Comparing GCA aesthetics

[TEPaul]

I thought of this thread from the bunker 1900-1932 thread and the bunker photographs on it.

Obviously, I recognize that appreciation of the aesthetics in golf architecture is in the eye of any beholder but we do talk about the aesthetic of real naturalism in golf architecture all the time.

So, in the context of a look that appears to be the best imitation of Nature or naturalism, my question or point in a discussion is how would you compare (or contrast) the "look" of the GCA of the National School vs the look of the Monterrey School?

This is not a comparison of how they play, only how they look in the context of an imitation of Nature or naturalism.

God knows the "look" of the National School is about as different from the Monterrey School as a golf architecture "look" in those days can get.

Or, even, does the aesthetic matter in your opinion? I can hardly imagine anyone on here would actually say no it does not matter.

[JESII]

Tom,

Is it fair to say that the look of the National School is one of manufactured playing areas (e.g. greens), wheres the look of the Monterrey School would be one of manufactured non-playing areas (e.g. bunkers and hazards)?

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I don't know about that. It seems to me that the Monterrey School was far more dedicated to actually hiding the fact of what was actually "made", no matter where it was on the golf course. For some reason the National School did not seem to care to do that.

[JESII]

In referrence to the Monterrey School, in what way?

[A_Clay_Man]

It takes a long time, many many many rounds, for a golfer to ultimately realize that the aesthetics do matter. Most of "it" is sub-conscience. With many not even realizing the subliminals and periphreals that are at work.  

Bunker lines, are the most noticable and representative of the care the artist took to play his mind games on you. (maybe that's why American Golf (the Co.) straightens every one of them for easy maintenance?)

PBS's recent piece on fractals illustrated how nature performs. Some of the geometrics looked just like the lacey edges, I assume are representative of the Monterey school.

[TEPaul]

"In referrence to the Monterrey School, in what way?"

In the sense that it appeared to be one of MacKenzie's dedicated architectural purposes to make much of what he manufactured look like it was basically formed by Nature.

That idea was most of the principle of military trench camouflage that he picked up on from the Boers in the Boer War and applied to golf course architecture construction.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I would feel comfortable saying that the differences in aesthetics don't matter that much because of the modern day respect that is given to courses from either discipline.
As to "... how they look in the context of an imitation of Nature or naturalism",  the argument could be made that even if the MS is better at imitation, the NS is more honest in it's approach, it's not trying to hide the reality of human involvement.

[TEPaul]

JimK;

Both interesting points, but I'd really wonder about that.

My sense is that the look and style of the National School basically emanated from what Macdonald began with at NGLA. There's little question that NGLA set the pace for the entire so-called National School (hence the name "National School" ).

But is there some particular reason NGLA's architecture looked fairly manufactured in some aspects?

I think so. I think it had a good deal to do with the fact that some of the features and elements of the famous holes in Scotland he took as his models, his inspirations, and many of his architectural concepts from had some rudimentary and man-made aspects to them. And why wouldn't if have been that way even in the Scottish linksland. After-all the whole idea of man-made architectural elements had just begun, even in the Scottish linksland.

Were the sleepers he originally placed in front of his NGLA "Short" natural looking? Of course not. But where did the idea of board sleepers come from? From some of the courses in the Scottish linksland, of course.

What about what is considered to be the original piece of man-made golf architecture---Robertson's Road Hole green and bunker juxtaposed to the road? Does that look natural? Not to me and apparently not to Macdonald either. But it's what was so well respected at TOC, anyway. Again, that's as far as man-made architecture had come at that early point.

Look at the original Redan of North Berwick. Is all the landform you see there the work of Nature? I'd very much doubt that and if you look at really old photos of it some of it is remarkably manufactured looking.

What about "The Pit" with its flanking wall?

What about the enormous dip in the 16th green at NB that may've inspired the huge swale in Macdonald's Biarritzes? Does that look like Nature made it? Not to me it doesn't, as cool as I think it is.

Some of the aspects of those early linksland and Scottish courses were remarkably rudimentary and man-made looking. But why wouldn't they be as they were the very first scratchings of golf course architecture itself?

Macdonald and then Raynor and the others who plied the National School's style obviously did it because it was popular at that time and why fight popularity and success?

Park jr, Mackenzie, Colt, Fowler, Abercrombie, and the heathland contingent seemed to have other ideas about the look and style of what really good and natural looking golf course architecture should be, and consequently went in another and new direction-----a real concentration on trying to completely imitate the look of Nature.

Some of the other now famous early ones like Ross, Crump, Wilson, Fownes, Leeds et al, and slightly later Tillinghast, Thomas, Flynn, Behr et al were probably somewhere in between.

[Eric Franzen]

Interesting.

Would you place Crumps work at Pine Valley somewhere between the Monterey School and the National School?

Edit: Just saw that you clarified that in the end of your post.

[TEPaul]

Eric:

Yes, I would. In my own personal opinion, Mackenzie was the one who took extreme naturalism or a dedicated attempt at it to the absolute limit. And I think the reason he did is due to his own unique ideas and construction applications, primarily his applied ideas of successful military camouflage.

When it came to the idea of naturalism in golf architecture, however, all of them including Macdonald and the National School architects talked the talk but apparently their ideas on what looked really natural in golf architecture and the ideas of someone like MacKenzie's just weren't precisely the same---to say the least.

But even Mackenzie was a bit "stylistic" or "artistic" in some aspects such as the lines and edges of his bunkering when comparing his man-made golf architecture to true natural lines and look. I just think it was MacKenzie would took it (naturalism in his man-made features) the farthest. The likes of Colt, Alison, maybe Fowler (the English heathland contingent) into which I might include Scotland's Park jr sure weren't far behind in though (in my opinion).

But who's taken the farthest in the entire history of golf architecture? I could see a pretty good case made for some in this new contingent today.    

One thing is certain---when some of this new contingent is less than a week out of town a whole lot of what they just did can look like it's been there forever, particularly their bunkering.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

You'd love Tom Simpson's style.  He really was up there with Mackenzie in his artistic eye for bunkers and greens.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I know I would. I just forgot to include him in that list. I'm sure there're some others I overlooked.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Paul:

On both sets of courses the bunkers have had a chance to "naturalize" for 75 years or more in their turfgrass character, their edges, erosion, etc.  There's far less difference today than there was when they were built.

[DMoriarty]

While the underlying premise of this thread is definitely worth discussing, I am not sure that NGLA is a very good example of a course where the designer was not concerned with hiding the hands of man.   At least it may not be a good example if we focus on the original course as conceived and designed by MacDonald.  

1.  In Scotland's Gift, MacDonald is quite explicit about his preference for natural looking bunkers and hiding the hands of man.

2.  All the photographs of the original early holes at NGLA show bunkers which were actually quite natural looking, or at least moreso than now.

3.   This second point is further amplified when we consider the NGLA bunkers in the context of their time.  The NGLA bunkers stand out for their naturalness when compared to other American man-made bunkers which existed when NGLA was built.  

Here are a few early photos of NGLA . . .

Alps Cross-Bunker(?)


Bunkers between Nos. 1 and 18


Sahara Bunker


Sahara Greenside


Redan


Even on Short the bunkers don't look that unnatural, discounting the ties of course  . . .

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul:
On both sets of courses the bunkers have had a chance to "naturalize" for 75 years or more in their turfgrass character, their edges, erosion, etc.  There's far less difference today than there was when they were built."

TomD:

I couldn't agree more. I feel I've probably seen all the early photos of NGLA and there certainly are many differences in "look" between now and 80-90 years ago.