Paul Cowley said;
“I really don't understand a need to connect the two ala a chicken and the egg scenario....and even more especially Tom Macwoods attempts to connect GCA in a serious way with the Arts and Crafts movement.... GCA was clearly a minor footnote for A and C....whose movement was much more about lifestyle, Interior and Exterior Design and Building Architecture.”
D Moriarty’s reply;
“While this is often repeated on this website, I've never seen any compelling support for this depiction of such a narrow arts and crafts movement. Do you have any such support or are you just repeating the gca.com party line?”
Paul:
It’s just a shame this kind of exchange takes place on this website. Obviously D Moriarty doesn’t know you or what you do but here’s a guy who self-admittedly knows very little about landscape architecture or its origins and its developments both because of and during the careers of such heavyweight English landscape architects as Humphrey Repton and Capability Brown, and American’s famous landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted but that nonetheless does not stop him from pontificating that your opinion that there's a tenuous connection between GCA and the A/C Movement is UNSUPPORTABLE.
Here you are both a golf course architect AND a building architect including a broad foundation in landscape architecture and the art of land planning and he’s telling YOU that your opinion is unsupportable and that your opinion is guilty of a NARROW depiction of the A/C Movement and that your opinion is towing some GOLFCLUBTLAS.com party line? And all this after you explained that in your opinion the A/C Movement was much more about lifestyle, Interior and Exterior Design and Building Architecture. Is there anyone in their right mind who actually thinks that sounds like a NARROW depiction of the A/C Movement? Lifestyle, Interior and Exterior Design and also Building Architecture sure doesn't sound particularly NARROW to me. Does it sound narrow to you?
Is it any wonder that GOLFCLUBATLAS occasionally has a reputation for mindlessly unyielding and stubborn arrogance with contributors like that? One would think some of these contributors on here might be content, at least, to learn something from you and some of the other trained and professional architects with training in LArch on here but apparently not.
You said in your last post:
“DM....I have spent 20 plus years designing structures large and small in the A and C, Mission and similar related design modes and since I have been PAID to do so, I have had to do alot of pre-requisite research and until I started to frequent this site, I don't recall any direct referenced connection between the AandC movement and GCA, especially on this side of the pond.....LArch is usually treated more as an addendum to the main thrust of the movement.
...do I have any support for this ?...my word I guess, in lieu of this thread stretching endlessy in some connectivity excercise of questionable value.”
'…..this thread stretching endlessly in some connectivity exercise of questionable value’ is a very good way to put some of these threads such as the ones on the A/C Movement’s primary influence on GCA. What is the value of attempting to identify connections between art forms or inspirations of one art form on another if the claimed connection, inspiration or influence becomes so broad as to become virtually meaningless? What is the value or the purpose of eventually retreating to a position in this kind of argument or discussion that since both are art forms then it follows that the A/C Movement must be a primary influence on GCA? In my opinion, and apparently in yours, it is of very little value or interest historically or otherwise to stretch these types of discussions about art forms endlessly in some connectivity exercise, as you say. As you suggest, if someone broadens a comparison far enough they’d probably be able to find some connection between almost anything. So what? Where’s the interest in influences, inspirations or connections in that?
Tom MacWood is obviously looking for some similarities in design practices between Larch and GCA and that’s fine, and I’m sure some of us can find a few but what does that mean? Does it mean there is some vast influence on GCA from Larch or A/C architecture? What may some similarities of practice or features be between LArch and GCA? How about the use of groups of trees in GCA? That could be an influence of Larch on GCA although it may not necessarily be. Or how about the classic “Allee” of trees that some of the massive English, French or Italian architecturally landscaped estates and such evidence? Could that be some Larch influence on the prevalence of tree-lining golf holes to create a contained “frame” or “scene”? Perhaps. What about the interesting use of the English “HaHa”? I’ve certainly seen that in classic English Estate landscape architecture (Ardrossan Farms by FLO is an example) and I have seen it recently in GCA, notably from Gil Hanse.
But as far as this exercise of endlessly stretching some connectivity between Larch and GCA or GCA and A/C, just look at this remark from Tom MacWood in Part II of his Arts and Crafts Movement essay when he describes the philosophy of William Morris, basically the father of the A/C Movement, and seemingly a man and philosophy Tom MacWood admires for various reasons:
“A love for medieval beauty was fostered during his undergraduate years at Oxford, little changed since the fifteenth century. Having gone there to study for the ministry, he read The Stones of Venice and decided to become an architect. After experimenting with both architecture and painting, Morris devoted himself to the decorative arts. In 1861 he formed what would become Morris and Company, a collaborative effort with a goal of uniting all the arts.”
Do you see that----‘a goal of uniting all the arts”?!
Is it any wonder then why Tom MacWood, and perhaps even D Moriarty constantly seem to stretch these discussions endlessly in some connectivity exercise between various art forms? That’s precisely what William Morris and his A/C Movement wanted to do, dreamed of doing, attempted to do, in fact. As Tom MacWood himself said it was Morris’s goal to UNITE ALL THE ARTS. It is also, as Tom MacWood admits, a movement and a goal that failed---that petered out, in fact.
Should that goal be rejuvenated in some way today? To me that’s a far more interesting question to discuss than if in fact Larch or the A/C Movement was or wasn’t a primary influence on GCA. There seems little question that Larch, or even just “ART” principles have become fairly central to GCA in the modern age of GCA. Some, like apparently Bob Crosby and myself, think that may not be a particularly healthy thing for GCA and its future and I'm sure we'd both be more than happy to explain why we feel that way.