Does interpretation equal restoration???

« **on:** September 24, 2006, 07:59:04 AM »

I say NO.....yet I keep seeing it all the time...

« **Reply #1 on:** September 24, 2006, 08:11:08 AM »

MikeY:

What do you make of this quotation from Max Behr from his article entitled "Art in Golf Architecture"?

"Golf architecture is not an art of representation; it is, essentially, and art of interpretation. And an interprertative art allows freedom to fancy only through obedience to the law which dominates its medium, a law that lies outside ourselves. The medium of the artist is paint, and he becomes its master; but the medium of the golf architect is the surface of the earth over which the forces of Nature alone are master."

Obviously, the real difference here is Max Behr was probably not talking about or thinking about restoration architecture, he was thinking only about new and original construction.

Perhaps the new mantra in architecture should be that new construction should be an art of interpretation but restoration architecture should be an art of representation.

« **Reply #2 on:** September 24, 2006, 10:27:45 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on September 24, 2006, 08:11:08 AM

MikeY:

Perhaps the new mantra in architecture should be that new construction should be an art of interpretation but restoration architecture should be an art of representation.

TE,
I can't read all that Behr stuff....
but the mantra should be factual existance as to the original...not drawings or other data....IMHO

« **Reply #3 on:** September 24, 2006, 11:03:37 AM »

"...but the mantra should be factual existance as to the original...not drawings or other data....IMHO"

If changes were made by committee, architect, nature, whatever between the original and the restoration (as on most golf courses), what else is there to seek but drawings, photos and other archival material? Again, we are a bit at odds on this, but what if the drawings were accurately manifested on the ground? Granted the process is unusual, but there is at least one architect that worked that way in the classic era.

« **Reply #4 on:** September 24, 2006, 11:09:52 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on September 24, 2006, 08:11:08 AM

MikeY:

What do you make of this quotation from Max Behr from his article entitled "Art in Golf Architecture"?

"Golf architecture is not an art of representation; it is, essentially, and art of interpretation. And an interprertative art allows freedom to fancy only through obedience to the law which dominates its medium, a law that lies outside ourselves. The medium of the artist is paint, and he becomes its master; but the medium of the golf architect is the surface of the earth over which the forces of Nature alone are master."

TEPaul,

I'd say that Behr was addressing golf architecture in the context of a "blank canvas" and not in the context of an existing painting.

Obviously, the real difference here is Max Behr was probably not talking about or thinking about restoration architecture, he was thinking only about new and original construction.

It's amazing that you were able to discern that.

Perhaps the new mantra in architecture should be that new construction should be an art of interpretation but restoration architecture should be an art of representation.

"REPLICATION", not representation.

« **Reply #5 on:** September 24, 2006, 11:18:52 AM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on September 24, 2006, 11:03:37 AM

"...but the mantra should be factual existance as to the original...not drawings or other data....IMHO"

If changes were made by committee, architect, nature, whatever between the original and the restoration (as on most golf courses), what else is there to seek but drawings, photos and other archival material? Again, we are a bit at odds on this, but what if the drawings were accurately manifested on the ground? Granted the process is unusual, but there is at least one architect that worked that way in the classic era.

Wayne,
I don't actually think we are at odds on this.....a photo of the original is acceptable if it can be discerned from all necessary angles for dupilcation.....but original drawings just don't convince me in most cases....
I know you feel that Flynn's drawings were extremely accurate and placed on the ground as drawn...could be...I don't know....but I would say that if threee shapers had the same Flynn drawing today....you would have three different greens.....
My problem is...I just don't believe there is a true restoration in exixtence of any golf course....they evolve to quickly.....BUT THAT IS NOT TO SAY I DON'T APPRECIATE SOME OF THE EFFORTS.....

« **Reply #6 on:** September 24, 2006, 12:03:47 PM »

I said:

"Obviously, the real difference here is Max Behr was probably not talking about or thinking about restoration architecture, he was thinking only about new and original construction."

Pat Mucci said:

"TEPaul,
I'd say that Behr was addressing golf architecture in the context of a "blank canvas" and not in the context of an existing painting."

It's amazing that you were able to discern that."

Patrick:

What's amazing is how well you've learnt to repeat what I've just said.

« **Reply #7 on:** September 24, 2006, 04:01:28 PM »

Mike,
I know you are not big AT ALL on "restoration" and that's fine. But that does not mean there is not a place in this business for those who attempt to do so with deserving golf course designs.

Is there such a thing as "pure" restoration in golf course architecture - I don't think so. Is interpretation required - yes it is. Does that require extra effort and study - yes it does. Will you know for sure if you got it right when you are finished - probably not because there is no real way of knowing.

One of the important points as far as I am concerned is that those involved make a concerted effort to bring back some of the features/intent from the original design. I posted this simple chronology before and I think it is worth posting again. Does our Master Plan get it right - who knows for sure? Was there a lot of work and research involved - quite a bit. Did we have to make some compromises - yes we did. Was there some intrepretation - yes there was. At the end of the day, however, we like to think that this hole as well as the others will at least be much closer to what was originally designed. And most importantly, holes like this will be much more interesting for the members to play and enjoy.

« **Reply #8 on:** September 24, 2006, 04:13:21 PM »

"I know you feel that Flynn's drawings were extremely accurate and placed on the ground as drawn...could be...I don't know....but I would say that if threee shapers had the same Flynn drawing today....you would have three different greens....."

Mike,

I couldn't agree more. Having a regular construction crew headed by either Red Lawrence or William Gordon surely allowed continuity in execution.

We can have a friendly debate when I see you next week. Loser buys the beer

« **Reply #9 on:** September 24, 2006, 04:33:00 PM »

Wayne/Mike,
The point about different construction crews is a good one and another reason that makes doing "restorations" today even more difficult. When dealing with a Flynn design, none of us have the benefit of having Mr. Lawrence or Mr. Gordon to oversee the work. That in itself means interpretation will be required. I think all will agree, a patient contractor is necessary and one that is willing to keep fine tuning the work until those overseeing it think it is "right".

« **Reply #10 on:** September 24, 2006, 04:37:05 PM »

One further point to make - How many architects of the past did drawings in three dimensions? Not many did sketches of what the holes were supposed to look like when they were complete. That in itself means some interpretation will be necessary as one tries to "restore" a look three dimensional look from the past.

« **Reply #11 on:** September 24, 2006, 04:47:17 PM »

"One further point to make - How many architects of the past did drawings in three dimensions? "

Depending upon how much time on site, how much experience with the crew and how detailed the drawings and construction instructions are, I don't see 3D renditions being at all necessary nor advantageous.

"I think all will agree, a patient contractor is necessary and one that is willing to keep fine tuning the work until those overseeing it think it is "right". "

I don't see why patience is required if the owner/club is fully committed and the architect is talented and communicates well. The amount of fine tuning is directly proportional to the common understanding at the beginning and the ability of the entire team to execute.

« **Reply #12 on:** September 24, 2006, 05:31:26 PM »

Wayne,
One thing I always remember from Gil Hanse is that he believed that the secret to great classic bunkers lies in the third dimension. I just know that when I've been on site, showing a shaper a simple three dimensional sketch seemed to always be appreciated. I wish I was better at such things as it sure would help. I know Mike Strantz was a big believer in this skill and it does help to convey ideas (one of the reasons pictures help is because they can show three dimensions).

Maybe I'm in the monority, but I also believe patience is most definitely important especially in restoration work. How many shapers/contractors do you know who are willing to take the time to go look at other bunkers/design features and then continue to refine a feature until it is felt to tie in correctly? Some call that fine tuning "change orders"

« **Reply #13 on:** September 24, 2006, 06:33:27 PM »

Quote from: Mark_Fine on September 24, 2006, 04:01:28 PM

Mark,

I've always felt that your presentation should be "exhibit A" whenever a club is considering work on their golf course.

The evolution of a golf course, for better or worse, becomes fairly clear when an exhibit such as yours is presented to those contemplating changes.

Many features at many clubs were lost for non-golf reasons, and having the photographic records to draw upon can help a club understand what they had and whether or not it's worthy of restoration.

« **Reply #14 on:** September 24, 2006, 07:12:00 PM »

Pat,
A big part of doing "restoration" work (Mike you can call it what you want

) is communication. I can't stress how important it is to properly explain and show club officials how their golf course has evolved. It it then totally up to them to decide what (if anything) they want to do about it. This type of chronology is just one of a number of methods used to help communicate change. I find that the explaination as to why things like this has happened is sometimes almost as important.
Mark

« **Reply #15 on:** September 24, 2006, 07:32:23 PM »

Quote from: Mark_Fine on September 24, 2006, 04:01:28 PM

Mike,
I know you are not big AT ALL on "restoration" and that's fine. But that does not mean there is not a place in this business for those who attempt to do so with deserving golf course designs.

Mark,
I don't think you have ever heard me say I am not big on "restoration".....I have the utmost respect for some of the old dead guy work and I feel that I have studied it....comprehend it and know how to research it if I choose. What I am not big on is how "restoration " is marketed today. Today it is a fad and a cottage industry in my opinion. There are plenty of arhcitects out there that can do restorations.....the cottage industry has come about via the dead guy societies and all of the hype that has been created as to restoration experts. Personally I enjoy some if not most of the restoration work I have played. I have played Aronimink and enjoy it very much but I can spot that bunker style anywere and know who the restorer was....I have played Mimosa Hills and enjoyed it but I can spot that restoration style anywhere....I have played CC of Mobile and thought it was good but I saw more Raynor than Ross. For me...I did not matter.....the work was good.....but don't load me up with the "restoration hype".....
I sincerely believe that the experience and mistakes one gains while designing his own work makes one much more realistic towards restoration of the dead guys. And for those reasons I believe in very non invasive restoration if one chooses restoration...however if a club decides they need to begin moving tees and bunkers...then by all means give them a good solid product that is not held back by being tied to some preservation of old features kick. To me East Lake is a good example.....restorationist would not applaud it but when things were analyzed and they knew what they wanted they moved greens and tees and bunkers and changed par on holes to get the desired results. And they did not consult any dead guy society for approval.....
I may come off as a "bad guy" when it comes to "restoration"...I hope not.....nothing against the restored courses or the people that do it....it just should not be made out as though there is some huge mistique to it....
Mike

« **Reply #16 on:** September 24, 2006, 07:42:37 PM »

[quote author=Mark_Fine I think all will agree, a patient contractor is necessary and one that is willing to keep fine tuning the work until those overseeing it think it is "right".

Quote

Mark,
I think with most architects he will get it right if he wishes to get paid. Would you not agree?
Most spec I have seen read something like this:

Contractor shall be responsible for the layout and staking of all golf course features (tees, fairways, greens, sand bunkers, grass hollows, mounds, rolls, terraces, etc.) according to the locations, dimensions, and elevations as shown on the Golf Course Master Plan and Golf Course Contour Plan.

Golf Course Architect reserves the right to modify the shapes, the locations, and/or the elevations of the golf course features shown on the Golf Course Master Plan and Golf Course Contour Plan to improve the aesthetic appeal, the playability, or the relationship of proposed shapes to surrounding environment.

« **Reply #17 on:** September 24, 2006, 07:44:11 PM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on September 24, 2006, 04:13:21 PM

"I know you feel that Flynn's drawings were extremely accurate and placed on the ground as drawn...could be...I don't know....but I would say that if threee shapers had the same Flynn drawing today....you would have three different greens....."

Mike,

I couldn't agree more. Having a regular construction crew headed by either Red Lawrence or William Gordon surely allowed continuity in execution.

We can have a friendly debate when I see you next week. Loser buys the beer

I don't drink...how bout banana splits to a beer

« **Reply #18 on:** September 24, 2006, 08:03:18 PM »

"I don't drink...how bout banana splits to a beer"

How 'bout cheesesteaks vs banana splits?

« **Reply #19 on:** September 24, 2006, 08:07:28 PM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on September 24, 2006, 08:03:18 PM

"I don't drink...how bout banana splits to a beer"

How 'bout cheesesteaks vs banana splits?

that will work

« **Reply #20 on:** September 24, 2006, 09:27:09 PM »

MikeY:

You don't drink? Well, shit, can you fit a banana split in that flask I gave you and can it give you the inspiration a flask filled with licka can give you when you run outta ideas on site?

I know a flask with some kinda licka in it can make you really smart but I thought all a banana split does is make you fat.

« **Reply #21 on:** September 24, 2006, 09:44:08 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on September 24, 2006, 09:27:09 PM

MikeY:

You don't drink? Well, shit, can you fit a banana split in that flask I gave you and can it give you the inspiration a flask filled with licka can give you when you run outta ideas on site?

I know a flask with some kinda licka in it can make you really smart but I thought all a banana split does is make you fat.

I keep that flask full of allergy medicine.....and those babana splits do make you fat....

« **Reply #22 on:** September 24, 2006, 10:16:14 PM »

Mike,
You are right about what is customary in the specs, but you also know that when most contractors have to do something different than what is called for in the specs/drawings, it usually means additional costs to the client.

A noted architect once told me that specs are important and detailed drawings can be useful. Sometimes you must do them to appease the client. But at the end of the day, if it doesn't look right when you get out there and put it in the dirt, you fix it until it is right! Isn't there a famous quote about "the best laid plans,....."

« **Reply #23 on:** September 24, 2006, 10:20:30 PM »

Mike Young,

I would be interested in what you mean by the "restoration style" you referred to at Mimosa Hills, please clarify.

The Mimosa project was nothing more than a thorough cleaning and removing of excess sand build up in the bunker bottoms and on the faces. We took them back to the original clay materials by hand, revealing those wonderful bunkers. Those are Ross' bunkers and there is plenty of photographic evidence to support this. The depths are all supported by his field drawings which we had for every hole.

The greens were expanded back out to their original shapes and sizes as well as the contours preserved. Again, the field notes, sketches, plans and photographs support this.

I have a 1938 video tape of an amatuer match being played at Mimosa that clearly shows the bunkers and greens just as they were restored. I dispute your claim that I injected any of a so called style into that golf course.

Kris W Spence

« **Reply #24 on:** September 24, 2006, 10:35:30 PM »

Quote from: Mark_Fine on September 24, 2006, 10:16:14 PM

Mike,
You are right about what is customary in the specs, but you also know that when most contractors have to do something different than what is called for in the specs/drawings, it usually means additional costs to the client.

A noted architect once told me that specs are important and detailed drawings can be useful. Sometimes you must do them to appease the client. But at the end of the day, if it doesn't look right when you get out there and put it in the dirt, you fix it until it is right! Isn't there a famous quote about "the best laid plans,....."

Mark,
I know that most contractors realize that shaping will be done until it meets the architect's approval....or at least most of the ones I have seen. JMO

News:

Mike_Young

TEPaul

Mike_Young

wsmorrison

Patrick_Mucci

Mike_Young

TEPaul

Mark_Fine

wsmorrison

Mark_Fine

Mark_Fine

wsmorrison

Mark_Fine

Patrick_Mucci

Mark_Fine

Mike_Young

Mike_Young

Mike_Young

wsmorrison

Mike_Young

TEPaul

Mike_Young

Mark_Fine

Kris Spence

Mike_Young