What's with the "Natural"?

[DMoriarty]

While the motivations and the evolution of A&C building architecture is interesting in and of itself, I do think real similarities of it to a truly natural looking golf course is pretty tenuous, at best. The reasons are just so obvious, at least to me.

The principles of building architecture as well as its overall purpose is simply too far removed from the principles and purpose of an attempt at golf architecture that's as natural looking as can be---at least that's glaringly so in my opinion.

You are just flat out wrong here, TomP.   I think you are trying to fold AC architecture into what you know about other types of architecture and this seems to cause you confusion on what AC practicioners were trying to accomplish.   Regardless of Pugin's book, AC architecture attempted to blend with nature (actually or symbolically) not to contrast with it,  so that man could escape the industrial world and get back to nature.  

As for your CPC challenge, here is a quote for you, from above:

"I built in keeping with the place where it stands.  Nobody could improve upon that.  To be at discord with the landscape would be almost a crime. To try to improve upon it would be an impertinence."

While the quote is from an AC architect (Reamer) it just as easily could be from MacKenzie regarding Cypress Point.   In fact I will find you something similar from MacKenzie when I get a chance.  

[TEPaul]

"While the quote is from an AC architect (Reamer) it just as easily could be from MacKenzie regarding Cypress Point.  In fact I will find you something similar from MacKenzie when I get a chance."

David Moriarty:

You can't be serious. I'm not interested in discussing the similarities of quotations of some AC architect and naturalist golf architect Mackenzie, I'm interested in discussing possible similarities or differences of the structures of AC building architecture and naturalist golf architecture as they relate to the "lines" of Nature's earth itself.

Tom MacWood:

 “But if you are looking for a house that looks like a sand dune, or vice versa, than yes, you are absolutley correct, there are no similarities….then again what are the physical similarities between a Greene and Greene home and a Gertrude Jeckyll garden or a William Grueby vase and a Gustav Stickley table?”

How can you say stuff like that? Obviously I’m not saying a house looks like a sand bunker or sand dune. I’m simply trying to discuss the fact a house, even the most asymmetrical, natural regional material AC house does not possess the same “LINES” of Nature’s earth formations as a truly natural sand bunker can. No more no less!

 “Certainly conservation of important designs and the “arrangement on which the most interesting, challenging and enjoyable GOLF can be played” are not mutually exclusive.”

I agree.  Restoration of golf architecture is conservation to me.

“And hypothetically restoration and interesting golf should not be mutually exclusive either…..but my concern are the redesigns to important courses that are done in the name of restoration…Aronomink, Engineers, Hollywood, Yale, etc.”

It’s not hypothetical---it’s actual. I realize your concern, I have the same concerns and that’s why good and dedicated golf architectural restoration is so important to me. There’s no sense in getting into the restoration of Aronimink again. The fact that they and Prichard decided to create the Ross Aronimink bunker drawings is more conserving of Ross than recreating some bunkers that were very likely J.B. MacGovern, not the most respected of golf architects around here.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion, I wish I could say it basically wasn’t a waste of time.

[DMoriarty]

You can't be serious. I'm not interested in discussing the similarities of quotations of some AC architect and naturalist golf architect Mackenzie, I'm interested in discussing possible similarities or differences of the structures of AC building architecture and naturalist golf architecture as they relate to the "lines" of Nature's earth itself.

Come on Tom, we cant do direct comparisons just because both golf courses and buildings use the word "architecture" to connote their design.  What better information do we have than the similar motivations and goals of the designers?  But if you insist . . . .


"Prairie School" home designs by FL Wright:  

and
And in case you've never been there, the prairie . . .


While words are apparently not to be seriously considered, here is some of what Wright had to say about the Prairie Style:

[iThe virtue of the horizontal lines is respectfully invoked in these buildings. The inches in height gain tremendous force compared with any practicable spread upon the ground.
. . .
In considering the forms and types of these structures, the fact that they are nearly buildings for the prairie should be borne in mind; the gently rolling or level prairies of the Middle West; the great levels where every detail of elevation becomes exaggerated; every tree a tower above the great calm plains of its flowered surfaces as they lie serene beneath a wonderful sweep of sky. The natural tendency of every ill-considered thing is to detach itself and stick out like a sore thumb in surroundings by nature perfectly quiet. All unnecessary heights have for that reason and for other reasons economic been eliminated, and a more intimate relation with out-door environment sought to compensate for loss of height.[/i]
    -- Wright, quoted at http://www.westcotthouse.org/frank/prairie_concept.htm

and

The exterior recognizes the influence of the prairie, is firmly and broadly associated with the site, and makes a feature of its quiet level . . . . The low terraces and broad eaves are designed to accentuate that quiet level and complete the harmonious relationship.
   --  Wright as quoted at  http://www.westcotthouse.org/frank/prairieTown.htm
 

Or how about the exterior of an above example, which spurred Parkitecture,  an old postcard of the Old Faithful Lodge:  



Would you like me to post a photo of a mountain peak?  

Ever been to the Grand Canyon?  Elizabeth Jane Coulter's Lookout Studio (1914) . . . .

[TEPaul]

DavidM:

That's truly fascinating building architecture as is Wright's descriptions and explanations---thanks for posting the photos, drawings and text. But I was trying to make a point about what I consider an important distinction or difference from it in naturalist golf architecture in how that is potentially able to blend into the earth's natural lines in a way that makes it vitually indistinguishable.

That Coulter studio is unbelievably stunning. I love the flat roofline picking up the top of the canyon. To try one more time with my point, though, the Coulter studio aesthetically does a great job of dialing down man-made vs Natural "CONTRAST" but as cool as it looks it could never possibly make the one indistinguishable from the other the way a hole like CPC's #9 does almost totally.

[Adam_F_Collins]

But the golf architect who is best able to create a hole or a whole course that creates the "illusion" for any golfer that all that was done by the architect there was to lay those "necessities of golf" very quietly on the ground for the golfer is the architect who creates the best "illusion". That's all that's necessary to do in truly natural looking golf architecture.

Just catching up here...

TEPaul,

This is a wonderful little paragraph. It captures the essence of so much of what is and has been spoken of around this topic over the years.

DMoriarty,

I think I'm pickin' up what you're layin' down here. You've given some great examples. The Grand Canyon image is a nice example of building architecture "blending into the earth's natural lines" about as well as building architecture ever might.

Golf Architecture just has fewer 'unnatural' requirements, which allows its artists more freedom to get that much closer to nature in their illusion.

However, the philosophies behind both of these can be the same - to minimize the contrast.

[Adam_F_Collins]

If you think about it, one requires a deep understanding of contrast if he or she is going to excel at the art of camouflage.

[TEPaul]

"Golf Architecture just has fewer 'unnatural' requirements, which allows its artists more freedom to get that much closer to nature in their illusion."

Adam:

As to what I've been trying to say here---you and I are definitely on the same page here to discuss the point. That remark of yours above is obviously a lot of the essence of it. A golf architect is basically working with the earth, period, to create his golf course, and of course a building architect is working with a lot more that that to create his structure--building. And due to that there has to be a marked difference between the two art forms---unless, of course, the building architect intends to build his stucture out of mud!   The Hell with the AC Movement---we should be talking about some early American Indian architecture as to how completely it may've merged indistinguishably with the "LINES" of Nature!  

[DMoriarty]

TPaul:

You asked for examples of AC architecture utilizing "to the 'lines' of Nature's earth itself,"  and I gave it to you.  

So now you want the building to blend so completely into nature so as to make it indistinguishable from nature itself? That's really what you are after?   You can't be serious.

Okay, here you go, a four bedroom with a three car garage . . .
 Don't see it?  Well that is what you are looking for isn't it?  

If not, then what is your point?

As Adam points out, the "necessities of golf" are minimal when compared to the necessities of, say, a family home.

Adam also said:

However, the philosophies behind both of these can be the same - to minimize the contrast.

This is definitely part of it, but I also think there is also something intangible more intangible in both mediums--  something about allowing and inspiring the user to mentally and physically escape back into a simpler time when nature was more clearly in control.  

[DMoriarty]

"Golf Architecture just has fewer 'unnatural' requirements, which allows its artists more freedom to get that much closer to nature in their illusion."

Adam:

As to what I've been trying to say here---you and I are definitely on the same page here to discuss the point. That remark of yours above is obviously a lot of the essence of it. A golf architect is basically working with the earth, period, to create his golf course, and of course a building architect is working with a lot more that that to create his structure--building. And due to that there has to be a marked difference between the two art forms---unless, of course, the building architect intends to build his stucture out of mud!   The Hell with the AC Movement---we should be talking about some early American Indian architecture as to how completely it may've merged indistinguishably with the "LINES" of Nature!  

Of course there are differences between designing structures and designing landscapes.   Not only is this readily apparent, but also TomM pointed this out along time ago.   But this truism does nothing to undermine the large overlap in period, purpose, and approach between the AC movement  and the "Golden Age" of golf design.  

You've seemed intent on denying this connection from the beginning (when you were arguing that AC architecture was about contrast), facts be damned.  

[T_MacWood]

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

Do you disagree with those who place the beginning of the A&C Movement at the point Morris and Webb met in 1856 (after the Great Exhibition in 1851)?

“The Red House may well be a better example of Morris' evolving tastes than an example of a structure from the Arts and Crafts Movement”…I’m not sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying there was a defined A&C style and the Red House does not really fall into that style or any of the styles you are familiar with?

I assume Egan is Pugin…an interesting theory about the American practioners not having familarity with Pugin, perhaps he is right... I’m not sure what that has to do with the fact Pugin and Gothic design philosophies had a major influence on Ruskin and Morris and ultimately on the A&C Movement. I don't think you should conclude that because Gothic ideals influenced the movement that the numerous A&C styles then would exhibit a visible aspect of Gothic design.

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

Pugin was a Gothic Rivialist….Morris and Burne-Jones were leading figures in the Pre-Raphealite Brotherhood. Most acknowledge the impact of both movements on the formation of the A&C Movement.

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

Did I say the A&C Movement was aspiring to recreate medieval times? I said Pugin and the Gothic ideals were the foundation of the A&C Philosophy. As Peter Sansky wrote in ‘Wm Morris, CR Ashbee and the Arts & Crafts’ -- “the intellectual pedigree runs from Pugin to Carlyle and Ruskin and then to William Morris.”  

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

A&C architecture was influenced by vernacular architecture. Vernacular architecture is the architecture that evolves naturally in a specific location, be it Japan, the English countryside or the desert Southwest. “Unpretentious, simple, indigenous, traditional structures made of local materials and following well-tried forms.” These unique vernacular architectural styles develop naturally based upon the environment and utility. The Old Faithful is not liturally a venacular structure, but is influenced by vernacular architecture (simple log style buildings).

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

I agree...utilizing the materials that are common to a location is a major component of the A&C philosophy.

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

Utility is a space designed for a specific use or purpose. An atrium or public space (with fireplace) are common to a lodge and common to lodge style architecture, just as the nave is common to the cathedral. Are they both efficient in a modern way….probably not…fireplaces are inefficient…generally utility and aesthetic appeal (or spiritual appeal) are common to A&C and obviously are not mutually exclusive.

The fact that the raw structure of the Old Faithful is visible and a major design component is very appealing to me as well...ultra rustic. Thanks for sharing it.

I think generally we agree about the appeal and impact of A&C design...I’m not quite sure why we arguing about its origins.

[Adam_F_Collins]

... I also think there is also something intangible more intangible in both mediums--  something about allowing and inspiring the user to mentally and physically escape back into a simpler time when nature was more clearly in control.  

This is where I'd like to take a turn, if possible to ask, "why?"

The Arts and Crafts had a view of Nature and held it up as positive in contrast to the "unnatural" negative of the products of the Industrial Revolution. Much of the Arts and Crafts products were still, in effect the afforded luxury of the whims of the wealthy - an illusion which they could afford to make and consume.

The products of Golden Age golf architects of the time were almost certainly influenced by these values of the period, as Tom MacWood's articles so clearly suggest.

What about now? Why the return to this form of the illusion? What modern conditions precipitate a renewed view of "the natural" as "Right"?

[Adam_F_Collins]

How necessary all this (The Natural) really is to any golfer is not the point here. That’s an issue and subject for another time.

I do hope the time is now Tom, as I am very much enjoying your input and we haven't yet addressed the last part of my initial post:

"Why are we so in love with this Santa Claus?"

                                                                                 

[TEPaul]

"TPaul:
You asked for examples of AC architecture utilizing "to the 'lines' of Nature's earth itself," and I gave it to you."

David Moriarty:

I didn't ask you for anything regarding the AC Movement. I initially quoted a part of one of the articles from Tom MacWood's "Arts and Crafts Movement" that's in the "In My Opinion" section of this website. The part I quoted was apparently from an AC Movement practitioner. I was discussing the point I'm trying to make here with Tom MacWood and Adam Collins.  

"So now you want the building to blend so completely into nature so as to make it indistinguishable from nature itself? That's really what you are after? You can't be serious."

Of course I'm serious! I'm trying to make the point of how and why the art and architecture of any building is inherently different from naturalist golf architecture in the context of being able to be indistinguishable from Nature itself! I don't necessarily want a building to blend into Nature to make it indistinguishable from nature itself---I was only trying to point out both how and why that has generally been a nearly impossible thing to do given the necessities of buildings generally, their physical and observable purpose as well as the things it takes to design and make buildings including both material as well as their general architectural principles---which at the very least is very different from a golf hole or golf course! That's my point and my point was to prove that one cannot draw too many close correlations or similarities between building architecture and naturalist golf course architecture as Tom MacWood appears to be trying to do.

"Okay, here you go, a four bedroom with a three car garage . . .
Don't see it?  Well that is what you are looking for isn't it?"

No, I don't see it. If there actually is a building there somewhere in that photo, then, in that case, you've supplied an example of where a building architect has actually created a situation where the building itself is completely indistinguishable for Nature itself! That would be basically the same thing as what Mackenzie managed to do with CPC's #9.

"If not, then what is your point?"

That was what I was looking for. And so, my point is now to you that if there is a building in that photo (which seems to be indistinguishable from that raw site (nature) it's perhaps only one of about 2-3 I've ever seen in my life that is that way! There was a residence in Architectural Digest about 15 years ago that was built underground with it's roof formed by the natural lines of the site's earth. That would be another example of a building that was virtually indistinguishable from Nature. While those examples are very rare they're certainly not impossible to do.

Naturalist golf architecture, on the other hand, appears to have as its purpose to constantly make whatever the architect (builder) does as indistinguishable from Nature as possible. This does not seem to be the purpose of the building architect, whether AC Movenement buiding architecture or otherwise. Obviously the "contrast" of AC Movement building architecture may be a bit less than classical building architecture but that's not really the point I'm trying to make.

Again, my point is the naturalist golf architect is able to complete to a far greater extent the "illusion" that what he makes (builds) actually is Nature compared to a building architect. Obviously, the primary reason is the golf architect's "MEDIUM" is the earth itself and the building architects is not---unless, as I said he actually uses the earth itself as the architect did in the example of that building I gave you that was in Architectural Digest. In that case the architect used the medium of the earth to hide the building underground and to create the illusion it wasn't there---that it was part of the earth in fact!

You said Tom MacWood pointed out this difference a long time ago? When and where was that---I must have missed it.

[TEPaul]

"Of course there are differences between designing structures and designing landscapes.  Not only is this readily apparent, but also TomM pointed this out along time ago.  But this truism does nothing to undermine the large overlap in period, purpose, and approach between the AC movement  and the "Golden Age" of golf design."

David Moriarty:

I'm glad you admit the differences, and I hope Tom MacWood does the same. If so perhaps we might agree on why comparing the similarities of building architecture---even AC building architecture, and true naturalist golf architecture, can only go so far. That's most of my point in all this.

By establishing the 'truism' that there're differences, even vast differences, in some of the inherent elements, principles and purposes of AC building architecture (or any building architecture) and "Golden Age" or "naturalist" golf architecture, I'm not trying to undermine the overlap in period, purpose, approach or even motivation between them at all. I'm merely trying to point out what those inherent differences are and why and what it ultimately means if one tries to compare AC Movement building archtiecture (or any building architecture) and "naturalist" golf course architecture. Because I'm trying to point out these differences it does not at all mean that I'm trying to say there're no similarities at all in period, purpose, approach or even motivation between them. For you to just assume that is sort of an example of intellectual laziness or some kind of unfounded snap-assumption, in my opinion.  

"You've seemed intent on denying this connection from the beginning (when you were arguing that AC architecture was about contrast), facts be damned."

Again, I'm not denying the connections at all, merely pointing out what the inherent differences are, how and why. And I wasn't arguing at all that AC Movement architecture was or wasn't ABOUT contrast---I can see it was intended to minimize the "contrast" with the aesthetic of Nature itself. What I was trying to point out was that although that may be a noble cause and motivation it's simply not as doable, nor probably is almost completely extinguishing that contrast its intention, when compared to the art of naturalist golf architecture.

In the end "contrast" is the point of all this I'm trying to say. Contrast (between what's man-made and what's natural or looks wholly natural) is the very thing that naturalist golf architecture tries to do away with and almost completely, in my opinion. And it seems to me that contrast between what's man-made and what's natural in "naturalist" golf architecture is very possible to do almost completely---and that fact seems far more common and practiced than in any building architecture I've ever seen. Why is that? Probably because completely doing away with that contrast to the extent of making it virtually indistinguishable from Nature is far more the purpose of the "naturalist" golf architect than it is any building architect, as well as the fact that the different "mediums" of the two art forms makes it so. As Behr said, the medium of the golf architect is the earth and the surface of the earth and the medium of the building architect is simply a lot more than that, or at least a lot different than just that!

What is an artist's "medium"? Simply the material or technique with which the artist works. A "naturalist" golf architect's medium and even a "naturalist" building architect's medium are necessarily different probably because the purpose of their intended creations are very different. On one a golfer is supposed to be in a virtual contest with Nature herself through the vehicle of the sport of golf and I doubt that was ever the purpose of any building I've ever heard of.  

[T_MacWood]

One of the reasons I find the study of golf architecture and architecture interesting is the  discovery of so many diverse and equally appealing styles from designer to designer. Greene & Greene, Wright, Maybeck, Gill, Mullgardt, Price, Voysey, Lutyens, Mackintosh, Prior and van de Velde all had distinct styles while at the same time sharing similar principles.

Likewise in golf architecture MacKenzie is different than Flynn, Colt different from Alison, Thompson different from Ross, Strong different from Simpson, Macdonald different from Thomas, and so on...they all had a slightly different  aesthetic (and sometimes more than slight)....although again, they shared a number of common principles.

The other interesting aspect of studying both architecture and golf architecture are the differing approaches to function. How do these designs work and function...how livable is the home and what are the golfing merits (strategic qualities) of the design.

TE
You appear to have a very simplistic approach to design and art...unable to grasp similarites when confronted with  differing mediums. One of the fascinating features of the A&C Movement is how these fairly basic principles were applied to so many diverse art forms and the remarkable results of this era are still appreciated and emulated today.

I think these guys were on to something.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Re-read posts #69 and #73...I think I made it clear that these art forms are different...as if anyone needed this explained. I asked you in post #73 "what are the physical similarities between a Greene and Greene home and a Gertrude Jeckyll garden or a William Grueby vase and a Gustav Stickley table?”

A golf course is not a lamp...a garden is not a chair....a home is not a vase....a painting is not a fork. I think you may be missing the point of the A&C Movement and its impact on the designs of that era..

[TEPaul]

"One of the reasons I find the study of golf architecture and architecture interesting is the  discovery of so many diverse and equally appealing styles from designer to designer."

Tom MacWood:

And so do I! That's probably the primary reason I advocate what I call the "Big World" theory of golf architecture. The primary point is that difference and diversity is a good thing--and that difference should be both carefully analyzed and maintained. It makes the art richer and far more interesting.

"TE
You appear to have a very simplistic approach to design and art...unable to grasp similarites when confronted with  differing mediums."

Tom:

Not at all. I think I have a true appreciation of some art forms and particularly their differing mediums. As I just said to David Moriarty above I think it is you who have a rather simplisitc approach to design and art, particularly the art of golf architecture because you seem to automatically ASSUME that simply because I might point out what I consider some differences between various art forms (some of which have to do with their differing "mediums), even perhaps some vast and inherent differences, that I can't consider or even understand what the similarities may be!

Have you never heard of the (even) grade school technique of "comparing and contrasting"? I think it's you who gets so fixated on certain things---such as some similariites--eg correlations or parallels---that that is virtually all you see. You tend to overgeneralize, in my opinion, and consequently your assumptions and then your conclusions are not as accurate nor as intellectually honest as they could be.

Certainly you seem overly doctrinaire, at least you sure do to me. Being overly doctrinaire, in my opinion, inhibits one from even noticing nuances, distinctions and differences, on the one hand, although similarities may definitely exist. For you to point out here that because I'm simply pointing out distinctions and differences in these two art forms that that is all I am doing and can do---and that I can't even see or understand the similarities is intellecutally lazy, and is, in fact, what's simplistic!

It's not much different from the way you appear to feel about golf architectural restoration. Because apparently all you can see is the occasional danger of it you condemn it entirely on some golf courses. You should also be able to see that there're benefits in it if and when you approach it intelligently but that it takes both participation and education in and of the techniques and mechanisms and decision-making within it to do it well and to do it beneficially.

Since you don't seem able or willing to do those things, as well as the fact that you've said that because I've tried to point out some distinctions and difference in art forms that I can't see any similarities, again, it's you, not me, who's approaching all this simplistically!

Personally, I think, despite the fact that you seem very good at producing research material that's very interesting and potentially useful, you seem to depend on it much more than you, or anyone else probably should. It’s valuable to have but when one begins to actually compare and contrast similarities and differences in art forms by simply analyzing written quotations of the artists rather than the real thing, one begins to potentially go astray---and that’s what I think some of your problem is, and always has been.

“One of the fascinating features of the A&C Movement is how these fairly basic principles were applied to so many diverse art forms and the remarkable results of this era are still appreciated and emulated today."

I agree, that’s certainly true, however, in my opinion, you’d do better if you not only looked at those fairly basic principles that were applied to so many diverse art forms, but  also looked at the differences of the perhaps less basic principles and purposes as well! Only then will you understand it all better which would doubtlessly make you happier and more content.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Re-read posts #69 and #73...I think I made it clear that these art forms are different...as if anyone needed this explained. I asked you in post #73 "what are the physical similarities between a Greene and Greene home and a Gertrude Jeckyll garden or a William Grueby vase and a Gustav Stickley table?”

Tom MacWood:

I wish you’d thought to ask me what I felt the similarities are between those things and something like either Raynor architecture on the one hand, and Mackenzie architecture, on the other hand!! In case you missed it which I'm certain you did, I was trying to talk about the importance of aesthetic contrast or NOT in these art forms VS the art form of naturalistic golf course architecture---whose purpose, in my opinion, is to do away with the man-made aesthetic in relation to the Nature's aesthetic as much as possible---which given the example of CPC's #9, for instance, is virtually total!!

While I may find some interest in comparing a Greene and Greene home and a Gertrude Jeckyll garden or a William Grueby vase and a Gustav Stckley table to each other, it’s really golf course architecture, and naturalist golf course architecture I’m more interested in----even comparing and contrasting it to some of those things!

"A golf course is not a lamp...a garden is not a chair....a home is not a vase....a painting is not a fork. I think you may be missing the point of the A&C Movement and its impact on the designs of that era.."

I’ve never said anywhere in here that a golf course is a lamp…a garden is a chair…a home is a vase…a painting is a fork. All I was trying to do is to point out the differences in AC Movement architecture and naturalist golf course architecture. You pointed out what some of the similarities in architectural principle and such may be between them and I was pointing out what the differences are in architectural purpose, principle, function is as well as the differences in their artistic mediums.

A 10th grader may call this comparing and contrasting---an intellectually interesting thing to do!

[T_MacWood]

TE
The purpose of the A&C essay was to first contrast the Victorian golf designs with the emerging “naturalistic” designs of the Heathland. To describe generally Victorian tastes and aesthetics, and to contrast those tastes and aesthetics with those of the A&C Movement. To then find a direct connection (and vehicle) between A&C sensibilities and the emerging golf architecture outside London (Horace Hutchinson and Country Life). And then finally to analyze those early practioners and their design thoughts…to discover if there were any similarities with the design thoughts of those of the A&C Movement.

When I posted the essay I welcomed (and continue to welcome) all comments and criticisms…one of the reasons I posted it on GCA was because I knew it would stimulate debate. I think it is important that new ideas, theories or conclusions be tested and scrutinized.

I’m not completely clear on what your position is or what you are trying to ultimately prove (or disprove). If you would like to a disprove or discount my conclusions or if you would like to present your own related or modified position…perhaps on ‘naturalistic’ architecture…why not write an In My Opinion with supporting research. Personally I think my conclusions are pretty solid ( even after digesting for two or three years) but I’m biased. In addition to being biased I may be overly doctrinaire as well, and may have over reached and over generalized….whatever the case may be I look forward to you presenting an essay with specifics to support your case.

Here is starting point regarding your ideas on ‘contrast’…the first picture is 9th at CPC in its raw natural state….the 2nd picture is the 9th soon after being built. No doubt a beautiful well integrated golf hole, but is well-manicured carpet of grass natural to a sand dune and if it isn’t natural, doesn’t it create a contrast between man-made and natural?






How does the contrast of the man-made and natural at CPC relate to the contrast between the man-made and natural at Stoneywell Cottage? Both example appear to be extremely well integrated into their environment.

[TEPaul]

"TE
The purpose of the A&C essay was to first contrast the Victorian golf designs with the emerging “naturalistic” designs of the Heathland. To describe generally Victorian tastes and aesthetics, and to contrast those tastes and aesthetics with those of the A&C Movement. To then find a direct connection (and vehicle) between A&C sensibilities and the emerging golf architecture outside London (Horace Hutchinson and Country Life). And then finally to analyze those early practioners and their design thoughts…to discover if there were any similarities with the design thoughts of those of the A&C Movement."

Tom MacWood:

I understand that. I read your "Arts and Crafts Movement" piece very carefully and it think it's very good and have said that to you on here half a dozen times. There are similarities between the AC movement and early naturalist golf architecture and you pointed them out well. You didn't discover those similarities but you did point them out well, nonetheless.

"When I posted the essay I welcomed (and continue to welcome) all comments and criticisms…one of the reasons I posted it on GCA was because I knew it would stimulate debate. I think it is important that new ideas, theories or conclusions be tested and scrutinized."

Good. The debate that's been stimulated here anew is this thread's subject by Adam Collins. What is "the Natural"? Is it necessary in golf architecture? How necessary is it and why? Is it an illusion and if so is that a good thing or a bad thing? Is it any different than Santa Claus, for instance?"

"I’m not completely clear on what your position is or what you are trying to ultimately prove (or disprove). If you would like to a disprove or discount my conclusions or if you would like to present your own related or modified position…perhaps on ‘naturalistic’ architecture…why not write an In My Opinion with supporting research. Personally I think my conclusions are pretty solid ( even after digesting for two or three years) but I’m biased. In addition to being biased I may be overly doctrinaire as well, and may have over reached and over generalized….whatever the case may be I look forward to you presenting an essay with specifics to support your case."

Tom, obviously you aren't clear on what I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to disprove what you said in your articles. I'm not even trying to disprove what you're saying on here. Why is it that you're always so everlastingly defensive about almost anything that anyone says to you on here? What I'm trying to do is also look at the differences between even AC Movement building architecture and naturalist golf architecture. Does that so surprise you that you think someone is challenging you? What are you trying to stimulate debate for then? The reason I began this point of mine on this thread which was partially to answer some of the questions in Adam Collin's first post was also to respond to you when you mentioned that the aesthetic of Raynor architecture creates a "CONTRAST"  with the aesthetic of natural "lines" and landforms of Nature itself. You even said you thought that contrast was pleasing. That's you're opinion, and you surely have every right and reason of your own to feel that way. I don't happen to think that "contrast" is all that aesthetically pleasing although I do respect it in the time and place it occured---in the evolution of architecture. I feel that others went so much farther in "naturalist" architecture as to virtually extinguish that "contrast" in architecture with Nature, aesthetically and actually. I will try to prove both how and why they did that---the actual REASONS they were trying to do that. In my opinion, Max Behr is not just the best one to cite as to how they did it but the only one to cite as to WHY! Why that may ultimately appeal to the golfer and in real ways ultimately help preserve golf architecture itself! Or would you rather try to do all that for me?

"Here is starting point regarding your ideas on ‘contrast’…the first picture is 9th at CPC in its raw natural state….the 2nd picture is the 9th soon after being built. No doubt a beautiful well integrated golf hole, but is well-manicured grass natural to a sand dune and if it isn’t natural, doesn’t it create a contrast between man-made and natural?"

Tom:

It's more than a little frustrating that you would make those remarks at this point. Do you have any understanding of what I mean---what I meant to say when I've cited perhaps a dozen times now what Behr was referring to when he mentioned "THOSE four or so NECESSITIES OF GOLF AS EXCEPTIONS TO WHAT COULD BE MADE TO LOOK LIKE NATURE?" He was talking about the SHORT GRASS on tees, fairways and greens (as well as sand that was not natural to various sites) that was not naturally occuring and so could NEVER look like Nature itself.

So why would you ask that question again? Do you read what I write and if so why haven't you understood what I said about that? I've mentioned it a dozen or more times over time on this very subject. Adam Collins seems to know exactly what I'm trying to say with that.

I will create ONE MORE post that hopefully will explain exactly what I'm trying to say to Adam's questions and hopefully some of the questions you CONTINUOUSLY ask over and over again despite my answers. A lot of it does have to do with Behr's philosophy on this subject because that is what I really do believe in!

[T_MacWood]

TE
I look forward to that post...based upon the last few pages of this thread I don't think I'm the only one who did quite understand what you were getting at. It appears you are trying to incorporate Max Behr's theories and your own ideas of a 'naturalistic' golf architecture school...and compare it to the likes of Raynor et al...and also contrast or seperate these naturalistic golf design ideas with A&C buildings....I'm sure you'll be able to paint a much clearer picture.

Why don't you present it in an In My Opinion essay?

"There are similarities between the AC movement and early naturalist golf architecture and you pointed them out well. You didn't discover those similarities but you did point them out well, nonetheless."

Who discovered the similarities between the A&C and early golf architecture?

[TEPaul]

"How does the contrast of the man-made and natural at CPC relate to the contrast between the man-made and natural at Stoneywell Cottage? Both example appear to be extremely well integrated into their environment."

Tom MacWood:

Here's how it relates between Stoneywell and CPC's #9. Assuming you FINALLY understand what's meant by my use of Behr's EXCEPTIONS of what he refers to as those four or so necessary elements of golf that he states are IMPOSSIBLE for an architect to make look like Nature herself (and you accept that) we can begin to look at your question.

In the case of CPC's #9 in fact only one element of Behr's necessary elements of golf that he EXCEPTS is present on this hole---and clearly that's only the short turf on the fairway and green. All that consists of is seed he gently laid on the existing "natural "lines" of that hole and then eventually mowed. He virtually touched nothing else about that natural landform! Now suppose Mackenzie did not just use that natural landform as he did by not touching it's "lines". Suppose it didn't at first look like it does as you view that first and second photo which is Nature's "lines" untouched except for the grass laid on it. Suppose Mackenzie made that landform to look identical to the one in the first photo that's wholly natural. Would the same effect have been created for the golfer of virtual naturalness in the formations of the "lines" of Nature? Of course it would because they'd be indentical. Would not Mackenzie have then created by his architectural handiwork the total "illusion" that everything there was the work of nature and not man? Of course! So where is the "contrast" of the man-made aesthetic to the aesthetic of Nature? Obviously there isn't one---there's no contrast at all except the turf which we hopeful understand was logically assumed to be a necessity of golf that never could be made to look natural!

Now, again, simply remove that short turf in the second photo and go back to the first photo. What do you see? Virtual identicalness!

Then go to the photo of Stonewell Cottage. What do you need to remove from that photo to accomplish the same effect of an "illusion" of something that was Nature itself or that was "lines" that nature itself created? Well, obviously you'd have to remove the entire house, despite how sympathetic the materials and the architectural "lines" are with Nature's own. The house is obviously a contrast to Nature's "lines" because Nature never made a house that looked even like that one.

But the same cannot be said for CPC's #9 whether Mackenzie used it only as it was or created it---eg there is no contrast at all in his finished product (minus the short turf)! But the same can never be said for the entire house of Stoneywall cottage.

I hope you see what I mean. You may say that all that is so obvious but is it? The point is that the golf architect can and does regularly create architectural "lines" that are virturally indistinguishable from Nature's own lines (no contrast) but the building architect cannot really do that. The art forms have different purposes and principles as well as different "mediums" and in that lie the vast differences between the two. Of course there certainly are similarities but the differences between the two art forms are very different in the context of contrast or not, aesthetic or otherwise.

Tom:

This is not the post I meant. I'm going to write one for Adam Collins as this is his thread and his questions.

[T_MacWood]

TE
It appears your theory rests upon the acceptance of Behr's exceptions for golf course design. Do you think Behr would make similar exceptions for other forms of design? If not, why not?

[TEPaul]

"It appears you are trying to incorporate Max Behr's theories and your own ideas of a 'naturalistic' golf architecture school...and compare it to the likes of Raynor et al...and also contrast or seperate these naturalistic golf design ideas with A&C buildings....I'm sure you'll be able to paint a much clearer picture."

Tom MacWood:

That's precisely what I'm trying to do. Congratulations! These things are not my theories on "naturalistic" golf architecture although they probably are what I believe to be Max Behr's theories and philosophies on "naturalistic" golf architecture. In my post to Adam, I hope to explain WHY he felt that was so important---how it would effect and influence the golfer and even WHY!

[TEPaul]

"TE
It appears your theory rests upon us accepting Behr's exceptions for golf course design."

Of course, particularly as they're so patently obvious no rational mind would deny them. It's not really golf course design, Tom, it's golf itself! But if we really think about it the only true exception may be only short grass itself!

Do you think Behr would make similar exceptions for other forms of design? If not, why not?"

Of course he would but he probably never bothered to do that because ( even if in some kind of comparison between building and golf architecture, had he thought of it) it's obvious in the case of building architecture the necessary exceptions would be so great as to render the excercise and the comparison meaningless. Take away the stone, the eaves, the windows, the glass, the tiles, the doors etc etc and what do you have? Virtually nothing. But simply remove that short turf from that second photo and what do you have? You have the entirety of the lineaments of a complete golf hole and in that case the entire lineaments (as Behr called them) or the earth's natural "lines" (you have the entire golf hole, green form, fairway form, bunker forms, everything). Could a golf architect completely create that hole in that setting at CPC if it hadn't previously existed? We know he could, if he was a talented naturalistic architect!