"TEPaul, Paul
TE, if I understood you correctly, you're pointing out that writers like Darwin and Hutchinson didn't mention A/C directly, or as a direct influence on GCA. What I was suggesting is that it's POSSIBLE that the influence of the A/C movement ran deep enough (or 'wide' enough) that writers of the time didn't have the same perspective on it that the passing decades allow US to have. Writer Z can mention writer Y as a major influence without realizing that writer X came first, and is thus influencing them both."
PeterP:
Of course it's possible the architects and writers of the Golden Age did not have the same perspective on the A/C movement we may have many decades later. I've never suggested those architects and writers back then were not aware of it, I've only suggested they never mentioned it, and since they did write about what influenced them (significantly so) that should be taken into consideration---strong consideration.
I've also never once said on here that the A/C Movement had no influence whatsoever on the Golden Age of Architecture---I've only suggested that Tom MacWood's essay gives the A/C Movement far more credit for far more influence than I believe a thorough investigation of history surrounding this entire era could accurately assign to it.
That is not the only thing I disagree with him on. I disagree that the A/C Movement itself ever was some universal "philosophy" (Tom MacWood attempts to exapand it beyond a philosophy by labeling it an "approach") which basically permeated all art forms. There is little question that Morris and some of the A/C Movements primary proponents would have liked to see the movement become universal and perhaps permeate all art forms but there's a huge difference between what they hoped would happen with it and what did happen with it. For some reason it seems Tom MacWood has gotten confused between what the A/C Movement's proponents hoped for and what actually happened.
The A/C Movement was an interesting movement and one of a number of "movements" in the arts, as well as in political and social theory during the era it existed but it was by no means some universal philosophy that permeated all art forms. The A/C Movement due primarily to William Morris was essentially one involving building architecture and primarily involving "decorative" arts, certainly including furniture and many other "interior" items. It probably did have a fair influence on landscape design or landscape architecture for a time as well. Morris's philosophy also involved a good deal of political and social theory which was certainly notable at the time but by no means pervasive or generally accepted or embraced in the Victorian age and later.
To me these are the realities of history which are not that hard to understand in this case, and this is only a discussion group. There is nothing dark or nasty going on here. I think, as well as some others obviously do, that Tom MacWood has promoted a "theory", his theory has been thoroughly investigated on here and has been found to come up sorely lacking. In a phrase his "thesis" that the A/C Movement was the primary or even significant influence on the Golden Age of Golf architecture is unsupportable, in my opinion. I believe Tom MacWood's essay is revisionist history writing.
Furthermore, I believe Tom MacWood has in no way whatsoever been successful in defending or supporting his theory in these discussions the way he's gone about it, particularly telling everyone who disagrees with him that they don't understand the A/C Movement or to open a book. We understand it, I'm sure many of us have read plenty about it other than Tom MacWood's essay. In many ways I grew up around it but Tom MacWood seems to see no merit in that whatsoever.
I'm quite sure particularly Paul Cowley who is both a building architect, a golf course architect and who worked for some years in the art form of the "Arts and Crafts" style knows a good deal about it, a good deal more about it than Tom MacWood does. When a guy like Tom MacWood who's probably only plied the Internet and stuck his nose in a few books relating to the subject tells a guy like Paul Cowley he doesn't understand the A/C Movement or its relationship to other art forms, that is when I have to take serious exception to Tom MacWood and some of his drummed up "theories" as well as his approach to this subject and to his defending what he wrote about it.
The description of him as a "positivist" on this subject by another one of our knowledgeable contributors on golf course architecture who has a background in academia is very apropos, in my opinion.