The Cult of Personality, GCA style

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Interesting ideas, unfortunately not a lot of specific facts to back up the theory/assertions. I'd like to know what decisions/contributions those anonymous committees and men made to Shinnecock, that we should now alter our view that Flynn is the 'personality' who should be given credit.

This is a continuation of Rich's long standing anti-architect stand. Largely the result of two factors -- Dornoch's checkered architectural lineage and Rich's disinterest/boredom with architects and the study of their individual architecture.

Every course has a slightly different story, some times 'personalities' deserve credit, other times committees/ evolution are responsible for a courses architectural strength.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Tom Doak
You think it is odd that you are now all of sudden considered a genius, wait until you are dead.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW (and Rich);

I'd tend to agree with you Tom that Rich's evalutation of the "cult of personality" is sort of scotched by an example like Shinnecock, although he may have a point that sometimes architects seem to be glorified on Golfclubaltas.

Shinnecock does not glorify Flynn, though, and treat him as a "cult personality". Most of the members and apparently many other golfers thought that Dick Wilson designed and built Shinnecock until very recently and they didn't glorify Dick Wilson either.

The club may glorify the golf course somewhat though, and well they should, in my opinion, and they do seem dedicated to preserving it as it was built to a large extent.

We were there in the last month and met with them with our Flynn material that they'd never before seen and they were extremely interested in it and what it meant as to the way the course was built and conceived by Flynn. As a result a few things became apparent to them of possible things to restore further.

The whole idea of Fynn's "planned elasticity" was mentioned to them and analyzed. The whole subject of the original green shapes (clear on the Flynn drawings) was very interesting to them too.

So I think we came away with a new appreciation of Shinnecock and I believe they were left with a new appreciaton of William Flynn.

The "planned elasticity" made them realize, I believe, just how much Flynn had thought back in 1930 to take them well into the future. That kind of thing would get any club's attention and respect for an architect if the club cared as much about their course as Shinnecock does.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

From what I have seen of many courses over the years, it appears that the most consistent feature that remains basically intact is:

THE ROUTING.

And there are a number of courses where that has been changed/modified.

But, for the most part, that seems to be the single surviving feature that continues to endure in spite of committees, boards, presidents, architects, tinkerers and owners.

And, with a routing comes the basic design of the 18 components that make up the routing.

Beyond that, I would tend to agree with you, that much has changed over the last 70-80 years at many, if not most, if not all golf courses.

So perhaps the important features of a golf course, that the original architect should be forever connnected to and associated with are the routing and hole composition.

Everything else appears to have morphed over the years.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom P

I don't doubt anything you and Wayne say about Flynn and Shinnecock. There are a lot of other examples of great courses that are fundamentally the product of one person--Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Pinehurst #2, and.....hmmmmmm....trying to think of one in the UK, but having trouble....no problem...I'll get back to it when and if I can.

When I say "fundamentally" I mean what Patrick says above, i.e. the routing and all or most of the basic shape of the individual holes.

My original post was trying to get at something completely different form that notion, namely asking why WE seem to be more comfortable in taking the relatively simplistic route of ascribing, say, Merion to Hugh Wilson and not to the many people (or natural forces) who changed (for better or for worse) many of the details of the course.  I think that these details (e.g. evolution of bunker and green shapes over time) are as important as the routing in the determination of what makes for a great golfing experience.  Let's be honest, is all I'm trying to say.  I think that looking at the complexity of the evolution of any great course is much richer and ultimately more rewarding for GCA than just trying to personify a course by calling it a "Ross" or a "Bendelow."

And, to respond to Jim K.'s earlier analogy of the Sistine Chapel, of course it is and always will be a "Michaelangelo", assuming that restorers only try to recreate what was there hundreds of years ago.  You can do that with static surfaces and static spaces and a static means of interaction (i.e. human vision).  Anytime these surfaces and spaces become dynamic (as in cities (e.g. urban planning) or golf courses), and the interaction is both complex and has a physical affect on the surfaces and spaces (i.e. golfers actions) you can never "go home again" to what was there once before.  At least IMO.

All the best

Rich

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I've always thought you've gone way too far when you try to make analogies between a somewhat static art form and golf courses and their architecture.

None of us have ever said that a golf course has to be considered semi static in its architecture and the evolution of it. (Well, maybe I should say most of us have never said that--some seem to think that's possible)!

And none of the best golf architects past or present have looked at it that way as far as I know, with the exception of the remarks of MacDonald, Ross, Tillinghast, Flynn and others as to the wholesale changes unknowledgeable committees have been known to make to golf architecture for eons! To  those committees, so inclined, all they ever really said was; "Consult AN architect who knows the art better than you do!"

But you're the one who has gone on record many times on Golfclubatlas saying you don't believe that golf architecture should even remotely be considered an art form.

Clearly many of us disagree with you on that and always will simply because even considering the necessary requirements of maintenance and the desired requirement of basic architectural preservation it is very much an art form to us that can evolve. And the meat of the art form is the overall architecture despite the fact it evolves gracefully!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,

http://tim.griffins.ca/writings/old/restoring-the-sistine-chapel

[Eric Pevoto]

Interesting article, Jim.  

The two sides of the argument are really, 1) does the artist produce the work to stand, unchanging as a monument to their genius (selfishness?), or 2) do they produce something with the expectation that it will change, evolve in ways so that others can enjoy it throughout time?  

They added loincloths to the Sistine Chapel so that viewers wouldn't be shocked by the piece (pun intended).  Was it historically accurate? No. Was it even tasteful? No.  Should they have been wiped off? Tough question.

I think the evolution of a piece and its history and lore is as much a part of the art as the original work.  

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Jim

Many thanks for the excellent reference.  I would recommend it highly to anybody interested in the moral and esthetic issues regarding restoration.  Any links to the original articles to which the essay refers?

Tom

If I ever said such mean things about GCA and art, I hereby renounce them.  If it will help matters, I'll even vow never again to question that GCA is art.  However, I'll probably go to my grave thinking that a painting or a sculpture or a piece of music or a play or even a landscaped garden are very different things than a golf course, and I'll find it difficult to hold my tongue when others say or imply otherwise.....

[TEPaul]

Rich:

There's no reason at all for you to think what you've said in the past about golf architecture not being an art form is MEAN!

And just because many of us on Golfclubatlas didn't agree that it isn't an art form doesn't mean you don't have a good point about that!

I see, for instance, from various dictionary definitions that all architecture is often not considered part of art!

I think the problem many of us had with your apparent position on really good golf architecture is that it seemed you were saying that even the best of it did not require much talent or creativity to do!

In all cases it's interesting and important for many of us to find out who did what in the creation of great golf architecture but ultimately I feel that it should be given the due it deserves whether or not it's technically within some definition of art.

You mention that golf architecture may be DIFFERENT from other forms of art, particularly as the "form" (the golf course) is interactive, more dynamic and more evolutionary because of those things. But the fact that it's different makes it no less valid as an artistic or creative expression to me, although it might to you. I think one of the most interesting aspects about the entire subject of golf architecture is very much in the fact of its DIFFERENCE!

And it is important to give credit to anyone who really was responsible for great creativity whether it was the original architect of record or others.

To me a course like Cypress is a good example of all these points in that it seems that MacKenzie certainly was the one responsible for the layout (routing) and possibly ultimately responsible for all or most of the details of the course. I also think the fact that much of the course was "found" as opposed to built (architecture) makes what MacKenzie did there even more interesting and deserving of credit for his talent in identifying the usefulness of nature. So I give MacKenzie great credit for having the talent to both identify what was wholly natural and useful for golf and the talent to recognize exactly how to use it and apparently in astoundingly natural form (best example #9!).

Certainly though others like the apparently extraordinary talents of the American Construction Co. should be given great credit too for their workmanship of MacKenzie's ideas on Cypress as well as what they did for Egan at Pebble.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I don't there is any doubt that the craftmanship exhibited in the highest forms of golf architecture is art.

In regards to the Sistine Chapel and great works of golf architecture: It is better to  preserve than repair, it is better to repair than it is to restore, it is better to restore than is to reconstruct.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom (P)

If I ever said anything which led you to make the following statement......

".....your apparent position on really good golf architecture is that it seemed you were saying that even the best of it did not require much talent or creativity to do!"

.....please strike me down on this spot.  AAAARGGHHHHH!!!!

....no, I'm OK.....

.....phew ......

....that was close.....

ALL GCA requries lots of both talent and creativity.  From the
9-hole dog track laid out by the gentleman farmer in King of Prussia, PA to the glitziest and least cost effective fantasy devised in Vegas.

I don't think I've ever said anything to contradict that last statement.

Awra best

Rich

[A_Clay_Man]

I hope this is back on topic....
The new changes at Pebble Beach....
Does anyone know if an archie was consulted? Adding bunkers to a hallowed hole(loved or hated) would seem to be in direct relation to the egos involved. It would also appear that an ego who has respect for the thinking of the original or eminent archie, is vastly superior to the ego that thinks they know it all. Unless they do. No?