you import it by way of water hazards. Which soaks up the quota of danger allowed to a course, requiring that the rest of the design be more vanilla?

I think the rarity of water hazards back then and the abundance of water hazards now makes a difference in how you approach the design. The amount of difficulty you can build into the dry part of the course is capped by the extreme danger posed by water at other locations on the course. Water hazards soak up, as it were, the quota of acceptable difficulty and leave an architect with fewer design options at other places. If you did otherwise, the course's slope would get too high.

Imagine, say, PII with six or seven holes with water in play. I think Ross would have had to balance the extreme danger posed by those hazards by softening other parts of the course. Resulting in a far less interesting course.

Bob