Tom MacW;
I really don't know if Raynor did or didn't intend for his architecture to have such a clean linear geometric look to it (particularly the stand-alone bunkering) but I certainly do want to find out--or certainly the extent to which he was content to go with that look because it certainly was a good deal more that way than so many of his contemporaries if it was anything like the present restored Mountain Lake bunkering.
But the one thing I really don't want to see is for any competent architectural analyst to deny that real "geometrics" did exist in his architecture if it was, in fact, anything remotely like the overall "lines" of those Mountain Lake bunkers.
And the reason I don't want to see that happen with competent architectural analysts is because if for some they start to claim that somehow, some way those linear geometric lines look something like the "lines" of nature or even any natural sites (other than completely "flat lined" low profile, no topography sites), that's when I'm going to have to part company with the opinions of those competent architectural analysts!
But again, I'm not really saying I'm not interested, to a degree, in that Raynor style (if it did look like Mountain Lake now). I'm extremely interested in it! But I'm primarily interested in it because of what I believe it says about the evolution of golf architecture in America. And I think that's the fascinating part.
So many analysts seem to take on a "one size fits all" mentality when it comes to analyzing architecture and its "styles" and "principles" and Raynor clearly shows a "one size fits all" consistency in those contexts in the era he worked in was DEFINITELY NOT HAPPENING!
I've just always assumed, and I think correctly so, that "geometrics", in almost any way, in early architecture was the one thing that repulsed Macdonald the most! And if it did then we all need to look carefully at why he happened to continue to utilize it, even to a very small degree. I happen to think there are some very logical reasons that he did--and those reasons I think are most interesting in the evolution of early American architecture!
I believe the reason he did is because Macdonald was extremely early too and he just happened to find some "geometrics" in some of the early architecture of some of what he studied in Europe. But why was it there in Europe so early? Because it was simply the result of the rudimentary architectural practices of many of the early European architects.
Clearly though, a group of them were trying hard to get away from even a vestige of that "geometric" or "unnatural" look. The ones I mentioned who seemed to be trying hard to get away from that unnatural "geometric" look--Colt, Alison, Fowler, Simpson, Crump, Wilson, Thomas, Hunter, Tillinghast, Flynn and particularly one such as Max Behr.
You notice I didn't mention Donald Ross because some of his very early architecture (even my own course) very much exhibited real vestiges of "geometrics" in his architectural designs. But clearly he departed from that almost completely going throught the 1920s.
If we notice, those were the ones that were not really collaborating much with the likes of MacDonald and Raynor and I think the reason is they were trying so much harder to really imbue their architecture with the "look of nature" anyway they could.
I've noticed, for instance, a sort of swipe from Macdonald about this time at some of the writing of Behr on this very subject. It clearly appears to me that Macdonald was basically saying that Behr was 'thinking too damn much!' And I've also run across a most interesting remark from Hugh Wilson about the thoughts and writing of Behr!
This is all fascinating to me since the evolution of the ebbs and flows and currents and vastly varied styles in American archtiecture continued well into the 20th century and even towards the very end of it.
How can anyone deny, for instance, that certainly Pete Dye became fascinated by some of the rudimentariness of early European architecture the same way Macdonald might have? The "lines" of much of Pete's architecture is definitely a return to that "look" to a large degree.
See how interesting all this makes the ebb and flow of the styles and even the prinicples of architecture in America? But we can't appreciate all of it unless we begin to make the necessary distinctions and recoginize the differences.
However, it seems quite clear that the best of the architects of the 20th century in America from Macdonald to Raynor to Ross to MacKenzie to Dye to Doak, no matter what their "styles" and "looks" were, were quite consistent in supplying quality "strategy" in their designs despite the huge variations in the "look" of their styles!
I think that's what Raynor was primarily interested in and not necessarily the "look of nature in architecture" that other of his contemporaries were becoming so transfixed by.