[T_MacWood]

It is now official.....I've received seven, count em' seven phone calls today, asking me what is up with all of you--that is ALL OF YOU (including me) who have posted incessently on this thread.

For the love of humanity, GIVE IT A F U C K I N G REST!

Two of them came from Mertchantville.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Interesting point, Mr. Paul. I find this one worthy of note as well"

"The common image of a sport which enjoyed universal popularity throughout Scotland is not entirely accurate, its popularity was limited to specific coastal pockets. In fact in 1850 there were only 17 golf clubs in Scotland, this is when the feathery was replaced by the more practical gutta percha. The cheaper more durable gutta allowed the game to expand throughout Scotland, and to move out beyond her borders and into England. The result was an increase in the number of golf courses from 17 to 43 -- still fairly modest growth. However due to the economic explosion of the late Victorian Era, fueled by the Industrial Revolution, that growth accelerated and between 1880 to1900 there were 150 new clubs established."

Tom MacWood, Arts and Crafts Golf Part 1

• So there was 17 golf clubs as of 1850 ("limited to specific coastal pockets) I take that to mean 'links courses' or the kind that were generally see to be shaped largely by the hand of nature...

• Then the gutty came in as of 1850 and "The result was an increase in the number of golf courses from 17 to 43" - so an increase of 23 over what time span, is not clear...

• "However due to the economic explosion of the late Victorian Era, fueled by the Industrial Revolution, that growth accelerated and between 1880 to1900 there were 150 new clubs established."

So let me get this straight, between 1880 and 1900, 150 new clubs were established in the U.K. That means an average of 7.5 new courses per year over 20 years. Is this the 'mass-produced' Victorian Age of Golf Course Architecture that the golden age was reacting to?

And what about the coastal 17 that were there since 1850? Were these the Victorian courses the Golden Age Architects were so opposed to?

Were the same situations really present in golf that were found in the manufacturing and mass-production of consumer goods that brought the reactions from people like Ruskin, Pugin and Morris? Or were the common threads really quite thin - falling mainly on a common interest in 'the beauty of nature'? Is that really enough to include it as representative of a social and artistic movement? While I do believe that it was affected by the spirit of the times (A&C or otherwise) It seems to me that calling it "Arts and Crafts Golf" is misleading - as the links courses were still so influential in themselves, and they came before the movement began.

Also the interest in nature and a 'perfected nature' in landscaping and gardening had been discussed for many years before in many cultures (including England) and major earthworks such as the 18th Century Landscape Park would surely have had a profound effect on learned men of the 19th and 20th centuries as well. For them many of the works of people like Capability Brown had been the carefully constructed reality of the English landscape which they had been born to.

"...the movement's origins were rooted deeply in social ideals as they were in aesthetic principles... for them, it was a philosophy, even a way of life, involving society and its relationship to art as much as to art itself...Morris broadly agreed with Ruskin's aesthetic theories, and combined them with his Socialist beliefs – prompted by his revulsion against Victorian society– to formulate his complex opinions on art, design and society... he wanted to transform Victorian working conditions to allow the worker a more satisfying involvement in all aspects of a project, as in medieval times...to make hand-crafted quality products commercial and widely available, and to improve working and living conditions at the same time.

As early as the 1880's...the initial emphasis on medievalism began to wane...The common threads that emerged in the movement's philosophical and social principles were: social reform of working conditions; free individual expression encouraging creative satisfaction and dignity in labor; regionalism and the use of local and natural, rather than imported or overly processed materials, and the holistic unity of a building's design, furnishings and adornments in harmony with its environment."

(From "The Arts and Crafts Movement" Robin Langley Sommer and David Rago Ed.1995 pp 7-12)

So is it Golden Age Architecture's interest in natural-looking courses that makes it Arts and Crafts?
 
• All of those un-natural bunkers with imported sand were ok.
• There's no emphasis on social reform or working conditions of laborers.
• Not much talk of free individual expression on the part of the artist or designer
• plenty of talk of how linksland golf is the way to go. Often, we see architects (with their abhorence of trees and love of the links) in some ways really preaching that we should do our best to move the links model of golf inland as intact as we can. (such importation of a ready-made model is far from A&C philosophy in terms of the use of the natural and the interest in regionalism).

As to your specific question, Mr. MacWood, I would characterize my knowledge of the period as solid enough, at least to question your unsubstantiated yet publically circulated theories within the context of this web forum.


 

[T_MacWood]

Interesting point, Mr. Paul. I find this one worthy of note as well"

"The common image of a sport which enjoyed universal popularity throughout Scotland is not entirely accurate, its popularity was limited to specific coastal pockets. In fact in 1850 there were only 17 golf clubs in Scotland, this is when the feathery was replaced by the more practical gutta percha. The cheaper more durable gutta allowed the game to expand throughout Scotland, and to move out beyond her borders and into England. The result was an increase in the number of golf courses from 17 to 43 -- still fairly modest growth. However due to the economic explosion of the late Victorian Era, fueled by the Industrial Revolution, that growth accelerated and between 1880 to1900 there were 150 new clubs established."

Tom MacWood, Arts and Crafts Golf Part 1

• So there was 17 golf clubs as of 1850 ("limited to specific coastal pockets) I take that to mean 'links courses' or the kind that were generally see to be shaped largely by the hand of nature...

• Then the gutty came in as of 1850 and "The result was an increase in the number of golf courses from 17 to 43" - so an increase of 23 over what time span, is not clear...

• "However due to the economic explosion of the late Victorian Era, fueled by the Industrial Revolution, that growth accelerated and between 1880 to1900 there were 150 new clubs established."

So let me get this straight, between 1880 and 1900, 150 new clubs were established in the U.K. That means an average of 7.5 new courses per year over 20 years. Is this the 'mass-produced' Victorian Age of Golf Course Architecture that the golden age was reacting to?

Adam Collins...where in the essay is there a reference to mass-produced Victorian Age golf architecture?

And what about the coastal 17 that were there since 1850? Were these the Victorian courses the Golden Age Architects were so opposed to?

No. The Victorain architecture was mostly inland, although there were Victorian features found on some of those links....see the rectangular greens of Dornoch.

Were the same situations really present in golf that were found in the manufacturing and mass-production of consumer goods that brought the reactions from people like Ruskin, Pugin and Morris? Or were the common threads really quite thin - falling mainly on a common interest in 'the beauty of nature'? Is that really enough to include it as representative of a social and artistic movement? While I do believe that it was affected by the spirit of the times (A&C or otherwise) It seems to me that calling it "Arts and Crafts Golf" is misleading - as the links courses were still so influential in themselves, and they came before the movement began.

Why would golf architecture be immune from prevailing aesthetic thought? Ruskin was art critic. You are an art student...do you agree with Ruskin's artistic criticism? And do you agree with Hutchinson, Colt, Alison, Simpson, and MacKensie's criticism of Victorian golf architecture?

Also the interest in nature and a 'perfected nature' in landscaping and gardening had been discussed for many years before in many cultures (including England) and major earthworks such as the 18th Century Landscape Park would surely have had a profound effect on learned men of the 19th and 20th centuries as well. For them many of the works of people like Capability Brown had been the carefully constructed reality of the English landscape which they had been born to.

"...the movement's origins were rooted deeply in social ideals as they were in aesthetic principles... for them, it was a philosophy, even a way of life, involving society and its relationship to art as much as to art itself...Morris broadly agreed with Ruskin's aesthetic theories, and combined them with his Socialist beliefs – prompted by his revulsion against Victorian society– to formulate his complex opinions on art, design and society... he wanted to transform Victorian working conditions to allow the worker a more satisfying involvement in all aspects of a project, as in medieval times...to make hand-crafted quality products commercial and widely available, and to improve working and living conditions at the same time.

As early as the 1880's...the initial emphasis on medievalism began to wane...The common threads that emerged in the movement's philosophical and social principles were: social reform of working conditions; free individual expression encouraging creative satisfaction and dignity in labor; regionalism and the use of local and natural, rather than imported or overly processed materials, and the holistic unity of a building's design, furnishings and adornments in harmony with its environment."

(From "The Arts and Crafts Movement" Robin Langley Sommer and David Rago Ed.1995 pp 7-12)

So is it Golden Age Architecture's interest in natural-looking courses that makes it Arts and Crafts?

A rejection of the symmetry and formula of Victorian golf architecture. Embracing the historic model of the naturally evolved links. The emphasis on craftmanship and the work of man. Nature as the perfect model.
 
• All of those un-natural bunkers with imported sand were ok. The sand in heathland was not imported and the bunkers were a representative of the links, in contrast to the Victorian trenches
• There's no emphasis on social reform or working conditions of laborers. Were the working conditions of Golf course labourers poor? Afterall they were outdoors and craftsmen working with their hands.
• Not much talk of free individual expression on the part of the artist or designer Do Park, Fowler, Colt and Abercromby's have their own indiviualistic style?
• plenty of talk of how linksland golf is the way to go. Often, we see architects (with their abhorence of trees and love of the links) in some ways really preaching that we should do our best to move the links model of golf inland as intact as we can. (such importation of a ready-made model is far from A&C philosophy in terms of the use of the natural and the interest in regionalism).That is why they thrived in the Heathland

As to your specific question, Mr. MacWood, I would characterize my knowledge of the period as solid enough, at least to question your unsubstantiated yet publically circulated theories within the context of this web forum. Solid?

I'm glad you are finally trying to look into the A&C movement...now if you could convince TE.
 

[Adam_F_Collins]

Thank you for the conversation, Mr. MacWood. I appreciate your effort and your interest in the subjects. The history of Golf Course Architecture (and history in general) can only benefit from study and challenging discussion.

[T_MacWood]

Thank you for the conversation, Mr. MacWood. I appreciate your effort and your interest in the subjects. The history of Golf Course Architecture (and history in general) can only benefit from study and challenging discussion.

Likewise. Thank you.

[DMoriarty]

Out of curiosity, just what were these other "'return to nature'" artistic movements going on in GB&I which were unrelated to the Arts and Crafts Movement of the time?  Aside from GCA, of course?

Um... the rise of the Public Park, the increasing interest in nature as 'healthy'...

I am not sure that these were completely unrelated to the arts and crafts movement, but it is probably worth further inquiry.  

Weren't these same guys buying Lutyen's mansions and commishioning Jekyll's gardens?  It practice, the Arts and Crafts Movement was not much of a lower-class movement, at least as far as the consumers were concerned.

Were they? That was what I asked. I said it might be interesting to consider - and would be an interesting direction for further study. I think its a good question, and I see that you do too. Excellent.

It is a good question.  My understanding is that a major paradox of the AC Movement is that while its practicioners and supporters were speaking for the poor and oppressed, they were mostly quite well-to-do.   Likewise, the handcrafted goods they produced were often much too costly for the average person.  

This may have been a large part why it didnt last, especially with the smaller "crafts."  The careful, handmade product just couldnt compete price-wise with mass production.  It is generally the larger items like the big houses for the rich that were appreciated and survived.    

I dont know that the exact same people were supporting both movements, but they were supported by people of the same status and influence, in the same locations, at the same time.   I think Tom MacWood covers this in his essay.  The burgeoning centers for the arts and crafts movement were often burgeoning centers for golf course architecture.  And the dates match up pretty well, too.  

I think that TomM documents that some of the same people were involved in both movements.  

So let me get this straight, between 1880 and 1900, 150 new clubs were established in the U.K. That means an average of 7.5 new courses per year over 20 years. Is this the 'mass-produced' Victorian Age of Golf Course Architecture that the golden age was reacting to?

Yes.  This may not sound like much by todays standards, but keep in mind where golf was at this time.   Golf expanded tenfold in twenty years.  And this excludes the United States, where there were probably close to or more than 100 courses in the works or built by the turn of the century.  

And yes, they all reacted against and rejected the type of architecture being produced during this early inland period.  Pretty much every one of them who wrote about course design made it a point to trash this period of golf course architecture.   Even those writing decades later (MacKenzie in the 1930's, for example, were still bemoaning the lasting effects of this horrible design.  Behr called these courses "abortions."

I think we underestimate how bad it was, because most of this stuff is long gone.    

And what about the coastal 17 that were there since 1850? Were these the Victorian courses the Golden Age Architects were so opposed to?

I think those coastal courses generally pre-date the Industrial Age.  These were the courses to which the "Golden Age" architects returned.  They rejected the "Victorian" and "Industrial"  (their words) and returned to the roots of the game.  To me, this may be the most compelling similarity between the AC Movement and this period of GCA.  

Were the same situations really present in golf that were found in the manufacturing and mass-production of consumer goods that brought the reactions from people like Ruskin, Pugin and Morris? Or were the common threads really quite thin - falling mainly on a common interest in 'the beauty of nature'? Is that really enough to include it as representative of a social and artistic movement?

Well, if you believe what the writers (mostly designers) of the time wrote, there were lots of similarities, besides the beauty of nature. Off of the top of my head, here are some complaints that appear both in AC literature and in GCA literature: Products were being churned out to keep up with a growing demand from the masses; Little or no thought was given to aethetics or beauty;  The uniqueness of place, or vernacular, was ignored; The products were overy formulaic and lacked originality; the process was too mechanical, too impersonal, too rushed; all artistic qualities were being lost.  

These similarities may not be enough to convince you, but I  dont think that they can be considered "thin."

While I do believe that it was affected by the spirit of the times (A&C or otherwise) It seems to me that calling it "Arts and Crafts Golf" is misleading - as the links courses were still so influential in themselves, and they came before the movement began.

I hope you will forgive me for saying so, but I dont think you are quite grasping the arts and crafts movement here, at least in this context.    Yes, these guys looked back past the Victorian courses to the earlier Links courses for inspiration.  This is in large part what the AC Movement was about-- Looking back to the state of the art before the Victorian/Industrial age.   Had these designers not returned to the links but instead only looked forward, then their work could never be considered AC.  

This has been a sticking point for many during these discussions.  They treat the return to the Links as a decisive blow against TomM's thesis.  But rather than defeaing the argument, the 'return to the links' may be the argument's single most important supporting fact.  

I think Paul Turner really hit on an important point.  We take it for granted that the links courses were always this huge aesthetic influence, but the fact is, the links courses were not a primary aesthetic influence during this "Victorian Age."     That is what these guys were up against, and what they rebelled against.  This was a period where, according to them, courses were being produced one after another with mechanical and geometric precision, but with no thought given to the roots of the game, or its aesthetic.   The "Golden Age" was at its heart a revival of pre-industrial Links Golf, just as so much of the Arts and Crafts Movement was an attempt to revive what came before.  

Ironically, GCA may have been much more successful in acheiving this goal than most of the AC Movement.  

So is it Golden Age Architecture's interest in natural-looking courses that makes it Arts and Crafts?

No.  If it is Arts and Crafts it is because of the rejection of the Victorian/Industrial design, and a return to the previous aesthetic, that of the Links, along with many supporting factors such as viewing course design as an Art and the designer as an artist and a respect for the vernacular.  

You know as well as I do that the AC movement didnt always express itself in "natural-looking" products.  GCA is the same.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Thoughtful and thought-provoking points, Mr. Moriarty. I thank you sincerely as well for taking the time to put them to words.

Cheers,

Adam

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Mac,

This discussion, argument, pissing match, whatever anyone wants to call it has some very interesting aspects to it. In reading through I had 2 questions based upon statements you made.

The first is based on this statement: "The common image of a sport which enjoyed universal popularity throughout Scotland is not entirely accurate, its popularity was limited to specific coastal pockets. In fact in 1850 there were only 17 golf clubs in Scotland"

Question, what are the names of those 17 clubs?

The second is based upon this statement: ""We have only scraped the surface of golf architecture history. Very few have looked at it in a comprehensive way and as more do, it will continue to change and evolve."

is that really what you meant to say, that HISTORY changes and evolves? I believe what you really meant, and if so I wholeheartedly agree with you, that our VIEWS of what actually happened and why they did in the past, changes and evolves as we study aspects of the past to greater degrees and from different aspects. I think that's what you meant.

Anyway, feeling like I have stepped into the middle of the street between two gunfighters intent on taking each other out, I will slowly walk across and enter the general store and watch through the windows!  

[T_MacWood]

Phillip
I don't know the names of the 17 clubs, that information comes from Robert Price's excellent book 'Scotland's Golf Courses'.

Regarding the second question, I believe what I wrote is correct. History is an account or narrative of what happened, as we learn more it evolves and changes.

[ForkaB]

Phillip (and Tom)

In Scotland, clubs and courses are not always the same thing.  For example, the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers was a club in the mid 18th century, but it did not get its own course until 1891, when it moved to Muirfield. Alternatively, golf was played at Dornoch in the early 17th century, but it didn't get a proper club until 1877.

I assume that somewhere there is documentation for Price's number of 17 in 1850 (and that he is referring to courses, rather than clubs).  It probably includes these usual suspects:

St. Andrews
Dornoch
Montrose
Crail
Musselburgh
North Berwick
Burntisland
Aberdeen
Prestwick
Perth
Leith
Glasgow
Bruntsfield
Banff
Cullen
etc.

Interestingly, more than one of these venues are not links courses......

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood asked;

TE
Do you think Pugin's religious devotion was what the A&C founders latched on to? And how did it manifest itself within the movement?

Tom MacW:

Why don’t you try to answer that, after all, you’re the one who wrote the following? In it you say Pugin was one of the primary reformers who essentially created the movement that became the A/C Movement. It seems Pugin’s conversion to Catholicism was what you refer to as his ‘turning point’. You go on to say Pugin became convinced that “Gothic” architecture was the only true Christian architecture and that “Classical” architecture was “faux-Gothic” and therefore “Pagan”. That sounds a lot like some pretty intense “religiosity” to me as a motivator of one of the three men you cite as a “Reformer” who basically created what you call the “Arts and Crafts” Movement.

From your Part II of Arts and Crafts Movement:

“The turning point in Pugin’s life was his conversion to Catholicism in 1835. The following year he published a book entitled Contrasts (a slight reduction from its original title, A Parallel between the Noble Edifices of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, and Similar Buildings of the Present Day; Shewing the Present Decay of Taste). In the book Pugin argued that Gothic was the only true Christian architecture. It was illustrated by brilliant comparisons between the 'meanness, cruelty and vulgarity' of buildings of his own day, the Classical and faux-Gothic, and the glories of the true Gothic of the pre-Reformation Catholic past. He claimed Gothic architecture was produced by the Catholic faith and that Classic architecture was Pagan. The Reformation had been a dreadful scourge, and medieval architecture was greatly superior to anything produced by the Renaissance or Classic revivals -- 'a bastard Greek, nondescript modern style has ravaged many of the most interesting cities of Europe.'”

“Pugin believed that beauty should grow from necessity, that there were two great rules for design, '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.' These two principles would influence the succeeding Arts and Crafts Movement, and eventually led to freely composed asymmetrical buildings. 'Architectural features are continually tacked on buildings which they have no connection, merely for the sake of what is termed effect; and ornaments are actually constructed, instead of forming the decoration of construction, to which in good taste they should always be subservient.'”

There’s nothing extraneous here on my part. I’m quoting you to make a point, in this case the point of “religiosity” as an apparently important influence ('turning point') on one of the "Reformers" you cite as one of the three creators of what is to become the A/C Movement. If you can’t even deal with questions on what you wrote yourself other than to crow your constant refrain that none of us understand the A/C Movement, then I’m afraid both you and your A/C Movement article, particularly as it pertains to some influence or primary influence (as you claim) on golf course architecture is basically a waste of everyone’s time on this website.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Pugin was a precursor to the A & C movement...a table setter.

Pugin was a deeply religious man, his religious devotion influenced the way he looked upon the world and upon architecture. He was an architectural reformer...his ideas about design influenced the founders the A & C movement...the quote you took from the essay mentions his two great rules of design they latched onto.

Is it your understanding that Pugin's religious devotion became a major component of the A&C movement? If so, how did it manifest itself?

[TEPaul]

"It is now official.....I've received seven, count em' seven phone calls today, asking me what is up with all of you--that is ALL OF YOU (including me) who have posted incessently on this thread.

For the love of humanity, GIVE IT A F U C K I N G REST!"

TommyN:

If you don't like this particular thread then just get the f... off it. There's some very good and in-depth questioning going on within this thread regarding a point and premise that resides rather prominently and permanently within the "In My Opinion" section of this website. As such it may have a real influence on the thinking about the history and evolution of golf course architecture of many who read it. Some of us to not agree with some of the points in that essay or even the premise for that matter and this is our way of challenging them----eg through discussion on the "Discussion Group" section of this web-site. If you want to go discuss who the 9th ranked golf course in the state of New Jersey is then go do that on that thread. There's plenty of subjects on this website's discussion group and perhaps some of them are not for everyone but that most certainly does not mean they don't belong on here or that they aren't important to some of this site's contributors.  

[mike_malone]

 I don't understand much of this thread , but it is like the "Thrilla in Manila ". Since the current heavyweights in boxing are losers this thread provides me with that exchange of bombs I miss.

[wsmorrison]

This topic keeps resurfacing with little if anything new added.  There may well be a general influence of the A and C movement on a number of artistic endeavors but to conclude that there was a direct overwhelming influence on golf course architecture is ludicrous.  The naturalism that existed on a number of links courses, most notably The Old Course, is the main trunk of the evolutionary tree of a golf course architecture.  Somewhere there was a stubby branch that was the geometric architecture of the later part of the 19th century.  Fortunately this branch whithered.  The new geometric movement was not squashed by the A and C movement; or should I say nobody has proved that at all.  There has been no direct link proposed despite what Tom MacWood, David Moriarty and others (real or imagined) think.  If geometric architecture was the start of golf course architecture and nothing preceded it, then you might say that the A and C movement had a some greater significance.  But there was a preceding style that was completely natural.  This seems ignored.  

Hutchinson's writings in the 1897 "British Golf Links," particularly descriptions of some truly geometric courses certainly indicates that he was not influencing any evolutionary movement in golf architecture towards some naturalism.  See his writings on Bournemouth, Eltham and Richmond among others.

Now before I get ripped for not having read as much as Tom MacWood on the subject (a little like Matt Ward's arguments defending his positions) I am basing my criticism on his writings and my own experience.  I may be proved wrong at some point but the level of proof today is so low that the conclusions do not be considered of any definitive value at this point.

[Sean_A]

I have been reading the ding donging.  Quite interesting, but for the most part over my head.  However, the business about Golden Age archies looking back to pre-Industrial Revolution is remarkable.  My understanding of this period is that industrial manufacturing was being exported to the continent by the 1830s.  The revolution would have started as early as the 1760s!  Does anybody have examples of courses that would have been used as Golden Age inspiration from before the American Revolution?  

Ciao

Sean

[wsmorrison]

If Hutchinson and the A and C movement was such an influence, why did it not succeed with Macdonald to some degree and to a much greater degree Raynor and Banks?  Because they were in America?  What was the reason Ross departed from square/rectangular greens and moved towards flared corners (late 19teens) and later more abstract shapes?  Was it the A and C movement?

[Chris Parker]

Question, what are the names of those 17 clubs?

Philip,

Fig 2.2, on page 23 of Price's "Scotland's Golf Courses", is a map entitled 'The location of golf courses: 1730-1849'.

It shows the following 17 courses:

Peterhead 1841
Cruden Bay 1791
Aberdeen 1780
Montrose 1810
Carnoustie 1842
Perth 1842
Tayport 1817
St. Andrews 1754
Crail 1786
Leven 1820
Burnt Island 1797
North Berwick 1832
Dunbar 1794
Edinburgh 1735
Leith 1744
Musselburgh 1774
Glasgow 1787

On page 7 of Price it states that there were 23 Golfing Societies or Clubs in existence by 1849, but "this does not mean that there were 23 courses."

If you don't own "Scotland's Golf Courses" (it's a great, unique golf book) and you'd like to, try this link http://www.mercatpress.com/BookDetails.asp?ISBN=1841830305&Category=culture

[Craig Disher]

If Hutchinson and the A and C movement was such an influence, why did it not succeed with Macdonald to some degree and to a much greater degree Raynor and Banks?  Because they were in America?  What was the reason Ross departed from square/rectangular greens and moved towards flared corners (late 19teens) and later more abstract shapes?  Was it the A and C movement?

Are you suggesting Macdonald didn't urge "naturalism" as a necessary feature of gca? (Maybe you're just excluding the A/C movement from his influences). His emphasis on variety as it's found in nature is fundamental to his approach to course design. In Scotland's Gift he cites Repton's advice not to be carried away with the "new" but to rely on established principles in design - which as far as gca was concerned Macdonald felt were exemplified at courses like TOC and Hoylake.

Macdonald was such a worldly guy that I wouldn't find it hard to believe that he knew of the A/C movement and found some resonance between its principles and his views on gca. I also think Morris and the rest would have felt quite in sync with his views.

[T_MacWood]

There may well be a general influence of the A and C movement on a number of artistic endeavors but to conclude that there was a direct overwhelming influence on golf course architecture is ludicrous.  

Wayne
Where in the essay does it say the A&C movement was an overwhelming influence?

The naturalism that existed on a number of links courses, most notably The Old Course, is the main trunk of the evolutionary tree of a golf course architecture.

I agree, but that same trunk exsisted while the Victorian architects were doing their thing. The A&C Movement is not a trunk or branch of the tree, it is the vehicle or state of mind or attitude that allowed golf architecture to move from the Victorian to the more naturalistic designs emulating the links.

The new geometric movement was not squashed by the A and C movement; or should I say nobody has proved that at all....But there was a preceding style that was completely natural.  This seems ignored.  
 

They did not call it the new geometric movement they called it Victorian. Victorian had negative connotation thanks to the artists, critics and theorists associated with the A&C movement. The preceding style is not being ignored by anyone, nobody is claiming the golden age architect invented naturalism--they embraced the links of the past, which were certainly more natural, this is consistant with what the arts were doing.

Hutchinson's writings in the 1897 "British Golf Links," particularly descriptions of some truly geometric courses certainly indicates that he was not influencing any evolutionary movement in golf architecture towards some naturalism.  See his writings on Bournemouth, Eltham and Richmond among others.

You're right, no one was saying anything about those courses. No one was saying anything negative about any golf course or golf architect. In fact there was a complete absence of any discusion on golf architecture.

It was not until a year later when the first criticism appeared (Hutchison in CL). Thus began a concerted effort to promote courses that better reflected the links and to condemn the Victorian efforts. Hutchinson was a key figure.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

"It is now official.....I've received seven, count em' seven phone calls today, asking me what is up with all of you--that is ALL OF YOU (including me) who have posted incessently on this thread.

For the love of humanity, GIVE IT A F U C K I N G REST!"

TommyN:

If you don't like this particular thread then just get the f... off it. There's some very good and in-depth questioning going on within this thread regarding a point and premise that resides rather prominently and permanently within the "In My Opinion" section of this website. As such it may have a real influence on the thinking about the history and evolution of golf course architecture of many who read it. Some of us to not agree with some of the points in that essay or even the premise for that matter and this is our way of challenging them----eg through discussion on the "Discussion Group" section of this web-site. If you want to go discuss who the 9th ranked golf course in the state of New Jersey is then go do that on that thread. There's plenty of subjects on this website's discussion group and perhaps some of them are not for everyone but that most certainly does not mean they don't belong on here or that they aren't important to some of this site's contributors.  

Tom,
Ask EVERYONE on the website if they want to read threads where you are more or less erupting into a fit over Tom MacWood's Arts & Crafts and George Crump's death AGAIN.

That is my entire point.

Why not take this valuable time and doing something more creative with it--like helping Wayne finish the William Flynn book? Now that would be something really worth reading instead of pissing matches about "I'm right and your wrong" AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN.

[DMoriarty]

Wayne,

Not exactly sure what you add to the discussion by describing what you perceive as others' views as "ludicrous," but it each his own I guess . . .

Again, you are inverting what I think may be one of the key factors in the analysis.  These guys rejected the contemporary "Victorian" approach to golf design and returned to the links courses.   This rejection of the current and return to the older, pre-industrial courses closely traces what was going on in the AC Movement at the same time.  

The naturalism that existed on a number of links courses, most notably The Old Course, is the main trunk of the evolutionary tree of a golf course architecture.  Somewhere there was a stubby branch that was the geometric architecture of the later part of the 19th century.

I think it a mistake to focus solely on the "naturalism."  The AC Movement did not, so why would you expect that a AC GCA would?  

Also, I think you are drastically underestimating this "stubby little branch."   At least the writers and designers of the supposed Golden Age (MacDonald, MacKenzie, Behr, Travis, Hunter, Hutchinson, to name just some) did not treat this as a stub or a temporary offshoot, but a major and destructive phase in golf course design.  

Fortunately this branch whithered.  The new geometric movement was not squashed by the A and C movement; or should I say nobody has proved that at all.

Well, whither isnt quite accurate, is it?  Wasnt it actively and vigorously quashed by those who TomM is suggesting are the AC designers.  

Take a look at Merion-- an example you are much more familiar with than me.   The first Merion wasnt anything like that existing now.  And it didnt whither but was actively replaced by something entirely-- revolutionarily-- different.  And look at Wilson's influences.  He doesnt spend his time studying and emulating the hundreds of "dark ages" courses which proceeded Merion, but instead returns to the roots of the game, to the pre-industrial courses and perhaps some newer ones' who had also discarded the "dark ages" as well. This doesnt look like something "whithering" away to me.  It looks to me more like an active and conscious rejection of the current approach and a return to an approach steeped in the pre-industrial roots of the sport.  

If geometric architecture was the start of golf course architecture and nothing preceded it, then you might say that the A and C movement had a some greater significance.  But there was a preceding style that was completely natural.  This seems ignored.[

To the contrary,  had their been nothing pre-industrial to return to then the GCA could never be considered AC.  The rejection of the Victorian and return to the preindustrial is at the very heart of the AC Movement.   It is precisely this rejection of the Victorian and return to the pre-industrial which most compels one make the AC comparison.

I've written this about 50 times now.  Is it really that difficult to understand?

[T_MacWood]

If Hutchinson and the A and C movement was such an influence, why did it not succeed with Macdonald to some degree and to a much greater degree Raynor and Banks?  Because they were in America?  What was the reason Ross departed from square/rectangular greens and moved towards flared corners (late 19teens) and later more abstract shapes?  Was it the A and C movement?

The NGLA was not a success and a departure from the crude designs that existed? I personally find the style of Raynor and Banks aesthetically pleasing. And certainly they were looking to the past for inspiration. IMO Raynor was one of the very best at utilizing the natural features of a site. I am also of the opinion that one of the primary reasons golden age architecture is so interesting is the diversity of styles. That is one of the reason the architecture of that period so interesting as well.

You can trace Ross's conversion to a trip abroad he made in 1910 (following a visit by Hutchinson and Macdonald to Boston) to study and observe the state of modern golf design.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom (and a few others), thanks for the answers to my queries. Your first one was, "Phillip, I don't know the names of the 17 clubs, that information comes from Robert Price's excellent book 'Scotland's Golf Courses'."

Now is this an example of how "History changes?" As Chris shows the list from Price's book, please note the following PARTIAL list as recorded by Bobby Burnett, Golf Historian, St. Andrews, 1995: … Records of early golf clubs are notoriously sketchy. The development of City golfing societies was essentially a Scottish one and did not necessarily mean the society had their own course. Based on actual documentary evidence, rather than claims for foundation dates, the following is a list of those clubs or societies still in existence and with their own course on an original site. Kingsbarns Golfing Society is believed to have been founded in 1793, but the course and club dates from 1815:

1744   Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers…. Edinburgh
1754   Royal and Ancient Golf Club…… St. Andrews        
1766   Royal Blackheath Golf Club… London
1770   Royal Burgess Golfing Society… Edinburgh
1780   Royal Aberdeen Golf Club… Aberdeen
1784   Royal Musselburgh Golf Club…… Musselburgh
1786   Crail Golfing Society… Crail
1787   Brontsfield Golfing Society… Edinburgh
           Glasgow Golf Club… Glasgow            
1797   Burnwisland Golf Club…
1810   Royal Albert (Montrose) Golf Club… Montrose  
1815   Kingsbarns Golf Club… Kingsbarns"

Note, these are Societies with THEIR OWN CLUBS Still in existence today! Without even a careful look, this list DIFFERS CONSIDERABLY from Price's.

Again, this is a list of courses and clubs STILL IN EXISTENCE TODAY? IF one of the cornerstones of this discussion is based upon basic information such as this that can't seem to be agreed upon by recognized authorities (& Doc Malcolm, a noted historian in St. Andrews has a list that is in agreement with Bobby Burnett's) then how can ANYONE speak DEFINITIVELY on this subject?

"Regarding the second question, I believe what I wrote is correct. History is an account or narrative of what happened, as we learn more it evolves and changes." I am very surprised by this response.

How can "History," as partly defined by the merican College Dictionary as "the aggregate of past events" CHANGE? What could possibly be unearthed that could change the FACT OF AN EVENT? That is absurd, Tom.

Events don't change; our UNDERSTANDING & VIEWS of events change. This is not mere semantics as your response shows, and it is important.

As Burnett & others have shown, Price had only a partial list & many of the citations are now viewed as incorrect in things such as dates and even missing clubs! Or maybe it's Burnett & the others who are wrong because of what they have written to be the ACTUAL HISTORY? Or maybe they are BOTH wrong?

In any of these scenarios, how has HISTORY CHANGED? It hasn't. Just because an event is improperly recorded doesn't mean that it didn't happen in an exact & specific way; rather, the opposite is the case and it is the RECORDING that is incorrect and changes.

In this simple historical exercise, the one thing that we can say for certain is that SOMEBODY, if not both, is wrong. That doesn't change history. It also means that unless you have done the actual research yourself, you are not in a position to state anything other than "I agree with so&so because..." and so lose the ability to speak dogmatically.

I still think that you are stating things in the manner that I thought & hope you will reconsider.    

[ForkaB]

I'd have more willingness to listen to what Horace Hutchinson had to say about GCA and a "return to the pre-industrial age" if he had not been behind the nefarious attempt to move the R&A Headquarters from St. Andrews to London in 1913.

We seem to treat these old dead guys as paragons of truth and virtue, when they were, in fact, flawed human beings, with their own prejudices and agendas, just like all of us.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()