Wayne,
In your latest response to be you warn me about my tone. I'll try to work on it. While we are on the subject, might I suggest you reconsider your tone as well? Your posts to me have been outright rude and there is no call for it. Surely you are capable of carrying on civilized discussion free of invective. A few points that might help you manage to cut out some of the garbage you have been shoveling my way:
-- I am not under TomM's influence. My take on all this is quite a bit different that his.
-- My research is almost all my own. For example, the reference to MacDonald and the other (Whigham) most likely came from the old magazines.
-- I don't have a preconceived notion or conclusion about the influences on Merion, or on the AC Movements influences on gca in general.
-- I have no unwaivering adherence to any theory and am blinded by none.
Now I ask you, knock it off.
You seem blinded by your unwavering adherence to the notion that the A and C movement had a broad and deep influence on everything. You asked what would demonstrate a cause and effect. I gave you one example. Not the only possibility but just one since none ocurred to you. Your typical response is to attack that one example as the only example and one you can shoot down. Stop this nonsense.
My apologies for attacking that one example, but it was the only example you gave. I meant to ask you to explain the type of cause and effect relationship necessary to prove an AC influence. But your cause and effect example, if applied accross the board, would erase most of the AC Movement from the history books. In other words, such cause and effect does not exist accross much of the AC Movement. So I think it a bit much require it of the gca's.
But perhaps my questions and comments were confusing or misleading. Let me try to clarify. What is an example of a "cause and effect" relationship present across the board in the various arts and crafts pursuits?
"Gertrude Jekyll was a AC Practioner, but when she writes of her craft she harkens back to Humphry Repton, a figure that long predates teh AC Movement. This is what made her a AC Practioner, her rejection of the current and return to the pre-Victorian Roots of her field."
Well that is of little use in discussing golf course architecture. Why do you extend this philosophy across the board to all artistic endeavors?
Well it gives us an example of the types of influences we might want to look for to determine whether a body of work ought to be considered part of the arts and crafts movement.
Could it also be that the reason Flynn and others were inspired by naturalism is that courses built in that style looked better but also could be maintained better over the years, that they were more permanent in that manner? Flynn, as one of the great early greenkeepers in America wrote of that as is inspiration rather than being swept up in an arts and crafts movement.
As I said in my last post it could well be. But some of these same ideas (naturalism, permanence) were topics that Arts and Crafts practioners were very much concerned with. So while Flynn's interest in these things doesnt necessarily include him in the AC Movement, it doesnt exclude him either. At best it is ambiguous.
I'd love to hear more of what he had to say about "permanence." This is an idea that I've noticed comes up quite a bit with these guys (MacKenzie in particular.) I'd be interested to know if the idea has a single origin or multiple unrelated origins.
Was Repton a part of the Arts and Crafts movement?
Repton was not part of the AC Movement and that is precisely the point. A large part of what defines an AC Practioner is that they rejected the contemporary approaches to their disciple and returned to the roots of their respective disciplines. Like the AC Landscape Gardeners, at least these three golf course designers returned to the roots of the landscape school of design.
If Colt, Behr and Macdonald all cite the principles of Aand C as directly influencing their architecture and not simply some movements in landscape architecture, then why is there any debate at all?
There were not substantive, defining principles of the AC design. Rather they all returned to the roots of their respective disciplines. At least Colt, Behr and MacD returned to the roots of the landscape school of design, as did Jekyll and the AC Landscape Designers. Now maybe it was a coincidence, but it surely is an avenue of study worth pursuing.
I simply am not persuaded by your argument that golf course architects are AC practitioners.
I'm not either, but for different reasons than you. You seem to be looking for a direct attribution of certain AC design principles, and I know that those dont exist within the AC movement. So I think it is overreaching to look for them here.
The Haverford course of the Merion Cricket Club would be considered in your mind Victorian. The first course in Ardmore was somewhere in between geometric and natural yet it was not a quantum departure.
Did the first course at ardmore have the type of tees seen in the picture above? How about the long cops seen in the background?
I suppose you think there then must be a direct connection or influence on the A and C. The alleged influence fits YOUR mindset but that does not indicate proof.
Look Wayne, just about everything you have supposed about my views and my knowledge base has been wrong so far. How about we try to stick to what the other is saying, instead of supposing motivations and preconceptions?
I agree that it does not indicate proof. My point is a change took place. It seems fairly drastic to me, but you indicate that it is gradual. I am just curious as to what precipitated that change, drastic or gradual. I've heard your theory about Flynn's naturalism and desire for permanence and that certainly helps, but it aslo raises more questions than it answers. What of Wilson's influence? Why the trip overseas if they were just looking for a more permanent and natural course? Why involve MacDonald and what was the extent of his involvement. Where did Flynn's ideas come from. Etc. I look forward to having these questions and others answered in your book.
I never said one photograph. Read my post, I said "pictures." In the photo you posted (likely given to you by TMac) which features are dark ages? The tiny tee?
Now why would you include that it was given to me by TomM? You write quite a bit about about people reacting according to preconceived notions rather than the facts. You should heed your words. TomM has never given me anything that he has not graciously given to all the readers of his words on this site.
Your friend Tom MacWood and George Bahto believe there was advise offered by Macdonald and Whigham.
I've never met TomM and if I have ever communicated with off this public, I don't recall it. I'd like to say George Bahto is a friend, but he is a busy man with many friends and admirers and likely wouldnt know me from Adam.
I read it in Golf Illustrated or American Golfer. Likely in the same article you are discussing.