News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #50 on: December 29, 2005, 09:51:15 PM »
....LArch's and GCarch's pursue parallel paths that utilize similar tools, but with different goals....one might design a walk in the park, while the other designs a game in the park [or in a totally un-related setting]....it's very much a form following function thing.
I have employed multiple LArchs, [I even married one, Sandy :-*], and what is required to get an LArch degree does not in any way prepare one for GCArch......I yearly get  job reguests from new born LA's that exibit their final semester project that included a template designed Master Plan for a conceptual GC community....and I look at them with the same feeling that I have while watching my kids attempts to achieve a goal.....and then many times I have to deal with the LA's that somehow get past the experience filter when it comes to planning.

What prepared me most for GCA was, in order, nursery work, dry stone masonry, greenskeeping, building construction, landscape construction, landscape design, building design, site planning, resort and land planning and a love and understanding of the GAME....and developing a keen understanding of turf and related agronomies, civil engineering and irrigation.

so Tom Mac's query "Who was the first golf architect to embrace LArch ideas?" to me has little meaning as LArch ideas are just one of many basic components of GCA.....i.e. "They all did and still do'".........What enquiring minds really want to know is "Who was the first golf course architect to embrace basic civil engineering principles?"..... ;)
« Last Edit: December 29, 2005, 10:59:10 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #51 on: December 29, 2005, 10:06:36 PM »

....LArch's and GCarch's pursue parallel paths that utilize similar tools, but with different goals....one might design a walk in the park, while the other designs a game in the park [or in a totally un-related setting]....it's very much a form following function thing.

Paul,

I think that's an important distinction.

Golf remains a game conducted on a "prepared" field of play.

Some lose sight of the goal of the game, choosing to focus instead on peripheral or collateral elements that may or may not directly affect the field of play.

The critical evaluation seems to be in the play of the hole.
If it lacks merit, all the window dressing in the world won't improve its playability.

If it has great merit, all of the distractions in the world won't diminish its playability.
[/color]


paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #52 on: December 29, 2005, 10:49:18 PM »
Patrick....see, just because you and TomP don't always agree, doesn't mean we can't....WE CAN COMMUNICATE!

in fact, if you want, starting on the new year, I could call you most mornings to chat or just get a fix on the day....I think that would be enjoyable ;).
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

T_MacWood

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #53 on: December 29, 2005, 11:10:16 PM »
Paul what was your major in college...LArch or Architecture or something else?

TEPaul

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #54 on: December 30, 2005, 12:50:35 AM »
"Paul,

I think that's an important distinction.

Golf remains a game conducted on a "prepared" field of play.

Some lose sight of the goal of the game, choosing to focus instead on peripheral or collateral elements that may or may not directly affect the field of play.

The critical evaluation seems to be in the play of the hole.
If it lacks merit, all the window dressing in the world won't improve its playability.

If it has great merit, all of the distractions in the world won't diminish its playability."

Patrick:

I'm sure you've heard that old saw about how the best way to construct a really cool, random, naturalistic green is to go get the town idiot and get him to make it for you.

Tell you what, why don't you and me just offer our services to some golf course client for free? What you and me could make him in cool, random and naturalistic architecture would be awesome!

TEPaul

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #55 on: December 30, 2005, 12:54:32 AM »
"Paul what was your major in college...LArch or Architecture or something else?"

Tom MacWood:

Why don't you and your arrogant intellectual pomposity just F...off? You have no idea how to extricate the end of your nose from a book. During college time Paul Cowley was out traveling the entire God-damned world on his own.

What were you doing?

TEPaul

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #56 on: December 31, 2005, 09:31:18 AM »
Did Max Behr's voluminous and incredibly labyrinthian articles on the nature and importance of understanding the various ways the forces of Nature worked on landforms, particularly man-made (architecture) landforms specifically reflect the general "principles" of "natural" landscape design as promoted by early English landscape designers like William Kent, Lancelot Brown, Humphrey Repton and Prince Puckler?

I think so, and I feel in those articles of Behr's can be found the true and even somewhat specific connection and consequently the influence of the 18th century and early 19th century "natural" landscape designers on the golf course architecture of the Golden Age that became so much more "natural" in construction and look than anything that had ever preceded it.

Behr may've referred to this aspect occasionally as the "Laws or landscape design", but what he was really referring to (and occasionally specifically did mention) was what he called the "Laws of Nature" herself.

Don't worry about it Paul, I doubt you've broken any "LAWS" of landscape design, at least not enough to go to jail for it. ;)
You haven't had any of your man-made features wash away or get blown to smithereens lately, have you? You haven't had any bunkers just collapse in a heap of sand and dirt lately, have you?

Hey, I got an idea. Why don't we build some architectural features that are so outrageously contrary to the "Laws of Nature" and the "Laws of landscape design" that inside a month they'll just totally collapse, get washed away or blown to smithereens and then we can tell the client; "You see that, golf architecture can't get more natural than that as you just saw the forces of Nature completely do her thing".

We can even refer to it as that little known and perhaps little utilized building architecture process called "DEconstruction".    ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 2005, 09:45:54 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #57 on: January 04, 2006, 07:59:10 AM »
Since the "Arts and Crafts Sidetrack" thread got padlocked and because this thread's subject (landscape architecture and golf) is probably more apropos, I thought I'd post this email from the Professor of English and the History of Art at Brown University.

His email is a response to a question of mine to him about what he feels about the movement generally known as "Arts and Crafts" and its potential connection to or influence on golf course architecture. Unfortunately his first response to me was deleted when the last page of the other thread was deleted and that thread got locked.

The professor does have some interesting incites into the actual history of the Arts and Crafts movement itself as both he and some of his collegues in the art world and in academia see it including a few whom he claims are some of the world's true authorities on A&C.

This professor at Brown Univerity seems to be a real authority on the Victorian Era and Post Colonialism---at least that seems to be what his website is about. If I can I will post his bio that sure looks more than a little impressive to me. The man definitely has both been and taught all over the world.

I also think this thread's subject jibes nicely with the one Adam Foster Collins posted yesterday on "design". Adam is a serious student and perhaps teacher too in University in Nova Scotia in the field of design:

Professor Landow's email:

"Dear Tom

Thanks for the fascinating essay on the beginnings of golf. Your present e-mail reads like a pretty complete draft of something I can put on VW. Finish it to your satisfaction, and send it my way. You could also write seperately about the social classes that played golf in Scotland as opp to England.

As for the Arts and Crafts influence on the actual design of courses, I don't really see how that could work for two reasons: first, A&C was not so much a back to nature movement as a back to fine craftsmanship
and exploration of the intrinsic potentials of materials (wood,
ceramics, textiles) as opposed to machine reproducible gimcracks and poor design. Second, the obvious source of course architecture would have to be the history of landscape gardening about which there are a
number of important books. The topics to search under in a library catalogue include garden design, landscape architecture, etc

here are some titles from the Brown library:

Capability Brown And The Eighteenth Century English Landscape / Roger Turner

The English Vision : The Picturesque In Architecture, Landscape And Garden Design / David Watkin

The English Landscape Garden / David Jarrett

John Dixon Hunt has a half dozen books on the subject, too.

cheers

George"



TEPaul

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #58 on: January 04, 2006, 08:01:17 AM »
The Brown University Professor of English and the History of Arts bio:

George P. Landow, the founder and current webmaster of The Victorian, Postcolonial, and Cyberspace and Hypertext sites, is Professor of English and Art History, Brown University. (From 1999 through 2002 he also served concurrently as Shaw Professor of English and Digital Culture at the National University of Singapore). He holds the AB and PhD from Princeton University and an MA from Brandeis University. Landow, who has written and lectured internationally on nineteenth-century literature, art, religion as well as on literary theory and educational computing, has taught at Columbia, the University of Chicago, Brasenose College, Oxford, and Brown Universities, and he has twice taught at NEH summer institutes for college teachers at Yale. He has been a Fulbright Scholar (1963-1964), twice a Guggenheim Fellow (1973, 1978), and a Fellow of the Society for the Humanities at Cornell University (1968-1969), and he has received numerous grants and awards from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts. He has been British Academy Visiting Professor at the University of Lancaster, Visiting Research Fellow in the Department of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton, Visiting Professor at the University of Zimbabwe, and Distinguished Visiting Professor, National University of Singapore (NUS). He served as the founding dean of the University Scholars Programme, NUS, 1999-2001.

Landow helped organize several international loan exhibitions including Fantastic Art and Design in Britain, 1850 to 1930 (1979), and his books include The Aesthetic and Critical Theories of John Ruskin (Princeton UP, 1971), Victorian Types, Victorian Shadows: Biblical Typology and Victorian Literature, Art, and Thought (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980), Approaches to Victorian Autobiography (Ohio UP, 1979), Images of Crisis: Literary Iconology, 1750 to the Present (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982), Ruskin (Oxford UP, 1985), Elegant Jeremiahs: The Sage from Carlyle to Mailer (Cornell UP, 1986).

His books on hypertext and digital culture include Hypermedia and Literary Studies (MIT, 1991), and The Digital Word: Text-Based Computing in the Humanities (MIT, 1993) both of which he edited with Paul Delany, and Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology (Hopkins UP, 1992), which has appeared in various European and Asian languages and as Hypertext in Hypertext (Hopkins UP, 1994), a greatly expanded electronic version with original texts by Derrida, reviews, student interventions, and works by other authors. In 1997, he published a much-expanded, completely revised version as Hypertext 2.0, and Hypertext 3.0: New Media and Critical Theory in an Era of Globalization is scheduled for publication in January 2006. He has also edited Hyper/Text/Theory. (Hopkins UP, 1994).

Landow's projects in humanities computing involve several with graduate students in English literature and art history that employed advanced word processing, electronic conferencing, and typesetting on the university mainframe to create group projects resulting in published books -- A Pre- Raphaelite Friendship (UMI, 1985) an edition of nineteenth- century unpublished letters with full scholarly apparatus produced by Dr. James H. Combs and others, and Ladies of Shalott: A Victorian Masterpiece and its Contexts (Brown U., 1986), a heavily illustrated exhibition catalogue fully designed online using IBM Script, customized macros, and typesetting programs written at Brown by Allen H. Renear and others.

A Faculty Fellow at Brown University's Institute for Research in Information and Scholarship (IRIS) from 1985 to 1992, he worked as a member of the team that developed Intermedia. He supervised, edited, and partially wrote various hypermedia documents on this system used to support English courses ranging from introductory surveys to graduate seminars. The Dickens Web, a small selection of these materials, won the 1990 EDUCOM/ NCRIPTAL award for most innovative courseware in the humanities. He published the Dickens and In Memoriam Webs in Storyspace (Eastgate Systems, 1992) and a Writing at the Edge, a collection of Brown student Storyspace webs (1995). He created and maintains three interlinked websites that together include 40,000 documents and that have won more than 50 awards, including those from NEH, the BBC, the Britannica, the French Ministry of Education, and organizations in Australia, Italy, New Zealand, Russia, and Singapore: the Victorian and the Postcolonial Literature Webs, much amplified WWW versions of materials originally created in Intermedia and Storyspace, and the Cyberspace, Hypertext, and Critical Theory Web, which is largely composed of large, elaborate student projects.

« Last Edit: January 04, 2006, 08:02:42 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #59 on: January 04, 2006, 08:22:05 AM »
And lastly, I feel this subject about landscape architecture's (earlier known as landscape design) influence on golf course architecture as well as the A&C movement as it effected landscape design and perhaps potentially influenced golf course architecture (or not) is a fascinating subject and perhaps a very fundamental one (landscape design that is) in the history and evolution of golf. I believe it should always continue to be discussed and explored on here in both this discussion group and in the "In My Opinion" section of this website.

I realize it may not be a subject for everyone on here but those not interested can just avoid it and discuss plenty of other subjects such as the top ten ranked courses in the state of New Jersey or something. I think there are a number of people who are very interested in this subject including those who probably just read this site without being registered.

So I'd like to keep discussing this subject. Perhaps the other thread got locked because of hositlity between me and David Moriarty or something. I promise not to even acknowledge him in the future on here as he appears willing to not acknowledge me. I'm quite sure neither of us have any interest in the thoughts or opinions of the other, at this point.

But if for some reason those who moderate and administer this website and who take the responsibility of deleting posts and locking threads be that Tommy Nacarrato or anyone else or even Ran Morrissett aren't interested in this kind of subject and it's discussion on here just send me an email to that effect because if that's the way this website is going to be administered then I'm not interested in it and I'd be perfectly willing to just unregister from it.

Carry on.  ;)
« Last Edit: January 04, 2006, 08:28:16 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #60 on: January 04, 2006, 08:52:41 AM »
Professor Landow's email:

"Dear Tom

Thanks for the fascinating essay on the beginnings of golf. Your present e-mail reads like a pretty complete draft of something I can put on VW. Finish it to your satisfaction, and send it my way. You could also write seperately about the social classes that played golf in Scotland as opp to England.

As for the Arts and Crafts influence on the actual design of courses, I don't really see how that could work for two reasons: first, A&C was not so much a back to nature movement as a back to fine craftsmanship
and exploration of the intrinsic potentials of materials (wood,
ceramics, textiles) as opposed to machine reproducible gimcracks and poor design. Second, the obvious source of course architecture would have to be the history of landscape gardening about which there are a
number of important books. The topics to search under in a library catalogue include garden design, landscape architecture, etc

here are some titles from the Brown library:

Capability Brown And The Eighteenth Century English Landscape / Roger Turner

The English Vision : The Picturesque In Architecture, Landscape And Garden Design / David Watkin

The English Landscape Garden / David Jarrett

John Dixon Hunt has a half dozen books on the subject, too.

cheers

George"


TE
I would beg to differ with George's very simplistic characterisation of the A&C movments: "A&C was not so much a back to nature movement as a back to fine craftsmanship
and exploration of the intrinsic potentials of materials (wood,
ceramics, textiles) as opposed to machine reproducible gimcracks and poor design."

It was more than that....there was a looking back to the past for inspiration component that he appears to ignore. And rejection of the city and the ugliness of the city for the country. How does he reconcile the work of Jekyll and Robinson in his narrow definition?

Here is Ruskin's Seven Lamps:


The Lamp of Sacrifice - Architecture by definition is an art which rises above‘building’ and requires additional effort and resources which are not necessary to strict utility

The Lamp of Truth - No disguised supports, no sham materials, no machine work for handwork

The Lamp of Power - Refers to the effect of architecture to consciously inspire awe

The Lamp of Beauty - Only possible through imitation of, or inspiration from nature

The Lamp of Life - Architecture must express a fullness of life; embrace boldness and irregularity, scorn refinement and also be the work of men as men

The Lamp of Memory - The greatest glory of a building is its age and we must therefore build for permanence

The Lamp of Obedience - Architecture should be conservative. Expression is good, but preoccupation with originality is essentially bad. Architects should not seek to consciously introduce new Style

Why did it take 100+ years for the ideas of Capability Brown and Humphrey Repton to influence golf architecture?

Do the courses of the Heathland have more in common with the idylic landscapes of Brown & Repton or more in common with the sandy linksland?



Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #61 on: January 04, 2006, 09:01:21 AM »


Why did it take 100+ years for the ideas of Capability Brown and Humphrey Repton to influence golf architecture?

Do the courses of the Heathland have more in common with the idylic landscapes of Brown & Repton or more in common with the sandy linksland?


Where is the proof that those two Gentlemen have influenced Golf Course Architecture?  

I have studied both and do not feel influenced whatsoever by either of them.  Although many class them as Landscape Architects, I would not...more like pompous gardeners that used the same formular over and over again....overated by wishy washy arty fartsy modern Landscape Architects...

Repton just jumped on Brown's bandwagon....

I relate the Heathland's golf courses more to the Link's golf courses than any of the above mentioned work.

Brian
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

TEPaul

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #62 on: January 04, 2006, 09:11:54 AM »
"TE
I would beg to differ with George's very simplistic characterisation of the A&C movments: "A&C was not so much a back to nature movement as a back to fine craftsmanship
and exploration of the intrinsic potentials of materials (wood,
ceramics, textiles) as opposed to machine reproducible gimcracks and poor design."

It was more than that....there was a looking back to the past for inspiration component that he appears to ignore. And rejection of the city and the ugliness of the city for the country. How does he reconcile the work of Jekyll and Robinson in his narrow definition?"

Tom MacWood:

Of course you are more than entitled to beg to differ with anyone you want to---you sure have no problem doing that with apparently anyone who does not seem to support your theories or theses on A&C.

I'm merely pointing out what some who appear to be true authorities on this kind of thing say.

For starters Professor Landow seems to be pointing out the important differences in various art forms and what that means as far as a connection or influence of one on the other.

This appears to be very similar to what Paul Cowley, a man who has actually both studied and worked in the art forms or mediums we've been discussing on here, said to you some time ago---eg that in his opinion LA is not much connected to A&C or that A&C does not have much to do with LA. It has to do with other mediums that have been endlessly listed on here. And that, therefore A&C is not much connected to GCA and very unlikely a significant influence on it.

You can think whatever you like about any of this but since some don't agree with you I think it's important to point out what those not just on here but who are actually in the field of A&C say about all this.

Someone like DM can continue to say that those who don't agree with you are merely disagreeing without discussing the reasons why or without continuing to answer his questions but again I think the reasons why some, including apparently now experts in the field, don't agree is becoming pretty obvious.

I know you don't agree with me or Paul Cowley obviously both thinking and saying we don't know enough about the subject (A&C and it's extent and influence) and so I thought I'd try to bring in someone or perhaps a few truly in this field and just ask them what they think about it and see what they have to say about it.

« Last Edit: January 04, 2006, 09:19:56 AM by TEPaul »

wsmorrison

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #63 on: January 04, 2006, 09:18:25 AM »
"You can think whatever you like about any of this but since some don't agree with you I think it's important to point out what those not just on here but who are actually in the field of A&C say about all this."

Or what those in the field of golf course architecture think, such as Brian Phillips and Paul Cowley.  
« Last Edit: January 04, 2006, 09:18:50 AM by Wayne Morrison »

T_MacWood

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #64 on: January 04, 2006, 09:21:51 AM »
"TE
I would beg to differ with George's very simplistic characterisation of the A&C movments: "A&C was not so much a back to nature movement as a back to fine craftsmanship
and exploration of the intrinsic potentials of materials (wood,
ceramics, textiles) as opposed to machine reproducible gimcracks and poor design."

It was more than that....there was a looking back to the past for inspiration component that he appears to ignore. And rejection of the city and the ugliness of the city for the country. How does he reconcile the work of Jekyll and Robinson in his narrow definition?"

Tom MacWood:

Of course you are more than entitled to beg to differ with anyone you want to---you sure have no problem doing that with apparently anyone who does not seem to support your theories or theses on A&C.

Has he read my A&C essay?

I'm merely pointing out what some who appear to be true authorities on this kind of thing say.

For starters Professor Landow seems to be pointing out the important differences in various art forms and what that means as far as a connection or influence of one on the other.

Where do you read that?

This appears to be very similar to what Paul Cowley, a man who has actually worked in the art forms or mediums we've been discussing on here, said to you some time ago---eg that in his opinion LA is not much connected to A&C or that A&C does not have much to do with LA. It has to do with other mediums that have been endlessly listed on here. And that, therefore A&C is not much connected to GCA and very unlikely a significant influence on it.

Does Paul agree with the George's view that the A&C movement was confined to Britain?

You can think whatever you like about any of this but since some don't agree with you I think it's important to point out what those not just on here but who are actually in the field of A&C say about all this.

I believe I brought up several important points that brings into question George's conclusions about golf architecture and its influences, not to mention his narrow definintion of the A&C movement.

I hope he responds.

« Last Edit: January 04, 2006, 09:22:46 AM by Tom MacWood »

T_MacWood

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #65 on: January 04, 2006, 09:30:31 AM »
Wayne
I think you may be confused...I agree with Brian (disagree with the professor) regarding Brown and Repton not being the inspiration for the early heathland courses, that it was the links that was their model.

Its difficult to know what Paul Cowley believes...so who knows if we agree or not.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2006, 09:31:25 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #66 on: January 04, 2006, 09:35:23 AM »
Tom MacWood asks:

"Why did it take 100+ years for the ideas of Capability Brown and Humphrey Repton to influence golf architecture?"

Tom:

As I've been trying to tell you for so long now, one clear reason is that golf course architecture did not exist during the lives of those men and when it began to first exist outside the linksland over 100 years after Capability Brown it went through an incipient stage of rudimentariness (probably more akin to the model of the recreational horse world as Darwin so accurately observed and mentioned) as perhaps any sport would before getting to that point of maturity where interest in it precipitated a disgust for the crudeness that came before. That precipitated a reversion back to the linksland model of total naturalness (no architecture) and finally an interest in the importance of the look of Nature in golf course architecture. The "look" of Nature was one of the fundamental tenets of the 18th century "naturalist" landscape designers as they shifted the art form of LA from the formalized, rigid and somewhat classical style that previously dominated it.

I just can't really imagine what's so hard for you to understand about this obvious time-line and the evolutions regarding golf course archiitecture and landscape design.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2006, 09:40:24 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #67 on: January 04, 2006, 09:44:04 AM »
TE
Did the early heathland architects embrace the use of trees, groupings of trees and water features?


ForkaB

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #68 on: January 04, 2006, 10:03:51 AM »
Ran and Tommy

Get that padlock out!  The lunatics have escaped the asylum, yet again! :o ;)

Brian Phillips

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #69 on: January 04, 2006, 10:15:12 AM »
TE
Did the early heathland architects embrace the use of trees, groupings of trees and water features?


No. Definitely not water features...and I know that Sunningdale was one of the first..but they did not embrace water features at all..
Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded, and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored - John Low Concerning Golf

TEPaul

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #70 on: January 04, 2006, 10:16:30 AM »
Tom MacW:

In all fairness to you, and as I was just telling Paul Cowley, it would seem that your technique in analyzing and theorizing on these things such as the A&C and its influence on GCA (and the Golden Age) is to just keep trying to expand and expand and expand your subject's (the A&C) philosophy and the actual extent of it and its actual impact until it might be seen to influence most any art form or most anything at all.

Judging from what some of these professors of Art History and some of these experts on A&C, as well as a guy like PaulC who has both studied and worked in these various mediums have said, it would seem to me they are much more into the "contrast" side of these various art forms. You, on the other hand, have gone to the other extreme of the "compare" side to such an extent (including both real historic inaccuracy and just outright theorizing) of perhaps meaninglessness or just lack of edcuational value or interest.

You haven't gone quite this far but your technique of premise, analysis and conclusion is a bit like saying that the sun is the most significant influence on GCA and the Golden Age because the sun pretty much shines everywhere at some point and pretty much always has.  ;)

I think it's fair to you to say that you've tried to go to real lengths to discover potential similarities between A&C and LA or even GCA while those guys who are the authorities on the subjects seem to be more interested in discovering the differences and distinctions between various art forms.

These are different ways to go, opposite in fact, and which technique and conclusions are the most interesting and educational I guess anyone on here can just decide for themselves. I know what I've decided and I know what I've pointed out on this subject in that vein and so perhaps I should just rest my case.

However, as I promised you, I will do a formal rebuttal to your "Arts and Crafts Golf" essay and see if Ran would care to put it in the "In My Opinion" section. A subject like this probably should show both sides and both points of view.  
« Last Edit: January 04, 2006, 10:21:45 AM by TEPaul »

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #71 on: January 04, 2006, 10:19:45 AM »
quote TomM
"Does Paul agree with the George's view that the A&C movement was confined to Britain?"

I think its safe to say the British A&C movement was confined to Britain......I feel its American cousin differred in as much as their two cultures did......different needs, experiences and backgrounds.

I think the British A&C was more of a movement than its American cousin and that is probably what George is refering to.......Gustav Stickley probably esposed a philosophy more than anyone in America, thru his Craftsman writings, farm and manufacturing endeavors....but he was not as deep philosophically or societally involved as the Brits...... but I'm no historian and have to catch a plane.

« Last Edit: January 04, 2006, 10:33:00 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

TEPaul

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #72 on: January 04, 2006, 10:26:25 AM »
"Ran and Tommy
Get that padlock out!  The lunatics have escaped the asylum, yet again!    ::)    :o    

Rich:

You're an intelligent dude---I just know you can contribute something of historic and artistic interest to this subject if you just try to put your mind to it. Give it a try---this is an important subject for golf course architecture.

TEPaul

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #73 on: January 04, 2006, 10:33:31 AM »
Tom MacWood:

Regarding your mention of Rushkin's "Seven Lamps", it surely is important in the Victorian Era and in artistic thinking and particularly that architecture can or should rise to the level of "art". I think where these authorities are disagreeing with you is the extent to which you try to suggest that these various "art form" are similar or connected---at least in the sense of actually directly influencing one another to the extent you've concluded with A&C and GCA---or perhaps even LA.

Do you not agree that their points and opinions are at least a very important and very valid "counterpoint" to your opinions?  ;)
« Last Edit: January 04, 2006, 10:35:27 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Landscape architecture and golf
« Reply #74 on: January 04, 2006, 10:49:28 AM »
TE
Which authorities? What precisely is their counterpoint...I do not see anything specific in George's letter about the vaious art forms and how they fit into the movement. His very narrow definition of the movement would exclude one of its most famous practioners: Gertrude Jekyll

Paul
Wasn't Stickley heavily influenced by Ruskin, Morris and the British A&C movement?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2006, 10:50:30 AM by Tom MacWood »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back