Did the Golden Age 'Jump the Shark' with the Lido?

« **Reply #75 on:** December 23, 2003, 08:48:00 AM »

Pat
How many of us have played Lido? Should we shut down this thread?

« **Reply #76 on:** December 23, 2003, 09:35:26 AM »

Maybe CBM just wanted to challenge himself by attempting to create rather than find.

« **Reply #77 on:** December 23, 2003, 10:28:02 AM »

Tom Paul, believe it or not, I am not advocating a minimalism here, or any other -ism. Just trying to explore what role, if any, natural topography has in gca.

You know Behr much better than I, so you can correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that Behr thought that nature played a role, at least so far as it was something that the architect couldnt completely tame it but had to work with it somewhat.

As for my statements on you reading Behr too broadly, I was focusing on your interpretation of "nature" vs. "forces of nature." I still dont think that any architect can go against "forces of nature." So, respectully, I think that Behr meant something different in the passage than what you attribute to him.

Try and answer my questions in the last post and I think you will see what I mean.

Jim Kennedy. It is a matter of degree. To over simplify, we went from accepting nature as is, to tweaking nature and making changes within certain natural constraints, to completely ignoring nature. I would say that Lido fits with the last while the rest of the era fits with the middle.
____________

Patrick. Yes much of the quirk in the greens at NGLA was man made, but made in such a way to take into account and compliment the natural conditions and flow of the land. The Lido is a large step beyond this, dont you think?

Also, patrick can we pretend like I set out the long quote above? I have played NGLA (once). I'd hate to see this thread digress into yet another "but have you played it?" thread between you and Tom M. After all, C.B. played it, and those are his words.
____________________________

Shivas. I am not talking about where you place your assumptions in your actual written hypo, but rather where you they fall in the natural progression of the way things work in the world.

Its the "assume you have a can opener" hypo when faced with problem of how to open a can.

Yes the Lido was an experiment but not just in the methods of costruction but also on whether man could duplicate nature on a large scale. CB at first thought man couldnt, but then couldnt resist trying anyway.

I think that in a large scale, as a guiding principle of gca, your assumptions are impossible for two reasons: 1. Too hard to duplicate nature. 2. Given the opportunity and technology, man would choose not to duplicate nature but instead would substitute something less random.
___________________

Quote from: George_Bahto on December 23, 2003, 12:31:32 AM

Moriarty ..... see what you started

What I started? We both know who started this, George. And to think how easily it all could have been avoided . . .

« **Reply #78 on:** December 23, 2003, 10:30:16 AM »

Quote from: George Pazin on December 23, 2003, 09:35:26 AM

Maybe CBM just wanted to challenge himself by attempting to create rather than find.

I think that this is exactly right, except for the "just" modifier.

This was a big step. A big difference. A huge departure. Whether they knew it or not (I think that C.B. new it.)

« **Reply #79 on:** December 23, 2003, 10:54:02 AM »

DavidM said;

“By your reasoning (on) interpretation, the architect could always do absolutely anything with a site anytime and still be consistent with Behr. Last time I checked, the "forces of nature" were immutable.”

In no way is that true and a statement such as that denies or disregards most everything Behr said thoughout his essays on golf architecture! A statement like that disregards the entire theme and point of Behr’s essays and his entire philosophy on “Permanent Architecture”. What if what an architect created (or interpreted) was something wholly artifical in appearance---entirely man-made in appearance? What if an architect created something that in no way withstood the immutable forces of nature by being designed and constructed in such a way that produced NO permanency in golf architecture? Do you really think that’s something Behr advocated in architecture? Or Macdonald advocated in golf architecture? Of course not!

”-- What part(s) of Nature was MacDonald "interpreting" when he designed the Lido?”

That’s a wonderful question and an accurate answer to it may very well help you completely understand what both Macdonald and Behr were ultimately striving towards in their philosophies on golf architecture! Presumably, and by his own words, FIRSTLY the parts of Nature Macdonald was “interpreting” when he designed the Lido involved reproducing existing holes from elsewhere or characteristics of them into a natural appearence at the Lido that he was not able to do on other sites because of various natural constraints at other pre-construction sites such as NGLA. The reason Macdonald felt constrained from reproducing those holes elsewhere was because various natural aspects and features on other sites would not allow it without him destroying them or artificially altering them. But this was not the case at Lido pre-construction because the site offered absolutely nothing naturally of use for golf! As far as I know no one in that time or any other time would’ve enjoyed playing golf on natural swamps and on land that was under water! That was essentially the NATURAL pre-construction nature of The Lido---eg its NATURAL aspects and features were totally useless for golf-unlike a site such as NGLA!

Secondly, to conform to one part of Behr’s philosophy on architecture what Macdonald needed to do at Lido despite its less than blank natural canvas for golf was to produce a golf course that the golfer would think was natural. Obviously that would require a massive attempt to “hide the architect’s hand”. The reason Behr felt that was essential in golf architecture was because he believed if any golfer perceived a golf course to be natural (even if it actually wasn’t) he would be less critical of it. Behr’s believed if any golfer perceived an obstacle or course put before him to be artificial appearing he would be more critical of it because he would object to being challenged by another man rather than Nature itself. If one does not understand or believe in that basic philosophical point of Behr’s one will neither understand Behr’s entire philosophy on golf architecture or believe in it!

To conform to the other part of Behr’s philosophy on golf architecture Macdonald needed to produce a course that could withstand the “immutable forces of Nature”. What were those immutable forces of nature to Behr? They were nothing much more than wind and water and how they worked on the earth-even if it was created by an architect. If any architect could produce a golf course that could withstand those immutable forces of Nature’s wind and water presumably that golf course would remain permanent both in fact and in the eyes and minds of golfers, in the opinon of Behr!

Behr’s philosophy primarily revolved around those two parts—that an architect should use something natural or create something that the golfer perceived as natural or at least not artificial to still criticism of the golfer. And to also understand how the immutable forces of Nature—wind and water---WORKED IN NATURE so as to imitate or try to duplicate how those forces worked on earth to render those architectural features the architect created permanent—and so that those immutable forces would not destroy it!

These two primary points that involved analyzing art in architecture, the golfer’s reaction to naturally appearing vs artificially appearing architecture, the immutable forces of nature and how they influenced the earth that made up golf architecture were all the points of Behr’s a priori reasoning throughout his essays that led him to his conclusions of what he termed “Permanent Architecture”! That was most of Max Behr’s philosophy on golf architecture.

« **Reply #80 on:** December 23, 2003, 11:48:24 AM »

NO - the GOLDEN AGE JTS before the LIDO

the LIDO is no watershed event - taken from a New Yorkers' perspective - of all the points you raised as negatives to the LIDO project ie location etc - these are simply minor obstacles in the "can do" usually "egotistical" and sometimes "arrogant" New York style where "anything" is possible as long as enough money is spent (you can see this even today with freedom tower a twelve (12) billion dollar building complex of ten (10) million square feet ! it will have it's own zip code ! )

the watershed event when the GOLDEN AGE JTS when architecture lost touch with the aspect of nature associated with "links" courses - those ever changing and sometimes threatened strips of land from glacial periods constantly changed by nature - tides / surf / WIND / sands / coastal erosion etc over long continuous periods of TIME

the next generation of courses won't even be effected by nature - and be built in biosphere type synthetically manufactured climate controlled anticeptic dome enclosed parcels with underground irrigation and fertilization - totally removed from the vagarities and uncertainties of the weather (nature)

eventually sometime soon more people will play golf by hitting a ball into a picture screen which will respond by projection on the screen - VIRTUAL GOLF - than actually play on a course (per NGF a statistically significant population only go to driving range and never set foot on a course)

the greatest direct impact on a golf course revenue stream is related to the weather per recent NGF analysis report - where weather was cooperative - rounds played were up and vice-versa during 2003

just as cartball dominates the landscape on new courses today - because the related revenue produced is the lifeblood of these courses and cannot be denied - the next architectural challange will be to "weather-proof" and preserve revenue streams - same by the way as in football (whoever remembers the Ice Bowl will see from a revenue angle why it could not be played today - which is where football JTS)

the anti-cart walking only golfers are a endangered species and will go the way of metal spikes because architecture responded to artificial revenue generation from cartball as being a paramount consideration of design - and with it went the GOLDEN AGE ideal - hence the LIDO is not the turning point you suggest

related to this IMHO - we are however in the STONE AGE of architecture today - architecture is relegated to consider only revenue stream preservation or revenue stream enhancment first (hence the proliferation of cartball) and inspirational design last or only as and aside - with exceptions being statistically insignificant

« **Reply #81 on:** December 23, 2003, 12:03:37 PM »

DavidM said;

"You know Behr much better than I, so you can correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that Behr thought that nature played a role, at least so far as it was something that the architect couldnt completely tame it but had to work with it somewhat."

David:

Of course Behr thought Nature should play a role and a very large role. And Behr certainly believed that an architect should do everything possible to identify and use natural features and the things some of us call "natural aspect" on preconstruction sites. But Behr said nothing about a site that had no natural features or aspects that were useful for golf. Presumably this was the type of site Macdonald faced pre-construction at Lido.

So if he had nothing useful to use initially of course he would need to create it all. To that I can't imagine that Behr would have said anything to him other than:

"C.B. you have a massive job ahead of you to not only completely CREATE a course that looks entirely natural to the golfer and will also withstand the forces of nature because there's not a damn thing there right now in the way of Natural features of aspects that's useful for golf! So, good luck, work your ass off in both conception and construction and I hope you have a big budget to do those things!"

And if Macdonald pulled all that off as reputedly he did I can't imagine Behr not admiring him for it. The only thing Behr might have had a problem with would've been if there was something there naturally useful for golf originally and Macdonald chose not to use it or destroyed it.

« **Reply #82 on:** December 23, 2003, 12:19:51 PM »

Frank_D,
Your militant, I can respect that.

« **Reply #83 on:** December 23, 2003, 01:05:24 PM »

DavidM:

I guess after all this one should ask (and some have asked on this thread) what the difference is in the context of your thread and premise between what C.B did at Lido and Fazio did at Shadow Creek many decades later?

We know that both of them created something incredible out of two sites that offered absolutely nothing originally in the way of NATURAL features and aspects useable for golf.

In my opinion, the differences between Lido and Shadow Creek are simply this---both of them might appear to be natural although both are wholly created. But at least The Lido golf course looked like much of the natural south shore of Long Island New York on which it was created.

Shadow Creek looks something like perhaps Oregon and it was created on the flat desert floor of Nevada---an extraordinarily unnatural juxtaposition, to say the least. Shadow Creek looks like a mirage and looking in my dictionary I see a definition of "mirage" is;

"Something illusory or without substance in reality."

« **Reply #84 on:** December 23, 2003, 03:14:35 PM »

DavidM asked;

"-- In the case of the Lido, what was the "surface of the earth" over which only the forces of Nature were master?"

David:

In the case of the Lido the "surface of the earth" over which the forces of Nature should be Master was all that Macdonald created there with his golf course architecture (like other golf courses and how the forces of Nature work on their earth and architecture). Of course, this should never be confused with daily maintenance practices. All I'm referring to here is what Behr was referring to in how golf architecture should be created in such a way so as to prevent being destroyed by the natural work of wind and water. This would be one example of Behr's philosophy of "Permanent Architecture".

"-- Can you give me an example of a golf course which is more antithetical to "the forces of nature" than the Lido?"

I never saw the Lido so it's hard to say but Macdonald himself made a few references to how the forces of Nature were negatively affecting areas of the Lido. One example he gave was the Biarritz that was negatively affected by its proximity to the beach and ocean. He also mentioned some mistake that was made by the real estate developers who bought the course from the original developers and how that created a situation that resulted in a negative effect by the forces of Nature.

This may create an outcry here but an example of a hole that has been effected by the forces of Nature, at least in the sense of additional cost to maintain it as is, would be the 18th green and green-end of Pebble Beach!

Other good examples would be the so-called "water holes" of Macd/Raynor's Creek Club. Those hole required an additional outlay from the club in 1929 of $100,000 to fix!

The most outrageous example I know of was one cited by an architect at the 2001 Archipalooza at Bandon Dunes in 2001. The architect of the course, to our amazement, kept showing slides of a hole he'd built in Japan on the ocean that kept getting annihilated by the ocean, rebuilt, annihilated, rebuilt, annihilated etc, etc. By the time he finished his slide show of this hole he said that hole had cost more to continously rebuild than the cost of the entire rest of the course.

Obvioiusly, if Max Behr had seen and heard this architect he would've wondered what he was trying to prove with this slide show other than that he had very little understanding of what the forces of Nature were all about and certainly what his ideas of permanent architecture meant!

« **Reply #85 on:** December 23, 2003, 07:10:14 PM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on December 23, 2003, 08:46:59 AM

Is it possible your quote was taken slightly out of context…Macdonald didn’t say the property was ill suited for a golf course,

No, I don't think it's possible that the QUOTE was taken out of context.

He not only said it wasn't suitable for a golf course, he said,"The land was looked upon as WHOLLY ILL SUTED FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT.
A WORTHLESS MESS OF BRAMBLES, SWAMPY AREAS AND BOGS..

he said the property was looked upon as ill suited, understandably since it was nearly impossible to explore. If you go on to read the rest of Macdonald’s comments, it appears that the 205 acres they selected from the 450 was well suited for their purposes.

I disagree, a good deal of the property finally selected sits very low, in areas prone to swamps and bogs and flooding.
Even today, the tidal ebbs inundate the bunker on # 14 and the surrounding areas.

I really don’t see your comparison of Lido and the NGLA as a good one.

I do
I'd go a step further and say that any two courses replete with similar template holes are comparable.
And, as I said earlier, the green sites at NGLA were heavily manufactured, as were most at Lido.

TEPaul, George Bahto and I recently spent a day standing behind each green and surveying their highly manufactured form

I’m still trying to find the part where Macdonald said he eliminated the swamps and bogs…could you direct me to that quote? And where he said he moved plenty of dirt to build each manufactured green?

If you had spent any meaningful time on site and studied the golf course and green sites you wouldn't ask such a stupid question. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the golf course.

Most greens during this famous era were built up to some extent…do you characterize all these courses as artificial or manufactured as you do the NGLA?

Define some extent. That's a pretty vague description.
You have to be specific, which courses, Yale, Essex County, The Knoll I can't characterize unidentifiable golf courses, and I can't compare unidentifiable courses to NGLA

I believe I have answered your questions before (probably a dozen or more times when you’ve been forced to resort to your old disqualification tactics), but I’ll answer them again. No I’ve not played the course, but I have been there and observed the course as it sits today.

Where you there as a guest of a member, or as a trespasser ? And, how much time did you spend studying each hole, each feature, each green ?

I don’t believe either one of us was there when the course was laid out or constructed….correct?

Little has changed over the years, especially at the green sites, and those green sites are some of the most artificial, manufactured greens you could ever come across.
I've studied them up close and personal and I've played them over and over and over again.
I didn't just sneak a quick peek from the road, and
I'm not basing my position on some aerial photos that I've viewed.

On this subject, you don't know what you're talking about

« **Reply #86 on:** December 23, 2003, 10:07:19 PM »

TPaul,

I think you may be so enchanted by the paint that you forgot about the canvas.

Behr said that the medium was the surface of the earth, as the painters medium was the canvas. He also said that "the medium of the golf architect is the surface of the earth over which the forces of Nature alone are master." Yet you state that "In the case of the Lido the "surface of the earth" over which the forces of Nature should be Master was all that Macdonald created there with his golf course architecture . . . ."

In other words, MacDonald "created" the surface of the earth in question!
While I dont claim to understand Behr, I have a very hard time believing that what Behr meant was that the architect was the master over the surface of the earth before the golf course was finished but then once finished he somehow relinquished his authority to natural forces?? I

To put it another way . . . when Behr speaks of Nature and of the the surface of the earth, he does not qualify these terms as Nature suitable for golf or surface of the earth suitable for golf!

So it is a misconception for you to say that "Macdonald had even less than a BLANK canvas for golf at Lido in a natural sense, he actually had to create his BLANK canvas FIRST. MacDonald had Nature-- the surface of the earth--with which to work. One cannot deny its "natural sense" just because it was not compatible with golf! So, by 'creating his canvas' he was attempting to master nature by completely replacing the naturalness that was there before.

Any way you slice it, MacDonald made made himself master over his canvas: the surface of the earth.

_______________________

An aside: As I understand it Behr's Lakeside was virtually annihilated in 1938 by forces of Nature. Does this make him a good thinker but a poor architect?

« **Reply #87 on:** December 23, 2003, 10:33:31 PM »

Pat
Well since you put it in blue the quote now makes perfect sense (the color made forget about the rest of Macdonald's description).

You've convinced me...Lido and NGLA were both totally manufactured...what the hell was I thinking, taking CB on his word...perhaps we should share our discovery with George Bahto so he might re-write his book.

I’m still trying to find the part where Macdonald said he eliminated the swamps and bogs or filled in/drained the swamps and bogs…could you direct me to that quote?

I was the guest of a trespasser. Who did you play Lido with?

I've got a file full of articles written before, during and after the construction of NGLA...I just threw it in the trash, since the info appears to be immeterial...thankfully you, TE and George stood behind every green a couple weeks ago and now the real story can finally be told.

You should lay off the egg nog.

« **Reply #88 on:** December 24, 2003, 12:31:34 AM »

Re: the quote from Mac - When I read the Cold Spring Harbor reference regarding NGLA, I couldn't figure out what he was talking about. Doesn't that seem way too far west and north to even be in the same timezone in that era as NGLA?

Any NGLA/Mac. deciphering experts out there?

« **Reply #89 on:** December 24, 2003, 03:50:31 AM »

One will always see however that it is the creation of man and not the creation of Nature, for it has, as most holes on this course have, the technical design of an architect rather than the inimitable design of nature." -C.B. MacDonald on The Lido

« **Reply #90 on:** December 24, 2003, 05:06:04 AM »

To what extent do you think CB Macdonald's writing on the NGLA in "Scotland's Gift-Golf" was self-serving and needs to be at least partially considered as such? The man had such an ego that it is not entirely out of the question that he would use hyperbole. To me, it is more than reasonable to consider that he wrote his account of finding, designing, and building the NGLA in such a way as to make the reader think of him in ever greater terms. Sometimes reading this book I think he would rather have titled it "Macdonald's Gift-Golf." In any case, everything in it regarding the National shouldn't be considered as a purely objective account of the project.

The only way to really understand what was manufactured at NGLA is to have a topo map (with features indicated such as swamps) of the ground prior to Macdonald's efforts and compare it to a topo of the site as it exists today. Does such a topo exist?

Pat,

I know that Tom Paul has a great eye for natural landforms and reading manufactured forms on golf courses. I can't speak of you and George because I haven't the slightest knowledge. But I can't help thinking that an expert on landscape and golf architecture would have been indespensible to the three of you in figuring out what exactly was manufactured and natural given that there isn't a pre-Macdonald topo of the site.

« **Reply #91 on:** December 24, 2003, 08:27:52 AM »

Wayne
What are some examples of Macdonald's hyperbole? And what would he gain from it?

Macdonald wasn't not the only person to document the development of NGLA.

« **Reply #92 on:** December 24, 2003, 08:55:36 AM »

DavidM;

If that's the way you want to reason The Lido and Macdonald then that's just the way you want to do it.

Macdonald/Raynor obviously created a good deal of Lido with dredge and fill (2,000,000 sq yards). Macdonald also seems to have implied that there wasn't much in the way of natural land feature pre-construction useable or suitable for golf and so he either created the earth or reformed it into golf holes.

We can see from all those architectural analysts of that time that the result of what he did at Lido was one of the very best courses in America.

I have no problem with the earth moving done at Lido and even in the context of Behr thoughts I have no problem with it since preconstruction it was useless for golf. As for Behr's thoughts and what he was implying by the forces of nature and golf architecture I believe you simply need to read his essays again carefully.

But if you want to consider them (MacD/Raynor) arrogant because they reconstituted swamp and underwater areas into good golfing ground or if you want to consider the course a symbol of the decline or repression of Golden Age principles or values then there's no more I should say about that.

"An aside: As I understand it Behr's Lakeside was virtually annihilated in 1938 by forces of Nature. Does this make him a good thinker but a poor architect?"

I have no interest in mindlessly glorifying Max Behr, Macdonald, Raynor or any other early architect. I think the things they did, the things they said and the things they wrote should be looked at honestly and accurately. Behr's essays that culminated in what he referred to as "Permanent Architecture" are fascinating to read and consider. I find a number of those early architects to be thoughtful and bright men on the subject of golf architecture but I by no means think any of them were perfect regarding the subject of golf architecture.

There is no question in my mind that Macdonald and Raynor were great architects. As for Max Behr, I don't know because I've never seen anything he did. But again, one must not mindlessly glorify any of them and one does have to be honest that much of what Behr did appears to be gone. THAT alone would seem to be a supreme irony with an architect who culminated his architectural philosophy with the term "Permanent Architecture".

As for Macdonald and Raynor, again I think they were great architects but certainly not architects who were above making mistakes and perhaps massive ones. The cost to fix the "water holes" of The Creek is evidence of that and there're numerous examples of mistakes made in not properly considering the "forces of Nature" (wind and water) on the things that probably all the great Golden Age architects built. Certainly this was true of Thomas, Macdonald, Raynor and probably all the rest of them. And as fascinating as I think some of them were I have no interest at all in not also recognizing and admitting the mistakes they made!

I just do not believe that the Lido should be considered a mistake in architecture or even a symbol of some kind in the context of what you've been referring to as "jumping the shark". But it's fine with me if you want to consider it that way. I wouldn't be averse to considering the excessive cost of The Lido as something that might be referred to as a symbol of prehaps "jumping the shark" in a financial sense ultimately leading to something like the market crash in 1929 owing to probably a few decades of excessive. But you've made it clear to me that economics isn't the context you want to consider this premise in. You want to consider it in a strictly architectural context and again, I, for one, do not agree with your premise.

« **Reply #93 on:** December 24, 2003, 09:16:20 AM »

Tom MacWood,

Quote from: Tom MacWood on December 23, 2003, 10:33:31 PM

Pat
Well since you put it in blue the quote now makes perfect sense (the color made forget about the rest of Macdonald's description).

You've convinced me...Lido and NGLA were both totally manufactured...what the hell was I thinking, taking CB on his word...perhaps we should share our discovery with George Bahto so he might re-write his book.

I never used the word totally.
That's your deliberate attempt to distort and exagerate my position and make you look good.
It's a deliberate lie/misrepresentation and you know it.
Try being honest when you debate or argue

I’m still trying to find the part where Macdonald said he eliminated the swamps and bogs or filled in/drained the swamps and bogs…could you direct me to that quote?

If he described the land before construction as filled with swamps and bogs, and they no longer exist, I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out what happened to them.
How do you think they disappeared ?

I was the guest of a trespasser. Who did you play Lido with?

That's what I thought, your evaluation of NGLA is based on a one time, cursory glimpse of the golf course and is probably limited to the holes visible from the road, perhaps at 40 mph.

I played Lido with Al Steinberg and Merwin Joseph.
Who did you play it with ?

I've got a file full of articles written before, during and after the construction of NGLA...I just threw it in the trash, since the info appears to be immeterial...thankfully you, TE and George stood behind every green a couple weeks ago and now the real story can finally be told.

No need to get defensive and pissy because you haven't personallyl examined the golf course in detail.

All three of us have spent extensive time at NGLA and I believe that our collective experiences, intellect and evaluation have considerably more merit then your one time view from the road.

You're in denial of the FACTS, that the greens at NGLA were artificially constructed rather then occuring naturally and that it's clearly evident to anyone who studies them that they were manufactured.

But you, the expert, who drove by once and peeked in at a few holes, are more qualified to assess NGLA then myself, TEPaul and George Bahto combined.

You should lay off the egg nog.

And you should start drinking more, maybe it will counter your delusional views

« **Reply #94 on:** December 24, 2003, 09:34:24 AM »

Patrick Mucci
Who are you and when did we play golf together?

Mer

« **Reply #95 on:** December 24, 2003, 09:41:38 AM »

Merwin Joseph,

Since you died several years ago, some cowardly jackass has been attempting to use your name.

« **Reply #96 on:** December 24, 2003, 09:42:17 AM »

"TPaul,
I think you may be so enchanted by the paint that you forgot about the canvas.
Behr said that the medium was the surface of the earth, as the painters medium was the canvas."

David:

On some reflection on this subject I really just can't imagine what it is that's leading you to conclude that Macdonald is somehow arrogant towards Nature by what he did at Lido. Can't you understand that the Lido site offered nothing in the way of natural potential for golf? The type of architect that is presented with Nature that's useable and interesting for golf but either fails to recognize that or simply completely reforms it despite its potential interest and use for golf is the type of architect you should be after with this premise of yours.

And Behr did not say in his essay called "What is Art in Golf Architecture" that the paint artist's medium is his canvas--he said the paint artist's medium is his PAINT over which he is master! As Behr analogizes the paint artist to the golf architect as an artist there's a big difference between paint and canvas!

« **Reply #97 on:** December 24, 2003, 10:02:36 AM »

Pat:

It seems quite clear that Macdonald felt he found very little to nothing of natural interest at Lido preconstruction. I sure hope you're not trying to say Macdonald felt the same about the pre-construction site of NGLA. Because if you are how are you missing what he said on pages 187-188 about that very subject. On those pages Macdonald says he and Whigam FOUND the Alps and that they FOUND the redan, they DISCOVERED a place to put the Eden, they FOUND a perfect place for the cape hole. On page 188 Macdonald says;

"Strange as it may seem, we had but to look back and FIND a perfect REDAN which was absolutely natural."

The same could not remotely be said about the preconstruction Lido site. Regarding natural land formations useable for golf there's no similarity between Lido's natural site and NGLA's.

« **Reply #98 on:** December 24, 2003, 10:38:36 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 24, 2003, 09:42:17 AM

On some reflection on this subject I really just can't imagine what it is that's leading you to conclude that Macdonald is somehow arrogant towards Nature by what he did at Lido. Can't you understand that the Lido site offered nothing in the way of natural potential for golf? The type of architect that is presented with Nature that's useable and interesting for golf but either fails to recognize that or simply completely reforms it despite its potential interest and use for golf is the type of architect you should be after with this premise of yours.

TPaul: I think I should ask you similar question, with the following changes:

I really just cant imagine what it is that is leading you to conclude that MacDonald is anything but arrogant towards Nature by what he did at the Lido. Cant you understand that the Lido site offered nothing in the way of natural potential for golf? Yet, MacDonald tried to force a golf course into a completely inhospitable site. What could be more arrogant than that?

Tom I am not "after" any architect, especially not MacDonald. Just trying to put what he tried to do at Lido in historical perspective.

Why do you give MacDonald a pass compared to the architects you think I should be after? Wasnt the Lido site just as natural as the sites they have to work with? What difference should it make that the site was unsuitable for golf? Unsuitable for golf certainly doesnt equal unnatural, does it? Did Behr ever say or imply this? Is it consistent with anything else he ever said?

Quote

And Behr did not say in his essay called "What is Art in Golf Architecture" that the paint artist's medium is his canvas--he said the paint artist's medium is his PAINT over which he is master! As Behr analogizes the paint artist to the golf architect as an artist there's a big difference between paint and canvas!

My mistake. Thanks for the correction. I think I got sidetracked by your discussion of MacDonald having to create the canvas. But even if we correct my error . . . I dont really think the changes the substance of any of this. Whatever the correct metaphor, Behr still thought that the architect was not master over the surface of the earth or Nature.

_________________________
Tommy, great quote! I am sorry I missed it. Can you give us the site so I dont have to go back an reread everything again? Id like to see it in context . . ..

« **Reply #99 on:** December 24, 2003, 01:34:33 PM »

"Unsuitable for golf certainly doesnt equal unnatural, does it? Did Behr ever say or imply this? Is it consistent with anything else he ever said?"

David:

Of course it's consistent with Behr's philosophy. Behr would hardly have recommended building or playing golf in a swamp or golf under water which some of Lido was. Behr was a golf course architect David, he altered land too when he had to to have that land accomodate golf and conform to it's necessary dictates.

What Behr believed in and what he believed a good architect should do is to try to identify and maximize those natural features on a site that could be used for golf somehow--not abolish them as many architects did do and continue to do in an attempt to create something they think they can do better than that which natural landforms useable for golf provide.

That's what Behr is talking about. You act like Behr would've been upset that Macdonald agreed to design and work a site with so little natural potential to build a golf course on. You're acting like Behr would've recommended that Macdonald walk away from such an unpotential site as Lido. You're acting like Lido would have disturbed some sensibility Behr had toward the subject of earth and touching it anywhere. Macdonald really did create a silk purse out of a sow's ear at Lido in the context of what Nature offered there for a golf course. You seem to feel creating such a silk purse out of a sow's ear would've upset Behr.

I see nothing in anything Behr ever wrote or said about the Lido or courses as manufactured as it was to indicate that. Max Behr did mention something in one of his essays about what he called "wild golf" which was apparently golf in truly raw nature but Behr did say he recognized that was a very long time ago and unpractical and unrealistic to golf and golf architecture in his day and age.

Behr's philosophy was to use natural features and aspects that worked for golf and if a site didn't have such things then an architect should make them in such a way that they both looked as natural as possible and were constructed in such a way that they also had the structural integrity of natural features!

You ask if unsuitable for golf means unnatural to me? Do we really need to take this thread into mincing words like that? We're not talking about some all encompassing global green peace philosophy here I hope--where even touching the earth or a blade of grass is questionable. We're talking about golf course architecture where all architects had to do something to the land.

What Behr was saying was just use as much of nature unadorned as you could in a golf architecture context. But if you weren't given anything useable then clearly it had to be made.

If you think that's arrogant akin to acting God, acting the complete creator of all things in heaven and earth then you just do. I don't agree with that all encompassing premise.

News:

T_MacWood

George Pazin

DMoriarty

DMoriarty

TEPaul

frank_D

TEPaul

Tommy_Naccarato

TEPaul

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

DMoriarty

T_MacWood

Thomas_Brown

Tommy_Naccarato

wsmorrison

T_MacWood

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Merwin Joseph

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

TEPaul

DMoriarty

TEPaul