The Architect as Prophet

[Jeff_Mingay]

"The architect must be a prophet... a prophet in the true sense of the term... if he can't see at least ten years ahead, don't call him an architect."

- Frank Lloyd Wright

Does Wright's wisdom apply to the golf architect?  

[wsmorrison]

A great architect must do just that or else their work becomes obsolete and becomes lost or changed.  

Flynn's foresight regarding technological advances and his subsequent use of elasticity helped to keep his courses as little changed as anyone.  He also was able to keep busy redesigning a number of courses that became obsolete from the technological advances of the Haskell ball and steel shafts.  Many of these happen to be by Ross (Ross's enormous output would also dictate this).  Ross either didn't look as far forward or was preoccupied with spreading the game and building inexpensive easy courses to promote golf.

[ian]

I have no answer, because it depends on your point of view on what that quote is in reference to.

Architects (of that day) also planned cities and communities too. He had a lot of visions that went well beyond the built form, some even touched on social ideas and (his) utopian dreams. How do you compare golf architecture against that scope.

On a different view: The basic building medium of golf remains grass; whereas in architecture, technology and science can always open the boundries of what art can be. Would the design for an artificial course be prophetic or the work of a heretic?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Definitely the work of a heretic, Ian  

[paul cowley]

 For a guy so dead ,Wrights still got it right.

[TEPaul]

"Architects (of that day) also planned cities and communities too. He had a lot of visions that went well beyond the built form, some even touched on social ideas and (his) utopian dreams. How do you compare golf architecture against that scope."

Ian:

First of all I think you do or can compare golf architecture against some of the ideas, principles and even dreams of building architects such as Wright or land planners and landscape architects such as Olmsted.

When you do compare those things I think you also have to  contrast the inherent differences and distinctions between those various art forms while tryng to find, analyze and compare similarities. If one doesn't do that first there's always the danger that one will subsume an art form such as golf architecture into something larger or far different than what it was ever meant to be.

But looking for and analyzing some of the similarities is very interesting. It teaches us how things interconnected at various times and consequently evolved because of that.

Wright, Olmsted and a number of golf architects can be compared in how they concerned themselves with and considered the subject of naturalism in their respective art forms, I think. Then one needs to go on and analyze why naturalism was so important to them---why they felt it was so important to man.

And then we need to consider that all these men, their ideas, principles, visions and dreams may not be just some past time to look back at curiously---in just a history sense, in other words. We should all recognize that societies and cultures certainly do continue to move forward into new and never before explored areas but they also tend to stop and look back from time to time from where and whence they came---both how and why. As we move into the future "renaissances" are never far behind!! There always will be the inclination to look back to a former time. In a broad sense I think it makes us feel good, perhaps more centered and connected to our pasts.

The connection through the subject of naturalism that produces similarities in those various art forms can probably be broken down even further to issues of taste and contemplation. Those latter two things will always be a fascination with societies and cultures and their recreations and I think they can just as easily be found in the past as in the future!

[T_MacWood]

There are many similarities between how the architect and golf architect approach design, in fact architecture and golf architecture are more closely allied than landscape architecture is to golf architecture IMO. All three are concerned with aesthetics and working with the site, the difference being the emphasis on function. No matter how beautiful a home might be, if the rooms do not function properly and work well as a whole, the design is not a good one. The same is true with golf course design---the strategy of a given golf hole is paramount, as is how the individual holes work to create an interesting single layout.

The landscape design of Central Park does have functional considerations, as did the designs at Stowe, Blenhiem Palace and Versailles (to a lesser extend), but function is not given the same weight as you find with architecture and golf architecture.

Golf architecture and architecture are closely allied forms of art...you find many similarities in their design philosophies.

[TEPaul]

"There are many similarities between how the architect and golf architect approach design, in fact architecture and golf architecture are more closely allied than landscape architecture is to golf architecture IMO. All three are concerned with aesthetics and working with the site, the difference being the emphasis on function.

Tom:

As I'm sure you'd expect I certainly do disagree with portions of that statement and pretty strongly too.

It's true that a building and a golf course do have more about them and their art forms regarding "function" than does a landscape art form such as Central Park. However, I think you always go way too far in assuming and concluding similarities in the art forms of building architecture and golf course architecture simply on the issue of "function" alone. The reason I say that is the "function" of a building and the "function" of golf course are about as different as "function" can be. We need to keep that fact clearly in mind always, in my opinion, otherwise, as I said above, there's always the danger of subsuming a comparison into something that is just far too broad---in this case the general idea of "function". A horse or a pair of legs is about as different from an automobile as can be but all of them can serve the "function" of transportation and those three things are frankly a lot closer than the function of a building to the function of a recreational game outdoors such as golf!

Aesthetics, on the other hand is an entirely different matter and consideration when analyzing and considering similarities in the art forms of building architecture, landscape architecture and golf course architecture. Aesthetics deals with the emotions and a contemplation of that which is beautiful and is also about as far as one can get from function in an art form or anything else, for that matter.

[T_MacWood]

TE
You need to open your mind...based upon your rigid view of function, the designer of an opera house and the designer of a nautitorium are working in unrelated fields...they aren't...they are both architects, who must consider any number of unrelated functions when developing a design.

Didn't someone once say "form follows function"?

[TEPaul]

"TE
You need to open your mind...based upon your rigid view of function, the designer of an opera house and the designer of a nautitorium are working in unrelated fields...they aren't...they are both architects, who must consider any number of unrelated functions when developing a design.
Didn't someone once say "form follows function"?"

Tom MacWood:

You're joking, right? An opera house and a nautitorium?? Where do you come up with this crap? 'Didn't someone once say "form follows function"?' Yes they did, that's a well known general principle and concept I'm sure we're all very much aware of but do you have a point anywhere in our future? I don't think I need to open my mind anywhere near as much as you need to learn how to make some important distinctions within rather large and global concepts when it comes to various art forms. To say that all art forms that share the fact that they possess some form of function thereby making them similar is frankly not a particularly interesting or edifying thought----unless someone thinks it's interesting to constantly state the patently obvious.

[T_MacWood]

"The reason I say that is the "function" of a building and the "function" of golf course are about as different as "function" can be."

TE
The function of an opera house is about as different as the function of nautitorium or the function of a greenhouse as one can be....no? Of course every function requires different design considerations, but there remains many shared design principles. The importance of site, importance of location, weather, wind, sun, soil, water, drainage, tradition, culture, local materials, the combining of many divergent tasks into a single whole....

The architectural process boils down to creating space...the tradtional architect and the golf architect are creating space for their respective functions. Of course they have different building blocks at their disposal....the architect has stone, brick, wood, mortar, steel, glass, etc...the golf architect has tees, fairways, greens, rough grass, bunkers, mounds, trees, etc.

They are both provided a site on which to design and it is their job to meld their design with the site, meld the made-made with the natural.

Today most golf architects tend to lean on a LArch curriculum...IMO they'd benefit from the study of Architecture and archicectural design theory...obviously golf architecture is a combination of science and art, but--IMO--the art should be more heavily influenced by Architecture.

[paul cowley]

 I think LAarch in its fullest olmstedian expression [ central park etc.] is closer to Building and GCA in form and function , primarily because it includes land planning functions AND beautification of a site.....the lesser forms of LAarch don't nessessarily meet this standard , relying on beautification and more cosmetic functions as its main purpose.....not that this is not important , just not as comparable.

[T_MacWood]

Paul
Architecture addresses land planning...as well as aesthetics (beautication).

Speaking of Olmsted, his mentor Andrew Jackson Downing was an architect, as was his partner in the design of Central Park--Calvert Vaux. And really if you trace back what Olmsted was preaching, through Downing and back to the English Landscape School, you will find those first garden artists/designers (Kent, Brown, Repton, Nash, and Paxton) were all trained architects...with the exception of Repton, although his mentor was an architect and he did practice architecture as well.

The study of LArch is a relatively modern development, not quite as new as GCA, but when compared to the history of Arch (ancient), still very new. The long and rich history of Arch has a lot to offer in the way of design thoughts and theories.

[TEPaul]

Gee Tom, thanks for that basic primer on architecture. How could I have missed the function of space in architecture, the fact that building architecture deals with bricks and mortar and such and golf architecture deals with fairways and greens and such all these years?? What are you going to tell me next that automobiles have gasoline engines and horses have legs but it's all just transportation?  

“Today most golf architects tend to lean on a LArch curriculum...IMO they'd benefit from the study of Architecture and archicectural design theory...obviously golf architecture is a combination of science and art, but--IMO--the art should be more heavily influenced by Architecture.”

Yeah, I know, I’ve been saying golf architecture tends to lean too much on Larch principles for months now but obviously you must not have read that correctly either. I completely disagree with you that golf course architects would benefit from the study of building architecture. What golf architects would really benefit from, in my opinion, would be more study of Nature’s own architectural principles of how it forms and alters the earth, just as Max Behr so eloquently tried to explain!

[RJ_Daley]

I'm going with TEPaul's train ride through the countryside rather than taking Tom Mac's subway to the natatorium.

I'm trying to say that I believe the building architect is dealing in creating a built space within, bringing that function with a defined area to within a confine.

A GCA is planning a function outward, towards open and natural space.  

Tom MacWood, is there any example of a building that produced a space for a function, that wasn't "built", had to be defined with confines, or somehow contained within walls roofs, floors, etc.

While not 100% pure nature, great GCA often has the element of being found and routed or shepherded upon, or among, or through nature in a more co-existent manner; doesn't it?  Like that Behr fellow seems to be saying...

On the question of being able to look 10 years ahead, it is a pity IMHO, but size is what matters on one scale or another.  

In buildings, if the architect didn't take into consideration of population growth, and build it big enough; or, didn't take into consideration urban growth and confine it too much in exterior space to add on; or didn't consider that the activity or function would grow in popularity and usage, then he probably isn't all that good of a building architect.

In GCA, size in terms of distance to growth patterns in terms of location and proximity to sprawl or demographics and demand, or distance to the technology consideration to space needed to play the new equipment, probably shows an element of a forward looking GCA.  

But, as a GCA technique of design, camoflauge like the Good Dr. employed, seems more in tune with Tom Paul's idea of a good architects harmony with what exists and co-exists in nature, and stands up to time.  

Fall-in Waters, seems to be what some say was a good building architect's attempt to provide a human function of living space within a confined space trying to emulate or cohabitate with nature, but he didn't look far enough ahead to realise it would in deed be "fallin in the water".

[T_MacWood]

RJ
“I'm going with TEPaul's train ride through the countryside rather than taking Tom Mac's subway to the natatorium.”

I’m sure you aren’t alone….I think it’s a difficult concept for many, especially those unfamiliar with the arts or unfamiliar with other forms of design. One art form deals with walls, a roof and geometry, the other with a number of relatively free-form naturalistic ingredients. It requires a certain openness of thought.

“I'm trying to say that I believe the building architect is dealing in creating a built space within, bringing that function with a defined area to within a confine.”

“A GCA is planning a function outward, towards open and natural space.“

“Tom MacWood, is there any example of a building that produced a space for a function, that wasn't "built", had to be defined with confines, or somehow contained within walls roofs, floors, etc.”

Both architecture and golf architecture deal with creating space…you evidently cannot overcome the four walls and roof when conceptualizing the two art forms. One of the major developments in architecture in the last 100 years or so, has been the open floor plan. Where the architect creates smaller functional spaces within a larger space. Sometimes those created spaces are outdoors or combination of out- and indoors.

On a similar note, another major development in architecture the last century is the desire to bring the outdoors in and bring the living space out (assuming the site is a pleasing one).

Obviously golf architecture and architecture are not identical art forms…however they do share many common characteristics and design principles. Another common thread between the two is the ability of the architect (and the golf architect) to express his distinct individuality…this is less apparent in LArch.

“While not 100% pure nature, great GCA often has the element of being found and routed or shepherded upon, or among, or through nature in a more co-existent manner; doesn't it?  Like that Behr fellow seems to be saying...”

Successful architecture, like successful golf architecture, must embrace and reflect its site, its natural environment. From the materials used in the design, to the climate to drawing on a great range of regional or artistic precedents.

“But, as a GCA technique of design, camoflauge like the Good Dr. employed, seems more in tune with Tom Paul's idea of a good architects harmony with what exists and co-exists in nature, and stands up to time. “

MacKenzie’s use of camouflage was simply method used to integrate the man-made with the natural…a common goal in architecture as well.

“Fall-in Waters, seems to be what some say was a good building architect's attempt to provide a human function of living space within a confined space trying to emulate or cohabitate with nature, but he didn't look far enough ahead to realise it would in deed be "fallin in the water".”

If I’m not mistaken MacKenzie’s Sharp Park fell into the water. Have you ever been to Fallingwater…if not, I would recommend a visit.

[TEPaul]

"RJ
“I'm going with TEPaul's train ride through the countryside rather than taking Tom Mac's subway to the natatorium.”

I’m sure you aren’t alone….I think it’s a difficult concept for many, especially those unfamiliar with the arts or unfamiliar with other forms of design. One art form deals with walls, a roof and geometry, the other with a number of relatively free-form naturalistic ingredients. It requires a certain openness of thought."

Tom Macwood:

That kind of response is so typical of you, and it's becoming very humorous, in my opinion. You're entire logic in these discussions seems to constantly be these are difficult concepts and that many of us on here don't understand them for that reason---and furthermore that we probably don't understand them because we're all unfamiliar with those various art forms, unlike you, or that we somehow can't open our minds.

That's bullshit. Plenty of us understand those concepts just fine, we aren't unfamiliar with those various art forms and we're doing just fine opening our minds probably particularly because some of us draw conclusions that are quite different from yours! Yours are way too general and not interesting or incisive because of that.

Why are you bothering to tell any of us that one art form deals with walls, geometry and a roof and the other deals with free-form naturalisitc ingredients, and that that requires a certain openness of thought? A child knows that!

Maybe you think it is but I'll guarantee you this website is not a kinkergarten!