[Tom Huckaby]

I've read many of those books.

I am most definitely NOT serious about GCA.

That is all, except for this tidbit, inserted for the viewing pleasure of all friends of Mucci and Sweeney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0Y7yjxJVlc

 

[Peter Pallotta]

What was that line by Einstein? I think it went something like "If I've been able to see further it's because I've stood on the shoulders of giants".  If it was good enough for Einstein....

On the terms/concepts that get used or even invented around here, I think for a newcomer like me they've been great. Yes, sometimes a term/concept can be just another way of saying what we all 'know' intuitively (I'm a philosophy grad, so I know all about that); but at their best, they distill a great deal of learning and insight (neither of which I have) into an idea that one can then 'unfold' in many different ways, contextualizing and deepening one's thoughts/knowledge as that knowledge grows

Peter

[David Stamm]

The problem with golf course architects is they tend to write what they think people want to read.

So it is now, and so it has always been

John, I don't agree. I really don't think many people could understand then, like now, what Behr for example was saying sometimes. It's intense stuff. Certainly not written for what others WANTED to read. People want to read quotes by the designder along the lines of "this was the best land we've ever had to work with", or "a golf course was meant to be out here", because it makes the average player fell better about forking out the high green fee that normally goes along with it.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

You hold some odd views.

Neither Raphael nor Bach wrote much about what they were doing. Nobody did back then. But if they had, do you really think that Poussin and Mozart would have ignored it? Seriously?

Heck, Mozart wrote several transcriptions of Bach's pieces. He might have known more about Bach than anyone of his generation. What purpose would have been served by skipping things Bach might have written about his music? Why would Mozart have done that?

(BTW, how do you know FLW didn't read what his architectural predecessors wrote?)

Your views are odd because they seem to presuppose that reading the giants in an artistic tradition somehow taints you. That once read, your creativity is forever shackled. That it poisons the creative well.

I think it is quite the opposite. It liberates current practitioners. It is an oxygen line. Which is why, in fact, the best artists, composers, architects and others do read - when it exists - what their predecessors had to say . They gobble it up. They would be foolish not to.

That's why, for example, Tom Doak made himself into an expert on MacK.  

Bob

[Kalen Braley]

I've read many of those books.

I am most definitely NOT serious about GCA.

That is all, except for this tidbit, inserted for the viewing pleasure of all friends of Mucci and Sweeney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0Y7yjxJVlc

 

Come on Huck,

You can't post stuff like that while I'm reading it at work.  I was laughing my ass off and everyone was looking at me all crazy-like...

Too funny about the perenial pre-season ranking...

[David Stamm]

Heck, Mozart wrote several transcriptions of Bach's pieces. He might have known more about Bach than anyone of his generation.  

Actually, Mendelssohn I believe was responsible for "redisovering" Bach as Bach had become almost completely forgotten, which would've been a great tragedy. But you are right, Bob, Mozart admired his works as well. Just thought I'd point that out. Classical is a love of mine!

[BCrosby]

David -

Mendelssohn's are the most famous, but I thought that Mozart did some as well. He studied Bach's "well-tempered" harmonics, etc. From Rosen (The Classical Style) I learned that the "sonata form" (that defines in many ways the classical era) was largely dependent on getting harmonics straighened out and that Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven had relied on Bach for that. (You will have appreciated already that I am not a musician. Corrections to the foregoing are welcome.)  

I'll check my Mozart bios at home.

Bob

[BCrosby]

I came up with the following after a quick Google search:

"When the last tones had evaporated into the air, leaving evidence of their having sounded only in the hearts and minds of the gathered musicians, the Baron said, "Well Mozart, you have really brought the old Johann Sebastian back to life. And for that, I give you my deepest thanks."

It had been the Baron's idea. He had encouraged Mozart to transcribe three- and four-voice fugues from Johann Sebastian Bach's groundbreaking work for keyboard instrument, the Well-Tempered Clavier. This, then, had been the first performance of Mozart's transcription of Bach's Fugue No. 5 in D Major, from Book II.

Baron van Swieten had scoured Berlin to find manuscripts of Bach and Händel, whose works were virtually unknown in Vienna, and had brought them back with him. He knew that it was by making their music come alive again, it was by learning from, and being inspired by their music, that he could help young musicians become good composers. He was convinced that it was through playing the greatest music of the past, that one could hope to create great music in the future."

Bob

[SL_Solow]

Different people learn in different ways.

Nonetheless, it is hard to argue that, absent some overwhelming genius, one can understand any discipline without having an appreciation of the current state of the art and how it evolved.  In the case of GCA, observation of golf courses of different styles and vintages can go a long way toward developing an understanding.  But it is difficult for any one person to see enough golf courses to become fully informed.  Moreover by reading the works of architects one can better understand what they were trying to accomplish and this helps one evaluate whether they succeeded or not.   Finally, various technical issues having to do with drainage, balancing cuts and fills, permitting and the like are best understood through reading.

But there will always be an anti-intellectual set that believes they know best without considering the wisdom of their predecessors and, when they can't deal with the logic of those writers/thinkers attack their motives.  Nothing can be done to change this mindset; it has long term historical roots in many fields of endeavor  (See e.g. Hofstader's Anti-Intellectualism In American Life).

Finally reading the "masters" and the "non-masters" doesn't mean you have to agree or follow their teachings.  Many of those we admire most "broke the mold."  But an understanding of what came before together with an appreciation of "why" can never hurt.

[Brent Hutto]

Would an indication of one's interest and dedication be revealed by the quality and quantity of GCA publications, authored by the great architects and other interested GCA parties, that one has read ?

"An indication"? Sure. Hard to imagine why someone would read all that stuff if they weren't very interested in architecture.

Can one have a comprehensive understanding of architecture without reading and/or studying their works ?

Certainly, depending of course on how you want to define "comprehensive". But don't confuse the notion that an intense interest in architecture leads most people to read books written about or by the Old Dead Guys with the idea that such reading is necessary.

Those guys built courses that are now considered unquestioned gems, courses that have been valued and appreciated by generations of golfers. However, a course gaining that sort of stature is as much a historical contingency as it is the inevitable result of the (attributed) architect's intentions. If you want to understand a golf course, a good starting point is the following thought...

It is what it is.

There is no unique path leading back inexolerably from the course as it exists and is played today to the thing the architect had it mind when he first saw the property (or a topo-map representation of same). So if a course is superior to most others right here and now it may or may not be because the ideas and intentions behind that course were superior to those of any number of courses created at the same time by the same archie or his contemporaries.

Therefore, I'd argue that books written by the architects of notable courses have no special place in the universe of original source materials. If you want to understand Pinehurst #2 there are many documents you might want to examine, covering aspects of the course's history over the century of its existence. Books written by its architect explaining general principles and philosophies would come pretty far down that list in my opinion. The course is its entire history, it is in no way a pure expression of the general principles Donald Ross thought he was implementing.

[David Stamm]

I came up with the following after a quick Google search:

"When the last tones had evaporated into the air, leaving evidence of their having sounded only in the hearts and minds of the gathered musicians, the Baron said, "Well Mozart, you have really brought the old Johann Sebastian back to life. And for that, I give you my deepest thanks."

It had been the Baron's idea. He had encouraged Mozart to transcribe three- and four-voice fugues from Johann Sebastian Bach's groundbreaking work for keyboard instrument, the Well-Tempered Clavier. This, then, had been the first performance of Mozart's transcription of Bach's Fugue No. 5 in D Major, from Book II.

Baron van Swieten had scoured Berlin to find manuscripts of Bach and Händel, whose works were virtually unknown in Vienna, and had brought them back with him. He knew that it was by making their music come alive again, it was by learning from, and being inspired by their music, that he could help young musicians become good composers. He was convinced that it was through playing the greatest music of the past, that one could hope to create great music in the future."

Bob

Great info Bob! The reason I brought up Mendelssohn was because I remember listening late one night to USC's radio station, that plays nothing but classical, the host telling the story of how Mendelssohn discovered much of Bach's sheet music (original I might add!) and loved it so much that he began performing some of it in concert. I think he may have been the first, but I think, as you pointed out, Mozart really starting taking his "structure" to another level. In any case, the music world obviously greatly benefitted from it. Haydn (the symphony master) was another that Mozart greatly admired, as did Beethoven. The world reaped the rewards of masters learning from past masters, IMHO, that's the way it should be.

[BCrosby]

David -

I am out of my depth here, but as I recall Mozart learned a lot from Bach, particularly about mixing various musical voices (a la Bach's fugues), which entails a pretty deep understanding of harmony. You can hear it in his operas, for example. Some of it can bring you to your knees.

But after Mozart's death Bach was largely forgotten. Until, that is, Felix rediscovered him in the 1840's. At that point Bach stayed rediscovered.

Where is Mark Rowlinson when you need him?

Bob

[David Stamm]

David -

I am out of my depth here, but as I recall Mozart learned a lot from Bach, particularly about mixing various musical voices (a la Bach's fugues), which entails a pretty deep understanding of harmony. You can hear it in his operas, for example. Some of it can bring you to your knees.

But after Mozart's death Bach was largely forgotten. Until, that is, Felix rediscovered him in the 1840's. At that point Bach stayed rediscovered.

Where is Mark Rowlinson when you need him?

Bob

I by no means am a Peter Thompson in this reagrd, so I don't want to come across as an expert on all classical music. Mozart preceeded FM obviously, as my time lines are obviously screwed up. I love talking about it though! I take it Mark is a classical buff?

[BCrosby]

Mark R. is a classically trained (Oxford, I think) musician who performs professionally all over the world.

I hope he will join in and not wack us too severely for our errors in music history.

Bob  

[David Stamm]

That would be great!

Be gentle with us Mark.

[RJ_Daley]

Thank you Bob, David and Shelly for those pearls which get to my point far better and more knowlegeably than I ever could...  

Those guys built courses that are now considered unquestioned gems, courses that have been valued and appreciated by generations of golfers. However, a course gaining that sort of stature is as much a historical contingency as it is the inevitable result of the (attributed) architect's intentions. If you want to understand a golf course, a good starting point is the following thought...

It is what it is.

There is no unique path leading back inexolerably from the course as it exists and is played today to the thing the architect had it mind when he first saw the property (or a topo-map representation of same). So if a course is superior to most others right here and now it may or may not be because the ideas and intentions behind that course were superior to those of any number of courses created at the same time by the same archie or his contemporaries.

Therefore, I'd argue that books written by the architects of notable courses have no special place in the universe of original source materials. If you want to understand Pinehurst #2 there are many documents you might want to examine, covering aspects of the course's history over the century of its existence. Books written by its architect explaining general principles and philosophies would come pretty far down that list in my opinion. The course is its entire history, it is in no way a pure expression of the general principles Donald Ross thought he was implementing.

Brent,
I can't agree with the direction of your post at all.  The way I read it, if a course has evolved into something quite different due to many successors having their way with remodelling, tweaking, and somehow come up with a generally playable or even enjoyable course, then it is OK because it has become functional, OK, enjoyable, and acceptable in comparison to other contemporary offerings.  Is that what you are saying?  Well, some grafitti artists might also want to paint a mustache on Mona Lisa and say by contemporary modern standards, that is OK.  Some anti-intellectual might even say it is brilliant.  I can't embrace the "it is what it is" routine at all.  

When it comes to golf courses and that sort of sentiment, I would start thinking about Pasatiempo.  It became something 'else'.  Just a few short years ago, one could say that it was still highly desireable to play and belong as a member (why else would it have commanded such a fee for membership or guest play?)  But, by what ever means it evolved into something else.  It took a man like Doak and his crew - men of great understanding reading and study of other works of the old master MacKenzie to bring it back to a state of restoration, much closer to the visions of the seminal master MacKenzie.  Has that not been better - to have men of learned understanding of Mac to bring that course back to the old master's ideals?  All the others that allowed it or caused it to become, the "is what it is" failed the test of historical knowledge and proper respect for the greatness of its original designer.

Staying with the MacKenzie line, what of ANGC, U of Michigan, OSU, Meadow Club (restored or sympathetically remodelled by someone who also has read Mac and studied his work well - DeVries)?  

Is ANGC what it is for the better because it is what it is?  Many astute commentators don't think so.  Fazio may have read all of Mac's stuff, and seen much of Mac's stuff, but he, nor RTJsr, or all the others that have their fingerprints on the revisions have show proper deference to the original master, IMHO.  Nor has the overseer management...  Now it is unquestionably a comparative titan in the world of golf courses as a major venue.  But, is it a design masterpiece or just a venue for a big toon-a-mint?  

They park cars for football game on the U of M course from what I hear.  I don't think Mac saw that coming.

Dr. Mac, C.B., Bendelow, Tillie, Ross, etc., didn't have much of anything in written form to describe or analyse what little golf archtitecture knowledge existed in their time.  They had to go to the cradle, TOC, and sparse writings of Allan Robertson and Old Tom, or talk  directly to old Tom and Baird and the few wise golf men of the game's infancy in order to become the OGG masters of the fledgling art of GCA.  Then, they had to write the opening act of the GCA play that goes on today.  


An ODG course that has become what it is, can be anything.  It can be regarded by some in contemporary times and in comparative terms, OK and functional.  

But, if an ODG course was once a masterpiece from its inception as designed by its original designer/creator, it can not still be great as it was unless what was what it was is understood and was transcribed and passed down and understood and preserved faithfully.  We only have their sparse writings to guide us.  

What can possibly be comprehensive understanding without comprehensive learning from the origins of the subject?  

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

The question Pat posed is not whether or not the works of previous artists/artisans should be studied, but whether their writing should be studied.  Of course Mozart should have and did study Bach's works, and Poussin probably Raphael's and Wright probably Mackintosh, but my question was really a hyopthetical as to whether reading what their predecessors wrote (if they had written anything) would have added much to their learning.  I think not, as writing is a separate art, and I think it is rare for any great artist to excel in more than one medium.  Of course there are exceptions, such as Blake.

My guess is that Tom Doak spent 99% of his time stuydying MacKenzie's work in the ground and 1% of the time his writings, which are reasonably good introductions to GCA, but not much more.  But then again, I could be wrong......

Rich

[Brent Hutto]

I can't agree with the direction of your post at all.  The way I read it, if a course has evolved into something quite different due to many successors having their way with remodelling, tweaking, and somehow come up with a generally playable or even enjoyable course, then it is OK because it has become functional, OK, enjoyable, and acceptable in comparison to other contemporary offerings.  Is that what you are saying?

Not quite what I'm saying, although in the ballpark I suppose. Any course that's more than half a century old has evolved into something other than what f'rex MacKenzie put into the ground. It can't be avoided. And the work that the club does under Tom Doak's advisement is part of that evolution. At whatever point in time we're experiencing and/or studying the course it might be better than its original form or worse or about the same...but it will be different. Heck, at one point Pinehurst #2 had sand greens didn't it?

And even if the course had been put in a giant, magical bell jar and preserved absolutely intact for 75 years the physical and social context is very different today. Therefore, even a perfect replica of every hump, bump, texture and [whatever word you use for how hard/soft it is] just like it was on opening day it's still a different thing because it's being played by today's players with today's equipment. So you don't understand Pasatiempo just because you can conjure up even a metaphysically perfect accounting of its every original detail. Pasatiempo is what it was plus the differences between then and now both externally and in its own surfaces.

Well, some grafitti artists might also want to paint a mustache on Mona Lisa and say by contemporary modern standards, that is OK.  Some anti-intellectual might even say it is brilliant.  I can't embrace the "it is what it is" routine at all.

I don't think a MacKenzie course with a musache painted on would be OK at all. But if presented with one, I would determine it's worth by evaluating what it is when I see it. Turn Rees Jones or Tom Fazio on Cypress Point and ask them to set it up for next year's US Open and the odds are they would create some far inferior to the course as it exists right now. But that would be because their changes (likely IMO) would make it a poorer golf course not because they were making it different than what Bob Jones played when it opened. The course I played three years ago was different than the one Bob Jones played but it was still a great, great course.

But, if an ODG course was once a masterpiece from its inception as designed by its original designer/creator, it can not still be great as it was unless what was what it was is understood and was transcribed and passed down and understood and preserved faithfully.  We only have their sparse writings to guide us.

I've read stuff by Donald Ross talking about sand greens and Common Bermuda playing surfaces. He writes about mules and drag pans. If I want to understand what makes The Deuce a great course, all that stuff sheds at best a tiny, dim light on a few obscure details concerning how it got to be the course it is today. Sure, I want to know what kind of course he was trying to produce but it would not be an improvement to regrass the whole thing to early 20th-century specs so as to recapture the original intent in some sort of Cargo Cult mystical fashion.

[George Pazin]

A simpler question might be:

Why wouldn't anyone interested in gca be curious enough to read what other great architects thought/wrote?

-----

In any case, I'd guess Tom D is very familiar with both Mackenzie's work and his writing.

[Brent Hutto]

Why wouldn't anyone interested in gca be curious enough to read what other great architects thought/wrote?

I'm pretty sure most of us are that curious, although in my own case I honestly can't get enthused about reading obscure guys whose work I'll never see. Or anything by Max Behr for that matter.

However, as stated I took Pat's original as connoting something closer to an implied criticism that anyone not "serious" enough to read all those musty tomes is not a person equipped to render valid and meaningful comments on golf course architecture. Such criticism would be baseless IMO and bringing it up in the first place seems bloodyminded.

[George Pazin]

Such criticism would be baseless IMO and bringing it up in the first place seems bloodyminded.

Can't say that I disagree with that, I think it's up to everyone to find his own path.

[Tim Pitner]

I am not in the least dedicated to the subject, but I have hobby like interest.  Even so, this interest is tied first and foremost to my love of playing the game - BUT on interesting courses.  

Sean's quote applies well to my interest in GCA.  

As to reading books on GCA, honestly, it seems to me there are a lot more interesting books out there.  

[Michael Ryan]

Small two cents from an uneducated perspective.  Since joining this site, I have become aware of some books related to different architects and have read up on Tillinghast and Ross and also read Scotland's Gift by Macdonald.  As to the last book, I just played Yale for the first time and I have to say that my enjoyment and understanding of the course was significantly bolstered in a positive way from having read his book.  I think reading about GCA can only help one understand and appreciate GCA.  Whether someone wants to do it or not is his/her choice...

[Tom Huckaby]

I am not in the least dedicated to the subject, but I have hobby like interest.  Even so, this interest is tied first and foremost to my love of playing the game - BUT on interesting courses.  

Sean's quote applies well to my interest in GCA.  

As to reading books on GCA, honestly, it seems to me there are a lot more interesting books out there.  

Add me to the agreement with Sean... and with Tim also, on all of this.

So Sean, you doubted we'd ever find common ground... come on, given all of our disagreements, you know you did... But I had faith.  And since we are in 100& agreement on this very basic treatment of the game and it's venues, it only stands to reason that it's only the arcane details on which we disagree.

Cheers, brother.

 

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Please give me one example of where reading one of these books is going enhance my appreciation of architecture after 39 years of playing the game?  Why should I sacrifice the joy of discovery for the immediacy of learning.

Are you stating that you know EVERYTHING there is to know about GCA ?

If not, then,

Are you stating that you will discover EVERYTHING there is to know about GCA through the playing experience ?[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()