[T_MacWood]

As for his favored design practices in the field, why dont you take a look for yourself and find out?  

What basis do you have for doubting the sincerity of their respective writings?

David
I suppose we could ask anyone who asks a question on GCA why he doesn't look into it for himself. I certainly could look for myself (I have in a very limited way), but this is a great resource, and even if I did try to get a superficial understanding of Repton, I'm certain there are those out there who know a lot more about Repton then I'll ever know.

Did I say I doubted the sincerity of his writing. I am curious if it is an accurate representative of Repton's thoughts....I have no idea if Behr was an expert of Repton or someone with a casual understanding.

TE
For example: What were his design methods or tricks or his modus operandi? How did he use trees? How did he minipulate the land? What were ideas about water features? What were his thoughts on formal gardens? Did he practice what he preached?

And ulitmately my question is which of these design methods or devices found there way into the work of Behr or Macdonald?

[T_MacWood]

Paul
All artists have their own unique influences...it could be LArch...it could be their mother...it could be time spent by the sea...it could be one the shapely girls on Hee Haw...or it could all the above.

I'm naturally curious about such things....if you aren't, no sweat...there are plently of other threads.

[Ian Andrew]

Tom,

I'm fairly certain there is a reference to Repton in Colt's Essays. The question on who's first will be very tough.

Anyone who has taken Landscape Architecture can't help but be influenced by Repton Capability Brown and the other English Landscape Designers. The techniques for framing or creating views alone is a must.

[TEPaul]

"And ulitmately my question is which of these design methods or devices found there way into the work of Behr or Macdonald?"

Tom:

I have no idea what design methods or devices of Repton's found their way into the work of Behr or Macdonald and I'd bet good money neither Macdonald nor Behr did either. I doubt anyone would know something like that.

Again, it appeared they pursued similar PRINCIPLES in their separate art forms and obviously the quest for naturalism in what they produced was a primary principle. We certainly do know they all mentioned that frequently.  

[T_MacWood]

Anyone who has taken Landscape Architecture can't help but be influenced by Repton Capability Brown and the other English Landscape Designers. The techniques for framing or creating views alone is a must.

Ian
You have come the closest to understanding my (not clearly articulated) question...I'm trying find out who were the first golf architects to advocate purely aesthetic ideas...like framing or creating views or backdrops with use of landscaping features.

[paul cowley]

Anyone who has taken Landscape Architecture can't help but be influenced by Repton Capability Brown and the other English Landscape Designers. The techniques for framing or creating views alone is a must.

Ian
You have come the closest to understanding my (not clearly articulated) question...I'm trying find out who were the first golf architects to advocate purely aesthetic ideas...like framing or creating views or backdrops with use of landscaping features.

....the above is a good example of dissection past the point of recognition...any good designer uses what Tom Mac is searching for instinctively, hell, these are the only tools that one has to create from.
ALL architects advocate aesthetic ideas[ideals] to achieve their design goals....its not only a job requirement but an essential component of design.

[paul cowley]

GCA was clearly a minor footnote for A and C....whose movement was much more about lifestyle, Interior and Exterior Design and Building Architecture.

While this is often repeated on this website, I've never seen any compelling support for this depiction of such a narrow arts and crafts movement.   Do you have any such support or are you just repeating the gca.com party line?

DM....I have spent 20 plus years designing structures large and small in the A and C, Mission and similar related design modes and since I have been PAID to do so, I have had to do alot of pre-requisite research and until I started to frequent this site, I don't recall any direct referenced connection between the AandC movement and GCA, especially on this side of the pond.....LArch is usually treated more as an addendum to the main thrust of the movement.
...do I have any support for this ?...my word I guess, in lieu of this thread stretching endlessy in some connectivity excercise of questionable value.

[TEPaul]

Paul Cowley said;
“I really don't understand a need to connect the two ala a chicken and the egg scenario....and even more especially Tom Macwoods attempts to connect GCA in a serious way with the Arts and Crafts movement.... GCA was clearly a minor footnote for A and C....whose movement was much more about lifestyle, Interior and Exterior Design and Building Architecture.”

D Moriarty’s reply;
“While this is often repeated on this website, I've never seen any compelling support for this depiction of such a narrow arts and crafts movement.  Do you have any such support or are you just repeating the gca.com party line?”

Paul:

It’s just a shame this kind of exchange takes place on this website. Obviously D Moriarty doesn’t know you or what you do but here’s a guy who self-admittedly knows very little about landscape architecture or its origins and its developments both because of and during the careers of such heavyweight English landscape architects as Humphrey Repton and Capability Brown, and American’s famous landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted but that nonetheless does not stop him from pontificating that your opinion that there's a tenuous connection between GCA and the A/C Movement is UNSUPPORTABLE.

Here you are both a golf course architect AND a building architect including a broad foundation in landscape architecture and the art of land planning and he’s telling YOU that your opinion is unsupportable and that your opinion is guilty of a NARROW depiction of the A/C Movement and that your opinion is towing some GOLFCLUBTLAS.com party line? And all this after you explained that in your opinion the A/C Movement was much more about lifestyle, Interior and Exterior Design and Building Architecture. Is there anyone in their right mind who actually thinks that sounds like a NARROW depiction of the A/C Movement? Lifestyle, Interior and Exterior Design and also Building Architecture sure doesn't sound particularly NARROW to me. Does it sound narrow to you?

Is it any wonder that GOLFCLUBATLAS occasionally has a reputation for mindlessly unyielding and stubborn arrogance with contributors like that? One would think some of these contributors on here might be content, at least, to learn something from you and some of the other trained and professional architects with training in LArch on here but apparently not.

You said in your last post:

“DM....I have spent 20 plus years designing structures large and small in the A and C, Mission and similar related design modes and since I have been PAID to do so, I have had to do alot of pre-requisite research and until I started to frequent this site, I don't recall any direct referenced connection between the AandC movement and GCA, especially on this side of the pond.....LArch is usually treated more as an addendum to the main thrust of the movement.
...do I have any support for this ?...my word I guess, in lieu of this thread stretching endlessy in some connectivity excercise of questionable value.”

'…..this thread stretching endlessly in some connectivity exercise of questionable value’ is a very good way to put some of these threads such as the ones on the A/C Movement’s primary influence on GCA. What is the value of attempting to identify connections between art forms or inspirations of one art form on another if the claimed connection, inspiration or influence becomes so broad as to become virtually meaningless? What is the value or the purpose of eventually retreating to a position in this kind of argument or discussion that since both are art forms then it follows that the A/C Movement must be a primary influence on GCA? In my opinion, and apparently in yours, it is of very little value or interest historically or otherwise to stretch these types of discussions about art forms endlessly in some connectivity exercise, as you say. As you suggest, if someone broadens a comparison far enough they’d probably be able to find some connection between almost anything. So what? Where’s the interest in influences, inspirations or connections in that?

Tom MacWood is obviously looking for some similarities in design practices between Larch and GCA and that’s fine, and I’m sure some of us can find a few but what does that mean? Does it mean there is some vast influence on GCA from Larch or A/C architecture? What may some similarities of practice or features be between LArch and GCA? How about the use of groups of trees in GCA? That could be an influence of Larch on GCA although it may not necessarily be. Or how about the classic “Allee” of trees that some of the massive English, French or Italian architecturally landscaped estates and such evidence? Could that be some Larch influence on the prevalence of tree-lining golf holes to create a contained “frame” or “scene”? Perhaps. What about the interesting use of the English “HaHa”? I’ve certainly seen that in classic English Estate landscape architecture (Ardrossan Farms by FLO is an example) and I have seen it recently in GCA, notably from Gil Hanse.

But as far as this exercise of endlessly stretching some connectivity between Larch and GCA or GCA and A/C, just look at this remark from Tom MacWood in Part II of his Arts and Crafts Movement essay when he describes the philosophy of William Morris, basically the father of the A/C Movement, and seemingly a man and philosophy Tom MacWood admires for various reasons:

“A love for medieval beauty was fostered during his undergraduate years at Oxford, little changed since the fifteenth century. Having gone there to study for the ministry, he read The Stones of Venice and decided to become an architect. After experimenting with both architecture and painting, Morris devoted himself to the decorative arts. In 1861 he formed what would become Morris and Company, a collaborative effort with a goal of uniting all the arts.”

Do you see that----‘a goal of uniting all the arts”?!

Is it any wonder then why Tom MacWood, and perhaps even D Moriarty constantly seem to stretch these discussions endlessly in some connectivity exercise between various art forms? That’s precisely what William Morris and his A/C Movement wanted to do, dreamed of doing, attempted to do, in fact. As Tom MacWood himself said it was Morris’s goal to UNITE ALL THE ARTS. It is also, as Tom MacWood admits, a movement and a goal that failed---that petered out, in fact.

Should that goal be rejuvenated in some way today? To me that’s a far more interesting question to discuss than if in fact Larch or the A/C Movement was or wasn’t a primary influence on GCA. There seems little question that Larch, or even just “ART” principles have become fairly central to GCA in the modern age of GCA. Some, like apparently Bob Crosby and myself, think that may not be a particularly healthy thing for GCA and its future and I'm sure we'd both be more than happy to explain why we feel that way.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Here we go again.......

[T_MacWood]

any good designer uses what Tom Mac is searching for instinctually, hell, these are the only tools that one has to create from.
ALL architects advocate aesthetic ideas[ideals] to achieve their design goals....its not only a job requirement but an essential component of design.

Paul
Has that always been the case. Did the early golf architects think about aesthetics, the use of trees for purely aesthetic purposes, framing and backdrops?

David
I'm looking for ideas borrowed directly from LArch, ploys the noted LArchs used when designing a park or large landscape. A landscape architect does not normally create sandy areas of broken ground, in fact if Repton or Capability Brown encountered some naturally occuring broken ground chances are they would fix it or block it out.  

I'm not an expert on Repton, Brown, Kent and the other famous garden artists, but from what I understand they had limited number of design features to work with....for the most part they used trees, other plants, water features, paths and distant views to create an aesthetic vision (while also trying to block out anything they didn't feel was ideal or fit into their ideal vision). I'm hoping to discover which of the early golf architects either wrote about or utilized (or preferbally did both) trees, other plants, water features and distant views in their designs.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I strongly believe golf architects (and other artistis) are products of their evironment. And if you want to find out what made a great golf architect tick or a closely related group of great golf architects tick, you must uncover their influences including their enviroment. If you want to ignore the enviroment Hutchinson, Low, Park, Paton, Fowler, Colt, Abercromby, Simpson and the others came from and were working within, so be it.

This thread is attempting to discover early influences of LArch methods in golf architecture....I can appreciate that this exercise may not be everyone's cup of tea.

[paul cowley]

TomM....yes, I feel that always has been the case, as it would have been incredibly hard for any designer or artist to ignore  naturally occuring features when confronted with them in the field....a good designer inventories these elements for use much the same way a landscape artist decides what is, or what is not, a suitable composition.

In quite sure Old Tom had a keen eye for backdrop drama and use of vistas.....he had to if he was to be at all cognitive in his work.

[T_MacWood]

TomM....yes, I feel that always has been the case, as it would have been incredibly hard for any designer or artist to ignore  naturally occuring features when confronted with them in the field....a good designer inventories these elements for use much the same way a landscape artist decides what is, or what is not, a suitable composition.

In quite sure Old Tom had a keen eye for backdrop drama and use of vistas.....he had to if he was to be at all cognitive in his work.

Paul
What evidence or examples do you have to support your opinion.

[paul cowley]

Tom....it should be quite obvious, but the vast body of work by all the early architects is the evidence.....in much the same way as the evidence was plain to the judge when trying to determine who was Santa Claus in the Miracle on 34th St.

...merry Xmas BTW

[TEPaul]

"TE
"I strongly believe golf architects (and other artistis) are products of their evironment. And if you want to find out what made a great golf architect tick or a closely related group of great golf architects tick, you must uncover their influences including their enviroment. If you want to ignore the enviroment Hutchinson, Low, Park, Paton, Fowler, Colt, Abercromby, Simpson and the others came from and were working within, so be it.

This thread is attempting to discover early influences of LArch methods in golf architecture....I can appreciate that this exercise may not be everyone's cup of tea."

Tom MacWood:

I'm also sure golf architects (and other artists) are products of their own environments. I'm pretty sure most all people are products of their own enviroments too, Tom. Is this something that is just occuring to you?  

I just think it's so amusing how you sometimes come up with stuff that's just so obvious and then you make these wild leaps of logic that this is something that you just discovered or uncovered and if others don't act as if they think you just discovered some novel truth you seem to assume they don't care or are unaware of these things, or are disagreeing with you for some extraneous personal reason or something.

Paul Cowley's posts in the last page or so should be very instructive to you in this area and in this vein. After-all these areas are his profession and for quite a few years, and in my experience he's very good at them and very thoughtful about how they interact. You should listen a bit more carefully to him, in my opinion---you will learn some things that you've obviously just become interested in. But a few times now he did caution you to not attempt to stretch connections (influeneces, inspirations etc) in various art forms and disciplines to the point those connections become of questionable value or accuracy, as he said. Judging from some of your essays such as the primary influence you at first assigned of the A/C Movement on GCA, that seems to be your tendency.

Some of us have merely been trying to point that out to you. It's not that we don't care about these subjects or that we aren't interested in them.  

[Ian Andrew]

In Some Essays, page 50,

"In cases where the ground is covered densely with trees, it is often possible to open up beautiful views by cutting down a little additional timber. In such cases it would be unwise merely to clear certain narrow lanes which are required for play. The "landscape" effect should also be studied, and although great care must be taken not to expose any unpleasant view in the process, every endevor should be made to obtain a free and open effect."

I found no reference to Brown or Repton in the book, but I swear I have read the reference in a publication somewhere.
The above reference of which there are a couple of others does give you the impression that he is familiar with the work of the great landscape architects of England.

I have always wondered if some of the golf courses built by the heathland quartet were built in estates that were designed by the Landscape Architects, their apprentices, or students heavily influenced by there work. There is a lot of work, Carton House for example, done on old estates designed by famous Landscape Architects. When you see a property like that, you are inspired to think to a much larger landscape.

The lesson in these landscapes is scale. A very hard one to understand. I always thought that "seeing" at this level must be intuitive and can not be taught. For most, it is just to big to be comprehended. I have always thought, when done correctly like San Francisco Golf Club, a grand scale can make a place special and majestic. Done poorly, granduer quickly turns into excess.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

Regarding your mention of golf courses (or some form of golf) on some of those really massive and extraordinary estates in England which were formally "landscaped" (landscape architecture) very likely done by such as Repton or more likely Capability Brown, I did see a few years ago some really old photographs (at NGLA) of golfers practicing their swings. The photographs showed both men and women (quite formally dressed) and the photographs seemed to be done in an early form of a swing sequencing. What struck me most was how early they seemed to be---perhaps in the 1880s or 1890s and the more amazing thing is the photographs were taken on one of those extraordinary English estates, most of which at that time had been formally and architecturally "landscaped" on a massive scale.

I looked at all of them very carefully and it did not seem to me that they were taken on a golf course just on one of those massive formally landscaped English estates.

You could not help but noticing the scale of the place---the enormous "allee" of trees in some photographs alongside what looked to be a massive expanse of lawn (looked a helluva lot like a tree-lined golf hole but it obviously wasn't.

My point is that we do need to appreciate, in a discussion like this one, what some of those architecturally "landscaped" estates of England by the likes of a Capability Brown actually looked like and the scale of them. We are not talking here about something that remotely resembles a "cottage garden", we are talking about landscape arhitectural projects that stretched as far as the eye could see and in some cases on these English estates that could be for miles across the beautiful countryside of these estates.

The point is to a very large extent these massive views of miles exposing the beautiful English countryside interpersed here and there by beautiful and enormous mature trees were actually dedicatedly "planned" and carried out by the likes of a Capability Brown.

Clearly the intent of these massive "landscape architectural" projects on these massive English estates which were often literally thousands of acres was to expose and highlight the openness and beauty of the entire countryside (of the owner) as far as the eye could see.

Unless one knew better one may not think these huge projects were dedicatedly planned and carried out but they most certainly were. The size and scale of them could be mind-blowing to us today.

Landscape architectural features such as "follies" were commonly used and landscape architecturally highlighted in at the ends of long vistas as were "allees" both in formal and informal arrangements as well as the English landscape technique of the "HaHA". What was the point and purpose of a HAHa, for instance? It was to provide an unencumbered and uninterrupted view (seamless) across lawns melding into fields of cattle and such so that the scene would not need to be broken up and interrupted by fences or walls of such. The point was to provide a scene and setting of almost limitless and continously uninterrupted space. And of course due to the HaHA (generally a one-sided drop-down wall which the viewer could not see) the cattle grazing at a distance could not get onto the massive lawn even if it looked like they could.

If any early golf architect saw a setting like these estates in their massive "planned" landscapes, and obviously some did,  it could hardly help but give him ideas that could be applied to early golf course architecture.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Those examples above are probably some features or practices from early English landscape architecture that may've morphed into the art of golf course architecture particularly in what came to be known as the inland/parkland style of golf design.

On the other side of the golf architecture design style spectrum---eg the hugely artifical looking features of so-called early "geometric" architecture it would seem to me that look probably morphed from the recreational world of the horse, as much as from anywhere else, that without question co-joined with the early examples of inland golf in both England and America and obviously other locales. One cannot help but noticing that so many of those early geometric golf architecture features looked almost exactly like the features of steeple-chasing and equestrianism---eg sunken rectangular pits and walls or sharply defined berms or mounds etc. That would make sense since when golf first migrated out of the Scottish linksland it was generally in the world of the educated, the worldly, the rich and perhaps even the military such as aristocratic cavalry officers. There's little question that in any day, relatively speaking, golf courses cost a good deal of money to make and that meant the weathly were almost always the ones who first made them.

[T_MacWood]

I have always wondered if some of the golf courses built by the heathland quartet were built in estates that were designed by the Landscape Architects, their apprentices, or students heavily influenced by there work. There is a lot of work, Carton House for example, done on old estates designed by famous Landscape Architects. When you see a property like that, you are inspired to think to a much larger landscape.

Ian
The park at Stoke Poges was designed by Capability Brown and Humphrey Repton...Colt designed the golf course.

Ashridge was designed by Repton I believe....Hutchison, Campbell and Hotchkin designed the golf course. Ironically Campbell and Hotchkin were also outspoken proponents of landscaping techniques for purely aesthetic reasons.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Time for a group hug. All of us, come on. Lets hug it out. It's the Christmas season. Peace on Earth, good will towards all men.

[TEPaul]

PaulC:

I'm really hoping you have better things to do with your time than to respond to that last post of D Moriarty. Why don't we spend that time designing a Tillie inspired Reverse Reef hole with a hairy fescue mound in the right rear and a scab bunker on top of it? Maybe we can even work in an ultra natural looking stars and stripes band-aid to put on top of the scab bunker for the club's patriotic ladies day. And if we finish early maybe we can put in a conference call to TommyN and both hug him over the phone.

[TEPaul]

From post #475   on the “Arts and Crafts Sidetrack” thread:

Matter of fact, I think there's a whole lot of unfinished business and unfinished discussion to do with landscape architecture's relationship to golf course architecture, particularly historically.

The "Arts and Crafts Sidetrack" thread that is now almost 20 pages long seems to have been started by Tom MacWood as  some sort of "testimonial" of support for his thesis and conclusion on his essay entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf". Not just that but the "testimonials" are posted by Tom MacWood. Just look that the first page and the first few posts by Tom MacWood. The "Arts and Crafts Sidetrack" thread also seems to have been started by Tom MacWood so as not to sidetrack this thread on landscape architecture's influence on golf course architecture. As soon as that one was started this one seems to have ended.

It seems every time I bring up and question Tom MacWood's "Arts and Crafts Golf" essay and the relationship of the Arts and Crafts Movement to golf course architecture (or the lack of it) that he tried to establish in it, this kind of thing happens. But why?

This is an important subject, and it should be discussed. Obviously Tom MacWood is maintaining there's a strong connection between the A/C movement and golf course architecture through what he refers to as "Garden art" (architecture) or "Cottage Garden Art" (architecture), (A/C landscape architecture?). Doesn't Tom MacWood feel they are landscape architecture? He also contends the influence of the A/C Movement is strong on GCA of the Golden Age due to a return to Nature and a general abhorrence with Victorianism, Victorian aesthetics and the Industrial Revolution.

If the A/C Movement's influence on golf course architecture through landscape architecture is that strong then we need to investigate the A/C Movement’s influence on LA architecture and its evolution, first. But we know that the landscape architecture of Lancelot "Capability" Brown and Humphrey Repton to whom a number of Golden Age architectures referred to as at least influencing their golf architecture regarding a few of LA's "principles" PRECEDED the A/C Movement by many decades. Lancelot “Capability” Brown, one of originators of a more “natural” English landscape architecture had been dead for almost a century before the Arts and Crafts Movement even began and Humphrey Repton had been dead for about a half century!

If that is so then one should certainly legitimately ask how it could be that Tom MacWood is assigning so much influence on golf architecture through landscape architecture to a movement that came many decades later than Brown and Repton (the LA architect mentioned by a number of Golden Age golf architects)?

Not just that but it would seem that logically the thing that would have the most influence on English "garden" or "cottage garden" architecture would be the art form from whence it evolved----eg the English landscape architecture of Brown and Repton and not necessarily some movement that had far more to do with BUILDING architecture and the "DECORATIVE" arts, primarily interior decorative art.

When questioned about these things it seems Tom MacWood's usual response is to contend that the reason the A/C movement's influence on golf course architecture was so great is because the influence of the A/C movement was so universal in its extent on all art forms that its influence on golf course architecture as an art form should be obvious for that reason alone.

I'm afraid this is a form of "a priori" reasoning (from cause to effect) that is so tenuous and perhaps messy that its validity should definitely be challenged. It appears to me, and apparently to others, that there're probably a number of "premises" of Tom MacWood's within that five part essay that allow him to make these connections from "cause" (the A/C Movement) to "effect" (its primary or even significant influence on GCA). It seems to me that too many have accepted those premises of Tom MacWood's to be true without really examining them or perhaps even recognizing them.

But are these "premises" true? I, for one, don't think so. Frankly, if even one of them is not true then his conclusion will very likely be flawed and unsupportable.

So I think this discussion should be continued. If one looks at the last post of that "landscape architecture" thread that's now on page 9 one will see the final post by David Moriarty says that this discussion on landscape architecture's and the A/C Movement's influence on golf course architecture and particularly the Golden Age of golf course architecture should continue.

I think so too and if it doesn't I'm going to write an essay myself rebutting both some of the premises as well as the conclusion of Tom MacWood’s essay entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf".

Tom MacWood said on the other thread;

“I suspect every time you bring up my A&C essay, there are as many converts to the idea, as there are converts again'it....thats my impression based on some of the feedback I get.

The way I look at it the more it is discussed, analysed and studied...the better.”

Tom MacW:

I hope you meant that.  

[TEPaul]

Don't forget about this thread, also started by Tom MacWood.

It's a good thing he separated this one off with the "Arts and Crafts Sidetrack" thread which has now reached 21 pages  

This one is probably a more interesting subject and more fundamental to the true influences on the more natural and quality golf architecture that came to be known as the "Golden Age of Golf Architecture".

This thread no longer needs to involve a discussion of trying to prove or disprove Tom MacWood's theory that he "Arts and Crafts" Movement was the primary or most significant influence on the Golden Age for a very simple reason. And that is that the English landscape designers that actually were specifically MENTIONED BY the most INNOVATIVE GOLF ARCHITECTS of the Golden Age as to an influence on at least the PRINCIPLES of their golf architecture PRCEDED the Arts and Crafts movement by anywhere from 50 to over 100 years!! (so obviously these central early naturalisitc English landscape designers could not have been influenced by the "Arts and Crafts" Movement even if I would not put it past Tom MacWood of trying to figure out some way of claiming that they were, even if they were dead by the time it started! ).

These early English landscape designers were those who FIRST took English landscape design from a highly formalized and classical design style to a far more natural design style. I'm speaking of course, of William Kent, Lancelot "Capability" Brown, Prince Puckler and Humphrey Repton.

Repton particularly was specifically mentioned by C.B Macdonald (Macdonald also mention Puckler) and Max Behr and the reasons they were mentioned is extremely clear---eg the "principles" of their ideas of how to acheive naturalism in landscape design was precisely what Macdonald, Behr and others were trying to do in many ways with golf course architecture in the Golden Age.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Who was the first golf architect to embrace LArch design ideas?

I'm not sure of the context in which you pose the question, but, from a particular point of view, some regard landscape architecture as a distraction, and in some cases, a failing to conceptualize, on the part of the architect

The "core value" of the game of golf is to get the ball from Point A to Point B in the fewest possible strokes.

Some feel that Landscape architecture is an artificial attempt to alter the playing field due to the inate lack of vision on the part of the architect.

They can't see the inherent architectural values in the land, hence they use landscape architecture to create the playing field.

Then again, this may not be what you were alluding to.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Then again, this may not be what you were alluding to."

Patrick:

He was looking for similar ways that golf architects use things like trees, lakes or ponds etc to create Rhythm, Balance, Proportion, Harmony and Emphasis, the way Landscape Architects do, you DOOFUS!

Do I have to explain everything to you??

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()