Matt,

I was "banned" at one time from one of my own courses (or at least that's what they told Don Placek over the phone), so I can sympathize with you.  In my case, too, it was over something I'd written.  But I seem to be welcome again there now.

I won't say anything more about Olde Kinderhook, but don't hype it up too much for me, or I'm more likely to be disappointed when I finally see it for myself.

I was reading the parallel thread on magazines and reviews, and noted that Brad Klein said something I was thinking about today.  I tend to be more sympathetic as a reviewer of new courses nowadays because I understand better all the factors that can go wrong from a thought to a finished product.  (By my own scoring, my architectural career record goes something like 7-6-6-8-4-5-6-8-7-8-6-5-10 so far, and it's not because I've learned or forgotten things about golf strategy; it has to do with all the other factors, from the piece of land to the intrusion of housing and cart paths to getting along with clients and contractors, ad infinitum.)

Because I'm an architect, though, people tend to see my reviews as giving the architect all the credit or ALL THE BLAME, and fellow architects are particularly apt to think of my reviews in that way.  So, I'm trying to be more circumspect about what I say when the personalities involved are listening.

BTW, though, I shudder at Brad Klein's mention of how different contractors do different styles, or how design associates affect the finished product.  Wadsworth and Landscapes and Chip Macdonald can all do virtually any style, if they put the right shapers on the job, or work with the architect's own people.

As for design associates, I'm all for them getting their props, but it really should come from their bosses.  It's fine to speculate and distinguish between the work of Walter Hatch and JB McGovern, because they're both dead, but I can't help thinking that someone's preferences for Pete Dye associates or Robert Muir Graves associates might be biased by who has courted the reviewer more.  Besides, passing the credit on to the "lead associate" is really just an extension of the "auteur" theory, isn't it?  After all, who but ourselves really knows how much of Stonewall Two is my idea, how much is Don Placek's, and how much is Eric Iverson or Brian Schneider or Kye Goalby or Kyle Franz?

Matt
I'm still not certain how a non-member gets banned from a private club. I suppose I'm band from ANGC myself...in fact we're all banned...GD commies.

But anyway this is the good old USA and we have freedom of assembly....and freedom of speech. And I don't think that club has the ability to put a muzzle on you.

Architects (and famous writers) critically analyzing other architects was pretty common in the first three decades of the 20thC. Darwin criticized GCGC among many other courses  (he liked Brookline better). Travis's analysis of Emmet (GCGC) and Macdonald (NGLA). Croome was critical of Fowler at Westward Ho!. MacKenzie rarely pulled punches. Hutchinson was outspoken about his likes and dislikes. Everybody hammered poor Tom Dunn.

It was a relatively common activity. They were generally very fair--stressing both the good and bad. And always gentlemanly. I can't help but think that those circumstances--an atmosphere where your work was going to be anlayzed by your peers--had a positive effect on design.

Quote from: Tom MacWood on June 29, 2003, 10:25:38 AM

I can't help but think that those circumstances--an atmosphere where your work was going to be anlayzed by your peers--had a positive effect on design.

Can there be any doubt that you're right about that?

What happened?

Why can't architects give it and take it -- very publicly -- anymore?

Dan, this is symptomatic of society in general today. Heck, very few people on this site can take any criticism of their ideas/posts & most aren't even in the business. Can we really expect architects to be any different?

Hope, maybe, but expect, not really.

Tom MacWood,

please note that RTJ did not write - he hired a New Jersey sportswriter by the name of Red Hoffman who ghosted for him for decades. There are very few architects today who write their own stuff - Doak is rare that way in publications. A number of others who "write" actually have it produced by ghost writers whom they pay as public relations consultants.

Shivas, you entirely missed my point.

Peer review or some other form of subjective (biased) critical review would be benificial for the following two reasons, among others:
1.  Both the party critiquing and the party being critiqued might learn something.
2.  Golfers might better understand what they are seeing and playing; might be able to make more informed decisions about how they spend their money and time; and might find that they more enjoy golf.

You keep trying to distinguish science from architecture, but you are trying to stretch my analogy too far.  The analogy is no deeper than this:  Scientists and architects both have a high level of expertise in their field;  they therefore are uniquely qualified to opine on the work of others in the same field; if convincingly presented, such opinions might alter and/or advance their field.    

One relevant difference between scientists and GCArchitects is that golfers read golf publications, whereas most of the public doesnt read serious scientific publications.  So GCArchitects may be in a better position to directly influence their public than scientists.

. . . sure their are different tastes in art and architecture, but that certainly shouldnt stop us from being judgmental.  That is were the subjectiveness/bias comes into play . . . critique the course based on something . . . tell us why you like it or dislike it . . . explain the methodogy (read: bias) behind the critique.  Happens in art and architecture all the time.  

In golf, there is no reliance within the architectural community the way there is in the scientific community.  Thus, peer review would not be crucial for the overall development of coure architecture the same way it is for science.

I notice that you limit your premise to "within the architectural community."  First, I am not just talking about the "architectural community," narrowly defined.  I am talking about the golf community; golfers, developers, writers, fans, commentators, etc.  You think that when Fazio, Doak, or Nicklaus offers an opinion no one in the golf community relies on it?  Come on.

Second, I understand reliance enough to know that there is little or no reliance in the scientific community when it comes to another's work, words, or critique.  That is what peer review is about . . . questioning everything, double checking to see if they got it right.  I dont see why architects, journalists, and players shouldnt take the same route.   Take what they know (bias) and come to an informed opinion on whether the architects are doing adequate work.

Sure, you could have it, but if every architect pans Fazio (for example) and the public loves him and fills every slot on his tee sheets, what difference does the peer review make?

 

Your hypothetical presumes the failure of my premise and is therefore beside the point.  My premise is that if Doak, Nicklaus, Fazio, or whomever actually critiqued and explained their critiques in a style and form which was easily accessible to golfers, then the public might better understand GCA and might be more discerning when filling slots on tee sheets.

. . . Shivas, I dont think I asked you 'why you care about architecture."  I think I asked you why, as a GOLFER, you waste your time talking about GCA and reading about GCA when all that really matters is going out and playing it and deciding what you like.  Unless of course you are here to learn something, in the hopes that the  'something' will make your game more enjoyable.  But this is my premise not yours:

A better understanding of gca makes golf more enjoyable.  Critiques might help GOLFERS attain this understanding, and help architects build courses that GOLFERS more enjoy.

Ironically, you seem to be caught in the moral relativist trap when it comes to gca.   If it isnt what you consider to be an objective endeavor [science] you become paralyzed, refusing to recognize that subjective opinions (critiques) can have tremendous influence on those who read them.  Sure it is just rhetorical, but why should golf course architecture be any different than anything else?

My example of Kinkaid et al wasnt about golfers liking the wrong things, it was about golfers not knowing any better.