[Ian Andrew]

How far can an architect go with criticism before they have crossed the line?

I look at Tom Doak’s Confidential Guide to Golf Courses as the most interesting flash point on this topic. I can’t think of a book in my collection that gets opened more. Every time I find I’m heading to a new region I immediately take it out and have a quick read to see if there is something less obvious that I should go and see. It is a great resource, but that certainly isn’t the only reason for its popularity, or the reason I brought it up. It is definitely a book with a following since Tom so bluntly describes what he admires and what he doesn’t. The joy of the book is that Tom often pulls no punches and tells you exactly what he thinks. It is the frankness of the book that makes it compelling, and in my opinion much more importantly informative.

The problems the book created were with the targets of his criticism. If the criticism was only about the “dead guys” there would not have been such a hue and cry. The issue that many architects brought up is that he is criticizing his competitors and that is not an ethical way to deal with your competition. Some have dealt with it like Tom Fazio by simply offering that “Tom is entitled to his opinion” Others in the ASGCA have suggested that he “crossed the line” and that he will have to face this if he ever wants to get into the ASGCA. You know many of the architects were frustrated by the criticism of their work since they have a lot of their own personality invested in what that create. The ASGCA has a policy where members are not supposed to criticize other members. I’ve often wondered how practical a rule this is and why is it necessary. Is it simple to keep decorum in the industry or association; or is this important policy for the industry as a whole in order to be thought of as professional. That’s for you to decide.

There has become a slight disconnect between the older crop of architects and the younger ones. The current crop of architects seem to think that criticism is healthy while many of the older architects stick to the idea that we should be above that. I will concede there is validity in that argument. I also see a series of architects, including Doak himself, who are uncomfortable about the idea of no criticism (and it may be a factor in why he hasn’t joined the ASGCA). He rightfully points out that Mackenzie and others were often very critical of each other, but when they were presented with an excellent course were just as quick to praise it’s merits. I think Tom has been balanced on this in his book and comments after the fact. Others simply don’t see it this way because often they were the most often criticized.

I spent an evening with Paul Albanese (a fellow ASGCA member) talking only about the importance of constructive criticism. We both see merit in criticism and value in learning from it. Don’t get me wrong, criticism hurts. When you get criticized it bothers you for days because your ego is bruised. Occasionally you must admit that its right and look to either improve what you do or be more forceful with clients; other times it galvanizes you knowing that you had the effect you sought and your work has pushed the boundaries. Either way you are left to learn from the experience. I don’t think it’s healthy to have an absence of criticism because we will be practicing in a vacuum and that’s not good for us as artists.

The question is really, can these comments come from architects or is better if the come only from golf writers and other outside sources. What is reasonable and what is fair is largely a personal perception from the person on the receiving end. We all have different limits on our tolerance. I appreciate comment from architects because I know that they have usually spent the time learning about architecture. Others point out that criticism from architects often comes across as competitive more than it does informative.

I’m interested to see what you think on this issue, because I’m largely unsure on this subject matter. I have taken far more criticism for what I write than what I build.

(I will be away for a few days but will address people's comments of Sunday night)

[PThomas]

Ian - I think criticism, especially that of a constructive nature,  is fine....it can help push the bar higher in terms of quality design

Fazio is right, Tom is entitled to his opinion...reminds of a time Payne Stewart got criticzed for something he said..Payne said "What happend to free speech?"  we all have the right to it - but one must also remember that people have the right to respond to anything someone else says

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:  Your speculation is correct, one of the reasons I've never applied to the ASGCA is that I don't want to sign up for someone else's code of conduct -- especially one that may be applied differently to some members than to others.

And one of the reasons I've participated on this site is because I would really like to get feedback and few of the architects I know will provide it.  Many don't go and see our work at all.  Some just kiss my ass as to how great it all is [some of whom may mean it, and some of whom I'm sure say much different things about our work to their friends].  Many are probably just being polite and/or following what they think is the ASGCA code and not offering much to think about.  So, for better or worse, I come here.  Lately it hasn't been much better here.

One of the greatest ironies of this site is that Ran's mission is to promote discourse on great architecture, but he himself has largely stayed above the fray.  His write-ups point out the positives and never the weaknesses.  Which is great, I'm sure his mom would be proud of him, but if we learn from our mistakes then he's not teaching us much.

As for my own opinions, this site has become more and more frustrating.  I am much more understanding of other designers' motives and realities than I was fifteen years ago, and therefore I'm less likely to offer critical comments in public ... and I haven't updated The Confidential Guide, in part, because I think it would be unfair to give newer courses a bigger benefit of the doubt.  But now it's getting to the point that I can't or don't say what I really think here on Golf Club Atlas a lot of the time, because I'm bothered that other people will accuse me of having ulterior motives for my opinions, and not accept that I am just as opinionated as any other member of this site.

I would be grateful for some guidance from Ran on this issue if he ever reads this stuff anymore ... I guess I'll see him in August at Sebonack, though.  

[Brad Klein]

Ian,

that's a very thoughtfully framed set of issues that you raise. I think some of the concern about ASGCA's "no criticism" ethics have to do with the effort of the longtime executive director, Paul Fullmer, now retired. I think there's been a concerted effort to promote professionalism, collegiality, and not to have architects undercut each other openly in competition. There's little you can do about private, back-room politicking, but up front, the concern was to encourage collegiality. That is consistent with the ASGCA's longterm mission as a society. They are trying to reduce schisms and rivalries, some of it between brothers. It's also my understanding that other professional groups abide by such a standard - ASLA for example.

The primary objective of ASGCA is to promote the well being and professional standing of the members. It's not to advance criticism or aesthetic standards. I think that ends up coming from outside -- from writers and critics.

My own experience is that the bulk of the ASGCA membership, esp. the veterans, are very uncomfortable with criticism, take it badly, get very defensive and see themselves as upholding technical standards that they have mastered and that they are basically solving technical issues. Pete Dye is a glaring exception to this -- he never worries about what anyone says. Otherwise, aesthetic judgement and issues of taste are, for these landscape engineers, inappropriate and without basis. (Maybe they are just insecure because they have good reason for being insecure.)

It's certainly the case that a new attiutude among many new members has taken hold whereby they are more amenable to judgment and critcism. But you still won't find the likes of Bill Coore and Gil Hanse openly criticising members' work.

[RJ_Daley]

It seems to me that the GCA profession, and the mode of criticism and how criticism finds an avenue of public discussion has been an evolving process.  

As we noted above, the old timers often made critical comments of other archie's work.  They seem to have had more writing talent and wit, but none-the-less, they took their critical shots.  Then, along came the ASGCA, and the desire to put the whole profession on a recognized national platform to function as a guild.  The fledgling new ASGCA found it practical to have a code of ethics that restricted negativity, for the obvious reason that they didn't want to undercut their mission with the vehicle of criticism, leading to squabbling among its members.  That all seems to have worked out well.  The criticism of various archies work seemed to be left to the writers, non-ASGCA members.  I don't doubt that some ASGCA members may have from time to time primed some writer's pumps to draw critical reviews of competition out in the open.  But, they could fall back on their code of ethics and take the high road.

Then, some young turk named Doak, passionate but not very worldly at a certain young age in his 20 somethings turned a bunch of the old standards upside down.  He as a young archie, recently student, wrote "the" book.  It seems he pissed off a lot of the old guard that got comfortable with the "code".  

But, what is most important is that "the" book was a jumping off point for challenge of the professional GCAs to raise the bar, as noted above.  Even more writers became more critical.  

Now, we have younger GCAs like Ian asking if the standard of critical comment should be less restrictive.  Politely, it is suggested that positive criticism and polite words of critical analysis might be considered as good for the profession.  In a way, that seems to come full circle to the old days when witty or clever criticism was placed in a writing or quote of the old masters, when commenting about others.

Art, even science needs very critical analysis by the professionals and artists in the field to advance their subject, IMHO.  The people that do the work or create the art need to speak up.  The writers are OK, but the practicing professionals are the ones that should take the podium and say things when they see things have gone in the wrong direction, perhaps led by any particular other practioner of that field.

The fine line seems to be the need to keep the petty squabbling down to a minimum, with critical analysis for the betterment of the art and craft of GCA.  I suspect we'll keep evolving along that line, never quite reaching the ideal balance.

[Jason Topp]

I pretty much agree with RJ's take.

One schism I consistently see in criticism of architecture is whether golf courses can be objectively analyzed or whether it is purely subjective  The truth is certainly in between those extremes but, as an outsider, I think treating critique of golf course review on a subjective basis leads to less defensiveness and more opportunity for improvement in the profession generally.  

Clearly, Mackenzie criticized the work of others on an objective basis with surprising bluntness - labelling courses as bad or mediocre.  Such criticism is always suspect because Mackenzie had an obvious business interest in having his competitors work looked on with less favor.

By contrast if one says that I really enjoy short par fours and the difference between the courses I like the best and others often is the presence of such holes.  That proposition can be debated and people can take different positions on the issue without fearing that they look ignorant or fearing that their work is being attacked.

It seems to me that GCA's could meaningfully analyze the work of others by indicating their subjective preferences and defending them, rather than by claiming that the work of others is either good or bad.  Such an approach allows for the field to benefit from analysis with less acrimony.

[Mike Benham]

And one of the reasons I've participated on this site is because I would really like to get feedback and few of the architects I know will provide it.  

Tom -

Thanks for the frank comments but why come to a public board for comments from the architects that have seen your work?  Why no contact them directly, it would seem to me that they would likely be more open with their comments if the  knew their comments weren't pasted on a public message board ...

Mike

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:

The problem with that approach is that every architect is in favor of world peace, motherhood, working with the land, and interesting short par fours.

Anybody can say stuff about architecture that sounds good, in fact in interviews I have read, I could swear that Jim Engh and Rees Jones and I were all of like mind, even though our styles could not be more dissimilar.  The only way to have an enlightening discussion about golf architecture is to discuss the differences as well as the similarities -- in fact, the differences are the key.

Mike:

I'm not really looking for feedback from other architects here.  The ones I know well will tell me in private, some of the time ... although Brad is right, even Bill Coore is very circumspect in saying anything negative, more so than he used to be.  My point was that most fellow architects can't be bothered to provide feedback, so I have to go to a wider group (such as this one) to get any.

[Jason Topp]

Tom - Perhaps I didn't communicate clearly enough.  I also want commentary on differences.

To me it would be perfectly appropriate to say "I do not like Enghs work on this course because . . ."

It gets more difficult if you say "Engh's work stinks because . . . "

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom,

reading your first post on this thread you say that you haven't joined the ASGCA because you feel their code of ethics would restrict you in voicing your opinion. If I understand what you say correctly, it seems a little ironic that you seem to be imposing exactly such a code of ethics on yourself. It is a shame through this that you are losing some of the enjoyment of participating on this site.
I feel that it is important if your going to be critical, to criticise the work, give an idea as to why its bad and how it could be better. Under no circumstances ever criticise the person themsleves.
Looking at the start of the sacred cows thread giving Sand Hills a 10 out of 10 does seem to to say it is perfect and above any criticism. Maybe this is why I am sceptical of such types of course rating, even of the now holy and revered Doak scale. Perhaps SH should be rerated to a 9.9 so that people can more easily accept it being criticised.  
If you want honest feed back about your courses and work why not get a few of the locals to play the courses 3 or 4 times and ask them afterwards what they think. Its probably better not to tell them you want their opinion until after they have finished playing and at all costs don't let them know that you are the architect.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I know Superintendents aren't supposed to publicly criticize other Superintendents work. But, I do know I value the input of some of my brethren who I know not only criticize my work, but also back up their criticisms with ways to improve my work. My brother Ron is a consulting agronomist, and I’ve used him as a consultant in the past. It’s always a tough sell for me to convince my bosses to hire my brother to consult, but once they see his client list and his reports he’s usually hired. I like using him because I know he sees a lot of work and knows what’s working and what’s not, Mainly I use him because even though I know he has my best interest at heart, he never pulls any punches. If I’m screwing up he tells me, strongly. Most consultants are most concerned with keeping their jobs, as it’s a tough business, and telling your client he’s a screw up doesn’t usually keep the job.
Personally, I think most architects are way to adverse to criticism, and wouldn’t ever publicly condemn another’s work.
As a Superintendent you learn to first consider the criticism, and then the source. We all have things to learn. Architects who refuse to address other’s work may protect their profession, but I don’t see how the silent treatment helps it to advance.  

[Tom_Doak]

Brad's response is something I've never really thought of before.  There are indeed some golf architects (I won't name names) who aren't that into golf architecture in the same way as we are ... they see themselves as "solving technical issues" as Brad says, and they solve them correctly, whether or not the golf hole laid over the top of them is interesting or not.

From that perspective, I would hate me, too.  And I'd certainly hate this web site, too.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Ethical criticism is good and helpful.
Unethical criticism is not good and hurtful.
Someone who unethically criticizes is just as likely to criticize even if there is a code/policy - as Brad eluded to.  So it sounds as if the policy only works on the ethical fellows.

Unfortunately many architects don't have the awareness of a select few, and their criticism would make for nice sound bites at the Green Chair meetings, although completely wrong.

An example - Minimalism is just a fad, you don't want to use Doak, he'll be like a Member's Only jacket in a few years.

Design proposals might start looking like political ads and commercials.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, you present us with a bit of a dichotomy here. First you say, "And one of the reasons I've participated on this site is because I would really like to get feedback and few of the architects I know will provide it...  Many are probably just being polite and/or following what they think is the ASGCA code and not offering much to think about.  So, for better or worse, I come here."  

Then you say, "As for my own opinions, this site has become more and more frustrating.  I am much more understanding of other designers' motives and realities than I was fifteen years ago, and therefore I'm less likely to offer critical comments in public ... and I haven't updated The Confidential Guide, in part, because I think it would be unfair to give newer courses a bigger benefit of the doubt.  But now it's getting to the point that I can't or don't say what I really think here on Golf Club Atlas a lot of the time, because I'm bothered that other people will accuse me of having ulterior motives for my opinions..."

It appears, at least to me, that you are criticizing other architects for what you are admittedly doing yourself. How can you hold them to a higher standard so to speak?

You close with an interesting comment where, after the above, you say, "and not accept that I am just as opinionated as any other member of this site."

I have found you to be exactly that, honest in your opinions and strong in them as well. Where you differ from others who practice your art (and I do believe that the level you aspire to is more an art form as you already admit in another post when commenting about the technical side of the work) is in your ability to expose yourself to complete strangers such as myself. We've never met, and yet you bravely answer some private email questions as if I have a right to ask them. This takes a different sort of humility, a word I am certain that many of your critics might not want to associate with you.

For what it is worth, please don't hold back in your comments. You lose an opportunity to share knowledge and diminish yourself in doing so.

To answer the question posed, yes, architects should constructively criticize their contemporaries. Who better to do so? In every field the ones most suited to offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism are others from within as they most understand what was being attempted. Just remember to have a purity of motive when doing so.

The old saying of how even a broken clock is right twice a day can also be applied to golf course architects as many an average or even poor practitioner has created a hole or stretch of holes or even a course that is a joy to play. What would be missed if criticism based upon the man instead of the work kept some from experiencing it.

[Ryan Farrow]

In short, any kind of criticism is good. For example, in school, the architecture and landscape architecture studios give short presentations on the designs they have been working on and building for months. The review or critique, only last a few minute but it seems the majority of the class gets completely ripped apart and some walk out of the room crying.

Most of the time the critics (professional architects) have a pretty good idea of what they are talking about and do provide some good suggestions and analysis. It seems those who are able to accept it and do not immediately disregard any negative comment get the most out of these reviews and change for the better.

It sounds like the ASGCA wants to block out all of the negatives and just pat each other on the back and tell their members they are doing a great job. How will these architects ever improve on their work? Maybe the architects so often criticized on this board see their work make the top 100 lists and immediately think they designed a flawless course. Especially when they have 300+ business associates also telling them what a wonderful job they have done. Could it be they just disregard any of the rare negative comments and keep on rolling, oblivious to their faults? If open criticism was encouraged would we have seen better golf courses built in the last 20 or so years?

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:

I'm not criticizing other architects for their reluctance to provide feedback.  They don't owe me their honest opinions ... most of them have plenty of responsibility just in handling their own work.  And, if some do see courses and choose not to comment, I think that's their prerogative.  It only bothers me when they put their standards onto me and tell me I shouldn't comment on anyone else's work.

My complaint was simply that GOLF CLUB ATLAS is becoming a place where much of the actual criticism is met by a questioning of motives and, in rare cases, outright censorship.  In the latter case, it's a privately owned web site, so I guess that's up to the owner.

Ryan:

Have you ever heard the expression "laughing all the way to the bank"?  That is what many architects think of their critics, in the end.

[Ryan Farrow]

Tom, I sometimes find myself walking off 18 laughing all the way to the 19th hole or for the time being back to my car. So in essence I get the last laugh.  

[Robert Thompson]

Ethical criticism is good and helpful.
Unethical criticism is not good and hurtful.
Someone who unethically criticizes is just as likely to criticize even if there is a code/policy - as Brad eluded to.  So it sounds as if the policy only works on the ethical fellows.

Mike: What is "unethical" criticism? I don't mean that facetiously.

Ryan: I don't think you actually have a good handle on what the ASGCA is about. If you think about it, if a golf course architect's course is well praised, makes lists, generates members and makes owners happy, it is a success. But that doesn't make it a successful design. The ASGCA is a professional organization. Professional development is only a part of what they do -- and it might not be the kind of development you'd support.

[Tom_Doak]

Robert:  That last bit was rather vague for me ... must be why you are wearing sunglasses.  What is a successful design?  I don't mean that facetiously, either.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mike: What is "unethical" criticism? I don't mean that facetiously.

"Don't let ____ work on this property, they will just ruin this beautiful site."

"Don't use ____, unless of course you want the lot views blocked by mounds."

"____ will keep rebuilding greensites until they get it right, ignoring escalating costs and change orders."

"Don't use Tom Doak, he doesn't even use plans."  

[Scott Witter]

Sean:

I don't quite follow you...do you think that an architect must have criticism from another architect in order to learn or gain a valuable development perspective on their own work?

I know nothing about you, your golf game, your knowledge or interest in golf architecture, but I can say that if you offered any criticism about my work I would consider it quite valuable to my work and hopefully in some way no matter how small or subtle it might be, I may be able to use this criticism, learn from it and sharpen my skills the next time.

It is not an excuse, but for me as a surviving architect, often times just getting by, who absolutely loves what he does for a living, it is difficult to travel very far and see other architect's work, but I believe with conviction that this is essential for me to continue to learn and be able if I wish, to be critical of their work.  To date, I am rarely critical because one never knows the whole story of what went on behind the scenes...of design and construction and I would rather spend my time studying the work, making sketches, take photographs and document my thoughts in notes as opposed to offering an unfounded and uneducated critical opinion.

Besides as Tom D. says, when I am busy, which happens to be now, the last thing on my list of things to do is concern myself about being critical of someones elses work...I have enough of my own to be critical about.

[Mike_Young]

I personally don't think there is anything to gain by criticizing another architect's work.  I also think that criticism can be in the form of opinion or fact.  In golf architecture fact may be a drainage issue while opinion may be an aesthetic or strategic issue.  I would say that 90% of the criticism I see on this site is of the opinion type regarding aesthetics and strategy of holes.  I think criticism rarely will change one's opinion and it can only expose fact.  

[Scott Witter]

Sean:

There is no question I stand more to gain if my peers stand up and offer some good thoughts, that has certainly been done before with my work and I am very thankful for it.

I don't believe, however, that I am expecting you to be able or to suggest to change my design principles.  I don't think this is the thrust of being critical, at least not the way I see it.  I think we/I have to have a solid committment/conviction to our own design principles first.  I know from my own experience I have certainly changed and or adjusted my thinking along the way, and for the better I believe, but this has come first from experiences, learning more and more and seeing more courses and from mistakes, yes, I make plenty of them, fortunately not too big and usually only other architects notice them, but nevertheless, I am not out designing for other architects, I am designing for you, the golfer and the ability of my clients to ring the cash register and to ensure you have fun.

I don't think Tom Doak is necessarily looking for criticism or comments from individuals who only have profound or enlightening input all the time.  While this would undoubtedly be useful, and I am not speaking for you Tom, but as an architect, it would seem useful in many ways, that may not always be immediately recognizable, that comments, those that are thoughtful, informed and constructive ones will help us ALL learn.

[paul cowley]

I interpret the ASGCA's no no code of conduct to include; not indulging in unethical business practices towards another member or personal attacks....but not to exclude legitimate design criticism.
I don't think I have read anything that TomD has written that is outside of these standards.

I constantly learn from what I consider my peer groups mistakes [and successes], but I feel no need to criticize them in this or any other forum.

Next year, if the ASGCA can overcome my tendency of being a yo yo who likes wearing skirts while playing the game, I plan on a spring and a longer term sponsoring effort of the aforementioned Tom [our group is a missing toothed smile without his presence ]....and a new previously unrecognised talent in the form of a fallen to our level former golf Pro....Forrest Fezler [who can build circles around a lot of folks that need electricity to work].

[paul cowley]

...and KBM and Mike.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()