Tom MacW:

I’m responding to your post #48 and DavidM’s post #46 (too long to copy both into this one).

The point I’m trying to make here or to you is to try to look at some similarities in any form or style of actual building architecture and golf course architecture. The reason I’d like to do that is to see if there’re any common points of purpose or principle in either of those two art forms----and specifically any points of common purpose or principle when it comes to the roll of Nature or even the use of Nature’s “lines”, so to speak  (as well as how those “lines” are formed and altered and made into whatever they are by what Behr referred to as the “Law of Nature” which was basically how both wind and particularly water worked on the earth itself to make it what it is).

The reason I’m trying to do this is because you said in some other post that you felt an architect such as Raynor’s engineered architectural lines created an interesting CONTRASTING aesthetic with their site’s natural “lines”. I’m just trying to focus basically on the word “contrast”, it’s meaning and your use of it.

In my opinion, if one is trying to focus on what Behr, Mackenzie and some of the other so-called “naturalist” architects were trying to do to some maximum degree which apparently was to merge or meld what they made architecturally into the “lines” and formations of a raw site (Nature) to such an extent as to “hide man’s hand” then the idea of “contrasting” their man-made aesthetic with Nature’s would definitely not be the goal at all---quite the opposite, in fact. In a way, they were attempting, at least in theory, to remove “contrast” or the idea of it completely so as a golfer may not even know or notice where one ended and the other began! In other words, the aesthetic of “man’s hand” and the look and lines of Nature might become virtually identical, at least in a general sense of presentation to a golfer---or as far as the necessities of golf (tees, fairways, greens, and perhaps sand bunkering) would allow.

But to try to find some points of common purpose or principle in this type of relationship with Nature between building and golf course architecture does not seem to be easy. Almost all building architecture I’m aware of seems to have attempted to CONTRAST Man’s aesthetic (his engineered lines and his materials) with Nature’s. Again, this was not an attempt to meld them into virtually the look of one or both together as ONE!

In the first place, the purpose and function, utility, aesthetic, whatever, of building architecture of almost any type is so different from those same things (function, utility, aesthetic etc) in golf course architecture as to make one wonder if any points of common purpose or principle could possibly exist---and certainly when one considers the unique roll of Nature in golf! I see no similarities between this direction or expression of golf architecture and the motivations of Pugin and his ideas on corrupt religion evidenced by classical Greek or Roman  architecture and the need to return to Gothic or even Rushkin and his motivations to alleviate dehumanization of workers and the styles and cultures of a particular society in time due to mechanized industrialization of the era of the “Industrial Revolution”.

But perhaps, the best example of building architecture that may have some common points of purpose and principle with golf course architecture may be the building category alone of some of the A&C movement (perhaps a better example would be some of that rare Southwestern architecture that actually attempted to hide a building in a natural site sometimes almost underground!!

The closest I can find in some common purpose or principle of A&C building architecture as it pertained to Nature itself similar to the naturalist purpose and principles of those “ultra naturalist” golf architects such as Behr and Mackenzie seems to be this quote from your “Arts and Crafts Movement” piece in the “In My Opinion” section of this website;

“The Arts and Crafts movement rejected ‘style’ as an artificial imposition, its designs were distinguished by an 'insistence on modesty and simplicity . . . And on the inherent qualities of natural material simply worked.' The architect Phillip Webb, who designed William Morris’s home Red House, exemplified this new point of view. For Webb the land 'was not merely ‘nature’ . . . and art was not taste but the human spirit made visible.' He believed that the root of architecture was the land. Before designing a new building, he walked over the site until it 'relinquished its full possibilities,' and offered up 'particular suggestions.' That ability to weave nature and architecture together revived the quest for an organic architecture. The Arts and Crafts architects successfully 'recreated the past as a world of pre-industrial simplicity, ‘quaint’ and ‘old fashioned’, whose point of reference was the small manor house, farmhouse or cottage. Houses were no longer built to look new, but old, being irregular, distinct and tucked away into the folds of the landscape which they no longer sought to dominate.' “

In that quote, the architect Phillip Webb seems to go farther than any other in actually explaining that A&C building architecture can and should merge and meld into the lines of it’s specific site’s Nature. Obviously, I’m speaking more of the lines of the architecture of the buildings, not the A&C furniture or arts and crafts and so forth inside. In the building vein of A&C architecture, site specifics, asymmetry, randomness, natural building materials etc seem to be the goal (and the only similarity to “naturalist”golf architecture in this way, in my opinion).

So, I hope you see what I’m trying to get at here---it definitely isn’t the aesthetic of man-made golf architecture “contrasting” with its site’s natural lines---it’s the opposite—going as far as is possible to merge them into one to make where all of them begin and end seem almost imperceptible to a golfer.

I’m certainly not saying this is the direction all golf architecture in the future should go, maybe just a small slice of it. But it seems to be the direction that some of the “naturalists” like Behr and Mackenzie were dreaming might happen in the future when the technologies of the future made it more possible or efficient to do. Frankly, I do wonder what more they thought should ever happen that way than a CPC, for instance, but maybe they wanted to do away with any form of man-made stylizing of features and make it really look somehow like what was there previous to them.

I’m not thinking of these things just as an intellectual exercise either. I want to see what the possibilities may be of somehow taking this merging of man-made architecture even beyond the aesthetic of it and to try to see what can happen in this way with the ramifications of actual play and strategies too. You may not understand what I’m talking about there but I’ll try to explain that later.
 

wasn't the whole A&C movement post industrial....a response to pre-packaged...cookie cutter building?  I never considered it a "recreation" of the past. Rather it was running away from the past....Beaux Arts....Victorian...industrial sameness....
 

Craig,

True, it was turning away from those things, but A&C was returning to a more distant past - the Gothic or Medieval - which happened before all the stuff that came of the Industrial Revolution.

TEPaul,

The closest relationship between building architecture and Golf Course architecture may be best seen in the modernist architecture. Many Modern architects believed in leaving the natural 'setting' alone. They allowed the creation of man to exist 'naturally' within the earthly setting.

Consider Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water again. Here was a Modernist construction (the Prairie School) Square blocks of intersecting concrete - not "natural" in the obvious sense - not attempting to "hide" or camouflage itself in it's construction.

However, the asymmetrical, almost tumbling nature of the building, combined with its intimate use of the stream and it's use of the local wood and rock in aspects of it's construction make it "fit in". It contrasts by saying loud and clear - I AM MADE BY THE HAND OF MAN. Yet it shows a thoughtful consideration for the setting and becomes an integral part of it.

The most 'natural' forms created by some of today's leading architects may do just the same thing.

... "The Arts and Crafts Movement" which is in the "In My Opinion" section of this website. If you haven't read that five part article, you should, it's one of the best ever put on this website.

Agreed.

TE
This quote by A&C historian Eizabeth Cumming touches on many of the similarites, 'Although practitioners had widely differing agendas, they shared the ideal of individual expression, of design that could draw inspiration from the past but would be no slavish imitation of historical models. Buildings were crafted of local materials and designed to fit into the landscape and reflect vernacular tradition.'

Although she obviously wasn’t considering golf architecture when she wrote it, I couldn’t express it any better….the similarities are remarkable. Other similarities utility (strategic interest), asymmetry, randomness, the importance of craftsmanship and the craftsman.

Pugin and Ruskin shared a similar philosophy with those first Heathland architects who rejected the formality of symmetrical Victorian golf design. Architects like Tom Dunn, Tom Morris and Willie Dunn had lost their way, and the Heathland architects looked toward the links model that evolved naturally by the sea…the ‘vernacular tradition’.

Just like the A&C Movement, which developed on different tracks based on location, golf architecture during this period appears to have developed on at least a couple of distinct tracks. I think what you refer to as ‘naturalist’ architecture might be more accurately called British architecture…developed by men like Colt, MacKenzie, Fowler, Simpson, Abercromby, Park, etc. Where as American architecture followed the lead of Macdonald and developed its own unique aesthetic or style (among other things).

Regarding contrast that is design or aesthetic choice not unique or common to the A&C Movement or any other art movement or architecture or painting or whatever art form. I'm not even certain that Macdonald, Raynor and the rest consiously considered the interesting aesthetic they were creatiing by contrasting the built with the natural.

"Given those "necessary unnatural exceptions of golf" (Which are clearly man-made) combined with the public "necessity" for carefully groomed fairways and fast greens, is this level of minimal contrast as far as we can reasonably expect the architects to go?"

Adam:

I don't know, of course, but I have a few ideas. We may've come as far as possible with maintenance, so to speak, meaning the most natural application of it but there may be some other ideas and applications with architecture itself. It'll take time to explain what I mean.

"Golf simply isn't natural (by this I mean that it is a construct of man). So how seamless can it get?"

Probably not much more than it did at it's best that way but I refer to my above answer.

"The minimalist architect attempts to blend the edges of the fairways into surrounding grass, they make every effort to disturb as little of the existing environment as possible. They use native plants and materials where they can. They even give curvilinear forms to their tees and greens, but these elements are always going to stand out as oddly perfect - and there's the contrast again."

I agree. I think the deal may not be much more doable in maintenance and "look", even at its very best. But there might be another way to look at this with architecture itself. I'll try to develop some of what I'm thinking later but before I do I know it will go very much against the grain of the way golf and golf architecture has become---and the perception of what's necessary today even amongst perhaps the very best so-called renaissance architects.

TomM, perhaps you might be overplaying the connection between the Arts and Crafts movement and Gothic Art and Architecture?  

While Ruskin is certainly recognized as a Father of the AC movement, I am under the impression that Ruskin's dislike of everything from the beginning of the Renaissance forward was more of a starting point than a AC tenent to be followed.   Aside from Morris, didn't most Arts and Crafts practicioners reject Ruskin's preference for midievil times?  Weren't they more concerned with the contemporary industrialism and mechanization which was complicating their lives and detaching them from nature?  

Similarly, I am not so sure that utility plays as big a role in AC as you seem to indicate.  In your own work, don't you acknowledge that even Ruskin recognized that architecture should go beyond pure utility?  (See your Part II description of the 'Lamp of Sacrifice.')  In his efforts to bring the 'spiritual' back into art, didn't Ruskin go beyond pure utility?  Dont get me wrong, I agree that AC designs are utilitarian to a degree.   But I do object to considering utility to be one of the two fundamental tenants of the AC movement, at least as carried out by AC practicioners.  Regardless of Ruskin's views on utility, AC practicioners were by no means constrained by a strict sense of utility.  Non-utilitarian elements accent almost all AC architecture of which I am aware.   For example, take a look at the lobby of the Old Faithful Hotel, which hardly exemplifies a sense of utility:



I think your Cumming's quote more accurately hits on the AC movement as practiced.

But to try to find some points of common purpose or principle in this type of relationship with Nature between building and golf course architecture does not seem to be easy. Almost all building architecture I’m aware of seems to have attempted to CONTRAST Man’s aesthetic (his engineered lines and his materials) with Nature’s. Again, this was not an attempt to meld them into virtually the look of one or both together as ONE!

TomP, I think you are mistaken here.  It is my impression that the AC practicioners would have liked it if it seemed that their works were born from the earth itself.  Another Nat'l park example, Sperry Chalet in Glacier:

In the first place, the purpose and function, utility, aesthetic, whatever, of building architecture of almost any type is so different from those same things (function, utility, aesthetic etc) in golf course architecture as to make one wonder if any points of common purpose or principle could possibly exist---and certainly when one considers the unique roll of Nature in golf! I see no similarities between this direction or expression of golf architecture and the motivations of Pugin and his ideas on corrupt religion evidenced by classical Greek or Roman  architecture and the need to return to Gothic or even Rushkin and his motivations to alleviate dehumanization of workers and the styles and cultures of a particular society in time due to mechanized industrialization of the era of the “Industrial Revolution”.

But the AC practicioners were not followers of the extreme views of Pugin or even all of Ruskin for that matter.   So it is a big mistake to view the AC movement through these extreme ideas.   Put these guys in their proper context and a couple of important "points of common purpose or principle could possibly exist---and certainly when one considers the unique roll of Nature in golf" emerge:

1.  Return to Nature and the Natural.
2.  Rejection of industrialization and mechanization in favor of handcraftsmanship and the kind of detail and quality that only handcraftsmanship could produce.  

TomM said:

Just like the A&C Movement, which developed on different tracks based on location, golf architecture during this period appears to have developed on at least a couple of distinct tracks. I think what you refer to as ‘naturalist’ architecture might be more accurately called British architecture…developed by men like Colt, MacKenzie, Fowler, Simpson, Abercromby, Park, etc. Where as American architecture followed the lead of Macdonald and developed its own unique aesthetic or style (among other things).

TomM:  Not so sure I would seperate MacDonald out here.  No doubt he was looking backward rather than forward for his inspiration.  And rather than slavishly imititing his past models, he "designed to fit into the landscape."  Perhaps some of his less naturalized work was just his way of being architecturally honest:  Showing the beams and supports, if you will.  

Regarding contrast that is design or aesthetic choice not unique or common to the A&C Movement or any other art movement or architecture or painting or whatever art form. I'm not even certain that Macdonald, Raynor and the rest consiously considered the interesting aesthetic they were creatiing by contrasting the built with the natural.

In Spirit, MacDonald says he was continually striving to make the bunkers at NGLA look more natural.  

It was stated, . . . that the value of architecture depended on two distinct characters:--the one, the impression it receives from human power; the other, the image it bears of the natural creation.
      - John Ruskin, Seven Lamps of Architecture--The Lamp of Beauty

Apart from a desire to produce beautiful things, the leading passion of my leife has been and is hatred of modern civilization.
       - Wm. Morris, 1894.

The question was specific to architecture...

 I am not sure it is appropriate to make such distinctions when discussing the AC movement.

I don't believe I am overplaying the connection between Pugin, the Gothic and the Arts and Crafts Movement.

You may not like or agree with Pugin and Ruskin but there is little dispute they had an enormous impact. One of the reason's Pugin and Ruskin were so influencial was because they were both widely published.

I don't deny they had an enormous impact.  But I do contend that Pugin's main premise-- that midievil times represented the pinnacle of human acheivement and the ultimate blending of spirituality into architecture-- was not a guiding principle of the AC movement.  

Just look at the architecture.  There are definitely similarities (as you point out, showing the structure is one), but Gothic Revival is its own distinct style, and not easily confused with what the AC practicioners were producing.  

What year was the Old Faithful Hotel built? Its a great building.

1903-1904.

Pugin said '1st, that there should be no features about a building, which are not necessary for convenience, construction or propriety; 2nd, that all ornament should consist of the essential construction of the building.'

What about the Old Faithful's design runs contrary to these two principals?

Tom, I was refering to the first principle and not the second (your 'honesty.')  Second, if the "ornament" goes beyond pure utility, then these principles contradict each other.   Take the Old Faithful building, the structure is not hidden or decorated, yet  there is quite a bit about this structure which is not necessarily guided by utility in any meaningful sense.   For example, the atrium of the Yellowstone hotel is 7 stories high, with a 7 story fireplace!  What use does such an atruim serve, other than spiritual and aesthetic?  For that matter, what is the usefulness of building with logs (instead of boards)throughout the structure (including some floors.)  

To me the key is the "left in its natural state" part.  The architect set out to emulate nature, even if such choice wasnt necessarily the most useful from a structural standpoint.  

"I built in keeping with the place where it stands.  Nobody could improve upon that.  To be at discord with the landscape would be almost a crime. To try to improve upon it would be an impertinence."
     - Richard Reamer, designer of the Lodge (from Winter and Verticoff's Craftsman Style, pge. 182)
____________________

I am not so sure that MacDonald would agree with my description of MacDonald.

Could you please explain why you equate utility with strategy?  I don't see it.  

With architecture you have blending of utility with aesthetics. With golf architecture you have a blending of strategic interest with aesthetics. The golfing merits of a golf course design is the design's primary purpose.

TE
Just as Victorian tastes dominated all aspects of English life in the prior decades, so too did A&C sensibilities influence every day life in the late 18thC and early 19thC. From the desire to move out  of the city and into the country (creating a greater need for recreation) to just about every aspect of design including: architecture, garden  design,  furniture, painting, glass art, fixtures, rugs & tapestries, eating utensils, pottery, glassware, jewelry, and golf architecture. One need only compare the formulaic symmetrical golf course designs of the Victorian era to the first Heathland designs of Park, Fowler, Colt and Abercromby.  The Arts and Crafts style was not a physical look or an easily defined style…it was a state of mind and/or philosophy.

Another product of the A&C era was an appreciation of historic architecture...resulting in a preservation and conservation movement in response to  the damages of restoration....a conservation movement that is still alive today.

"Another product of the A&C era was an appreciation of historic architecture...resulting in a preservation and conservation movement in response to the damages of restoration....a conservation movement that is still alive today."

Tom MacW:

That's clearly the most revealing statement you've ever made on here as to why you're so adamant about the preservation and conserving of golf architecture despite the fact that golf architecture is supposed to serve perhaps what most would view as a higher or greater purpose----eg an arrangement on which the most interesting, challenging and enjoyable GOLF can be playedl  

Are you sure that the A&C Movement was a reaction to the 'damages of RESTORATION'? By that I mean the way many of the old towns and historic buildings of Britain were changed over the years as fashions and styles in building architecture evolved and cycled?

I've been to England numerous times in my life and almost every time we surely did observe those old buildings and the histories of their evolutions. The fact is restoration had nothing to do with it. I've read Country Life my entire life and the history of architecture with those old buildings shows massive alterations of their facades to the next popular style over and over again. That's not restoration at all it was the most obvious example of facade "redesign".

But in almost every case those large and significant buildings, particularly the most famous of the English country houses pretty much started out with a structure that was classical---eg Greek or Roman in origin.

TE
Where have you been, I've been talking about William Morris's Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) for two or three years now....and how its origins can be traced back to the restoration movement that damaged so many important works.

Here is a link the SPAB website:

http://www.spab.org.uk/whatis.html

"...you are so adamant about the preservation and conserving of golf architecture despite the fact that golf architecture is supposed to serve perhaps what most would view as a higher or greater purpose----eg an arrangement on which the most interesting, challenging and enjoyable GOLF can be played."

They are not mutually exclusive goals.

"They are not mutually exclusive goals."

My very point exactly. And that's why I feel that careful consideration in restoration architecture in combination with the goal of keeping such things as the "design intents" of golf architecture current in view of the changes in I&B performance is not mutually exclusive.

One would assume from the things you say that they are mutually exclusive---that restoration should not even be attempted on certain courses due to the fear of damaging historic or classic architecture and its design intent.

William Morris' Red House design by Webb...often sited as the first example of A&C architecture.

Yes it is, but this is a rather simplistic citation, don't you think?  The Red House was built in 1859, some years before what is generally considered the AC movement.   Moreover, there is little if any indication that American practioners were influenced by Egan's work-- they probably were not even aware Egan existed.  (Winter, Craftsman Style)  The Red House may well be a better example of Morris' evolving tastes than an example of a structure from the Arts and Crafts Movement.  

Even your own citation from Frampton and Futagawa more appropriately places the Red house in the "Gothic Revivial" or "short-lived Pre-Raphealite" architectural style.  The latter makes sense, since at the time Morris was studying with Dante Gabriel Rossetti, and other pre-Raphaelites at the time.   I cant find where, but I believe that I read that the house was decorated as a homage to the midievil.  

My point is that it may be a mistake to take some of this early inspiration for the AC Movement as more doctrinal than inspirational.   To look at Pugin and Egan's Red House and conclude that all of the AC Movement was aspiring to recreate midievil times is like looking at Morris' politics and concluding that all true craftsman were active Socialists.  

That is why vernacular architecture is often so aesthetically pleasing...it just evolves naturally based on utility.

This I think understates and misrepresents what is going on with at least some of AC architecture.   To say that the Old Faithful Lodge was architecture which just "evolved naturally based on utility" is stretching these terms to their breaking point, if you ask me.   For example, the "basic" fireplace consisting of "a pile of rocks" was over seven stories tall.  A seven foot tall "pile of rocks" in the middle of a seven foot atruim is ornamental in and of itself.  You correctly assume that the fireplace serves as a support for the entire atrium, but his begs the question of the utility of a seven foot atrium.    

You also correctly note that the fireplace serves as a "vocal [focal?] point of a very large building" but serving is a focal point is not really utilitarian in a structural sense.   This is precisely my point.   The logs, the rocks, the majestic ceiling, all these served to constantly remind the guest of his wild and beautiful surroundings.  Reamer was bringing the surrounds indoors.  

We may be speaking past each other regarding the word "utility."  If all you mean by utility is that the materials served some sort of a structural purpose (no matter how impractical and inefficient) in addition to their symbolic or artistic purposes, then I agree that the AC practicioners utilized their materials in this manner.   But often the symbolic, spiritual, and artistic was the motivator, not simple utility of use.  

I agree [emulating nature] is key...especially considering its local. But that doesn't mean a Shingle Style home of Long Island is less A&C or a Prarie Style home in Chicago or Morris's Red House are less A&C. They all shared similar inspirations and philosophies. 

 I never said otherwise.