How do you determine what an architect's defining work is?

« **on:** November 02, 2007, 03:29:56 PM »

Another interesting bit from the GW weakness thread.

How would you determine what an architect's defining work is?

Is it his highest ranked course?

Maybe one that he tinkered with much of his life?

Maybe his highest budget course? His free-est hand?

Is it the one course that you'd insist others must see to really evaluate his work?

I've often thought that musicians had defining songs, but these were songs that weren't necessarily their best songs, just ones that kind of summed them up best.

Springsteen - Born To Run
Green Day - Chump (maybe should be replaced with American Idiot, haven't had enough time to reflect on that yet)
Vivaldi - Four Seasons (okay, I only know one other Vivaldi piece, probably just grasping at straws there)

I'd assume most people would list Tom D's as Pacific Dunes; I wonder if Tom D would agree. (Actually, Tom's 31 Flavors is probably a good start for a lot of architects.)

So how would you define an architect's defining work?

List some examples if it will help.

« **Reply #1 on:** November 02, 2007, 03:54:20 PM »

George:

Very good topic; what do you suppose Fownes' defining work was?

Curious what the Morrison/Young/Mucci axis will say about Flynn/Tillie/Macdonald-Raynor? Certainly Knollwood by Banks may be one. NGLA for Macdonald, but what of Raynor alone and their combined efforts?

For moderns -- Pete Dye? I know some might suggest Hilton Head, though it's not one that comes to the golfing public's mind (which probably thinks TPC first, second and third...)

« **Reply #2 on:** November 02, 2007, 04:10:16 PM »

No true artist would consider one piece of work to "define" his career.

Makes you wonder why outsiders always want to figure out which is one's defining work.

« **Reply #3 on:** November 02, 2007, 04:21:15 PM »

With careers spanning so long, often through an architects "periods" or different economic periods, I think it would be impossible to define it with just one course.

For example, Tom Doak may be equally proud of his new course work on great sites, and his flatland work (creating interest at Lubbock, for example) and his restoration work on old clubs, and his work at creating an affordable public course in Denver.

And, each could be a masterpiece in its own way, even if most of us would take Pac Dunes (or some future quality course) as his defining moment/work.

But, as he suggests, he won't consider any one course as his defining moment, if for no other reason that we feel the need to redefine even ourselves over time. I mean, what gca wants to be known for doing exactly the same thing over and over, or hitting a peak and then falling back? We like to feel we are moving forward and that our story can't be written until the last piece of work is in the ground and we are in the grave.

« **Reply #4 on:** November 02, 2007, 04:23:08 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on November 02, 2007, 04:10:16 PM

No true artist would consider one piece of work to "define" his career.

Makes you wonder why outsiders always want to figure out which is one's defining work.

That's certainly an interesting take. I hadn't really considered it insulting, or even limiting, in any broad sense.

At least Fownes wouldn't be insulted.

« **Reply #5 on:** November 02, 2007, 04:24:57 PM »

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on November 02, 2007, 04:21:15 PM

We like to feel we are moving forward and that our story can't be written until the last piece of work is in the ground and we are in the grave.

Seems a little extreme, no?

Having a defining work for a living artist doesn't mean he can't redefine himself in the future, does it? Or even just refine the definition?

« **Reply #6 on:** November 02, 2007, 04:30:34 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on November 02, 2007, 04:10:16 PM

No true artist would consider one piece of work to "define" his career.

Makes you wonder why outsiders always want to figure out which is one's defining work.

There are certainly plenty of artists who have works commonly considered their defining work, even if they wouldn't admit it themselves:

Mark Twain - Huckleberry Finn

da Vinci - Mona Lisa

Coppola - The Godfather

The Beatles - Sgt. Pepper

and so forth. I think it probably happens in literature more than any other art form, may be because it's so hard to write a great book.

« **Reply #7 on:** November 02, 2007, 04:57:03 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on November 02, 2007, 04:10:16 PM

No true artist would consider one piece of work to "define" his career.

No true artist would consent to, much less participate in, an exercise whose purpose was an ordinal ranking of works of "art." If people rank it, it's not art. Cinema comes closest, but like golf course architecture is a commercial venture first. And those movies's whose first purpose is not commercial,then very rarely does it show up in any type of ranking, and then usually not seriously. ("Best Casino Courses" sounds like the equivalent of a Hotel / Motel Art Fair.)

Cremaster tightens...slicing up eyeballs, oh ho ho ho!

« **Reply #8 on:** November 02, 2007, 05:23:05 PM »

I don't know. I think if an artist is both talented and lucky, there'll be at the end of his days at least one very keen and appreciative and serious sort who -- having studied carefully that artists' entire body of work over his entire career -- might reach some conclusions about the main characteristics of that work, and might make some educated guesses about what particular piece of work best/most manifests those characteristics, and then might even go on to share those thoughts widely, with the world (thus helping preserve and protect and popularize that artists' work). IF the artist was both talented and lucky...

Peter

« **Reply #9 on:** November 02, 2007, 05:53:27 PM »

I don't agree with all of Jeff's defense, but no one has said anything yet which would change my mind. I hate (HATE!!!) to be pigeonholed.

Phil: Did Leonardo, Mark Twain or The Beatles ever agree with the consensus view of their "defining" work? Seems to me they all did a lot of great things in their lives.

Why I object so strongly to this attempt to "define" is that it usually leads to a dumbing down and generalization of style and motives. Back when I wrote for GOLF Magazine they always wanted me to define Ross or MacKenzie's style in one paragraph, which is ludicrous.

Likewise, there are a lot of one-trick-pony restorers who find it easier to tear out every single tree and rebuild every single bunker than to think about each individually, as the original designer did. That's why the only good restorations are based on detailed photographs, where you are working with the golf course actually built, and not just a generalization of the designer's style.

« **Reply #10 on:** November 02, 2007, 05:58:09 PM »

Quote from: Shivas Schmidt on November 02, 2007, 04:20:48 PM

Quote from: Tom_Doak on November 02, 2007, 04:10:16 PM
No true artist would consider one piece of work to "define" his career.

That's a broad statement. Skynard always closes with Freebird. You sayin' they ain't artists?

I think the Hillbilly Tour would spit a wad o' Redman juice on your white shoes for even suggesting as such.

Are the crowd pleasers always the defining work? I doubt you'll find many musicians agree to that (although I guess it depends on who is doing the defining).

Cheers,
Brad

« **Reply #11 on:** November 02, 2007, 06:21:19 PM »

Interesting that the Beatles last released album was called "Get Back." I guess they were trying to restore their own original style after being all over the map over seven years time.

« **Reply #12 on:** November 02, 2007, 06:44:48 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on November 02, 2007, 05:53:27 PM

Phil: Did Leonardo, Mark Twain or The Beatles ever agree with the consensus view of their "defining" work? Seems to me they all did a lot of great things in their lives.

Tom,

I agree that the artist himself rarely considers any particular piece of work defining. The notion as to what is considered defining is external, and in some cases 'defining' may be the same as the most famous. Leonardo was a polymath for whom painting was just one expression of his talent, but his most famous work is undoubtedly the Mona Lisa.

In some cases, and I would put the Godfather in this category, the work is considered defining because it's so much better than any other contribution by that artist. Welles and Citizen Kane is another example probably and certainly some writers (Melville - Moby Dick etc,)

Pac Dunes may be your most acclaimed work to date but you have time to surpass it.

« **Reply #13 on:** November 02, 2007, 06:48:49 PM »

Quote from: Shivas Schmidt on November 02, 2007, 04:20:48 PM

Quote from: Tom_Doak on November 02, 2007, 04:10:16 PM
No true artist would consider one piece of work to "define" his career.

That's a broad statement. Skynard always closes with Freebird. You sayin' they ain't artists?

I think the Hillbilly Tour would spit a wad o' Redman juice on your white shoes for even suggesting as such.

Yes, Tom. In the future I strongly suggest you close all your concerts with the extended jam version of Pacific Dunes, because that's what the fans want.

« **Reply #14 on:** November 02, 2007, 06:54:33 PM »

Quote from: Phil Benedict on November 02, 2007, 06:44:48 PM

Quote from: Tom_Doak on November 02, 2007, 05:53:27 PM

Phil: Did Leonardo, Mark Twain or The Beatles ever agree with the consensus view of their "defining" work? Seems to me they all did a lot of great things in their lives.

Pac Dunes may be your most acclaimed work to date but you have time to surpass it.

I think its a matter of opinion. For example, I think I would prefer Cape Kidnappers or Ballyneal over Pac Dunes.

« **Reply #15 on:** November 02, 2007, 06:56:36 PM »

Musicians can pen and record hundreds of songs, so being pigeonholed isn't as much of an issue for them as it is for golf course architects, who get far fewer chances. It's a false analogy.

Tom D.:

What sucks about being pigeonholed is that people latch onto the things you do that no one else can do and then refuse to see that you're still still doing the things that everyone else does, just better.

Artists must make a living though, and the marketing thing is a trap. Old story, I suppose.

« **Reply #16 on:** November 02, 2007, 07:38:05 PM »

Phil's right in that it's usually an 'external' judgement, and Tom, Jeff, I can certainly understand not wanting to be pigeonhold by outside voices/influences. But it seems to me that 'defining' is something else, and that artists themselves, including you both, help shape those definitions all the time, sometimes consciously and sometimes not: through their work, of course, but also through writings on personal websites, in books, and on discussion boards, by how they compare/contrast themselves to other artists and other work, and by what assignments they chose to take on (or not). And wasn't that always the case? Wasn't Macdonald 'defining' himself in Scotland's Gift and MacKenzie defining himself in the Spirit of St Andrews? In the broadest strokes, I think they were. Tom mentions GM wanting to have one paragaph definitions - that IS ludicrous. As a reader, I too dislike most of the defining I read, on whatever subject/artist; it's simply lousy work. But I continue to hope for (and occasionally find) a real expert writing about a subject with real clarity, and then it's wonderful stuff.

Peter

« **Reply #17 on:** November 02, 2007, 07:59:02 PM »

Let's not read "defining work" as stereotypical work[/i]...

To fairly identify an artists definitive piece a person must have a thorough understanding of that architect. I would think that a flattering circumstance for an individual...for someone else to actually take the time to become intimately familiar with your work.

« **Reply #18 on:** November 02, 2007, 07:59:46 PM »

George Pazin,

If you think "Born to Run," an anthem if there ever was one, is "defining" how do you explain the existence of "Candy's Room" and "Meeting Across the River" by the same artist?

Phil Benedict,

IMO you are confusing "best" or "most acclaimed" ("we think it's the best") with "defining". When I think of the Beatles, for example, I think of Magical Mystery Tour, Rubber Soul, the White Album, and Meet the Beatles, not just Sgt. Pepper, as "defining" them.

Peter Pollotta is on the right track--definition, if it must be done, requires a long time and wide perspective.

« **Reply #19 on:** November 02, 2007, 09:01:32 PM »

Eric:

I actually think of Born to Run -- the album -- as Springsteen's defining work (and I think this entire topic is quite appropriate, regardless of the objections of the posting architects). Springsteen's written so many good songs, I think it's difficult to peg one as simply his best or most defining (I'd throw in Atlantic City, Youngstown, Independence Day, Rosalita, Glory Days, and a few others as candidates). But Born to Run the album will be the one that folks talk about for years, well after Bruce has hung up his guitar.

In the same vein, I think you'd be hard-pressed to pick out one hole from an architect's collection and label it the best (to cite one example, how would you choose between Mackenzie's 12th and 13th at Augusta National -- two great holes, maybe the best in the world in their respective categories -- target par 3 and short, gambling par 5). But I think it's fair to say and argue, this 18 represents his best or most defining work.

And artists (and I'd include architects in that, as Tom apparently does) come under this kind of scrutiny because by and large they put out their works for public consumption/display.

« **Reply #20 on:** November 02, 2007, 09:03:25 PM »

Quote from: Eric_Terhorst on November 02, 2007, 07:59:46 PM

George Pazin,

Phil Benedict,

IMO you are confusing "best" or "most acclaimed" ("we think it's the best") with "defining". When I think of the Beatles, for example, I think of Magical Mystery Tour, Rubber Soul, the White Album, and Meet the Beatles, not just Sgt. Pepper, as "defining" them.

There can be confusion between defining and acclaimed. The Beatles did a lot of great stuff, and Sgt. Pepper isn't necessarily their best work, but it's the one people remember as the high water mark of their career. For example, this year was the 40th anniversary of Sgt. Pepper, and there was plenty of publicity surrounding the anniversary. I can't recall any other album getting the same recognition.

I agree with Tom Doak that there's no such thing as a defining work for an artist with a big body of great work. But there are cases in golf course architecture - eg CBM and NGLA - where the artist laid it all on the line in one seminal work.

« **Reply #21 on:** November 02, 2007, 09:52:58 PM »

Parsing words carefully, I can see your side, Dave. But I think there are plenty of artists out there that don't equate their best work with their "defining work". Take Rees Jones, for example. What would this audience (the equivalent of musical groupies) consider his defining work? Would it be the same as what he (or even we) consider his best work? Again, not necessarily.

Another example, I saw Nickel Creek in concert here this last week (great show BTW). They often wrap up their last set with some cover tunes that are real audience pleasers (they even do Freebird from time to time). Would this then be considered their defining work? They didn't even write the songs. The golf equivalent would be an architects defining work being a restoration or renovation.

Cheers,
Brad

« **Reply #22 on:** November 02, 2007, 10:09:19 PM »

For an artist, designer, writer, whatever, to be able to identify his defining work comes only when he realises he is no longer producing his finest work....past his peak...has started to gel...which allows for a retrospective analysis.....which is hard to do when involved in the fray.

Its a point that is reached by most designers et al, except those that have burned out, gone psycho,have dementia, or those who's ego's refuse to face the facts.

...but I guess the question was addressed to the defining public at large on how to judge someones work....my bad.

This post did make me feel again how fortunate that Vincent had a great believing brother and a few others like Dr Gachet who could recognise true genius....I doubt his work could have been made for us to enjoy with out them.

« **Reply #23 on:** November 02, 2007, 10:10:30 PM »

We need Lloyd C to chime in on this thread ASAP!

Cheers,
Brad

« **Reply #24 on:** November 02, 2007, 10:21:56 PM »

Paul
really good post, all around. Lots to think about for so few words used.

Peter
By the way, I've calculated it and your overall words-to-impact ratio (WOTIR) is in direct inverse proportion to mine.

News:

George Pazin

Phil McDade

Tom_Doak

Jeff_Brauer

George Pazin

George Pazin

Phil Benedict

Mark Bourgeois

Peter Pallotta

Tom_Doak

Brad Swanson

Jeff_Brauer

Phil Benedict

John Kirk

Matthew Hunt

Gary Daughters

Peter Pallotta

JESII

Eric_Terhorst

Phil McDade

Phil Benedict

Brad Swanson

paul cowley

Brad Swanson

Peter Pallotta