Diversity of Excellence (Another Stupid Overthinking Post Doomed to Plummet)

[Mark Bourgeois]

Can the design of something so commercial and prosaic as a golf course provide a canvas for the emergence and exhibition of real, live genius?

There are different types of genius. I think one of the sternest tests of genius is the genius of "diverse excellence."

"Diverse excellence" means excelling across several forms or classes of art / design.  If someone in arts and design excels across a diverse range of forms, then we might conclude he is a lot more than a "one-trick pony" (college-football analogy: "system quarterback").  He is in possession of a genius for his art.  (More accurately, his genius is in possession of him: ever met a "normal" genius?)  This genius breaks through the limits of one art form.  Diversity of excellence shows a kind of transcendence -- it reveals a true genius.  It's like a test or a marker.

Mozart is regarded by many as the greatest composer due to his mastery of the three major musical forms: symphony, chamber, and opera.  He did more than compose in these genres.  Just composing in many genres doesn't necessarily make you a genius, it just makes you multi-talented. (Or if you're no good, prolific.)  No: Mozart created great works in each form.  That's the genius of diverse excellence.

You can find in other art forms similar multitalented geniuses, whose greatness derives not only from their mastery of one form but from their ability to achieve greatness across forms.  Not merely making the attempt, Picasso, Shakespeare, Holbein all excelled in more than one form.

It doesn't have to be high culture, necessarily: how bout Lee Miller? Model, actress, journalist, fashion photographer, "art" photographer. (She may not rise to the level of genius across all these forms; however, she definitely did as a model...)

So...does golf-course architecture rise to the level of real art and design?  Does the field allow for "genius?" Does genius at, say inland architecture port directly over to links architecture? Can you be a certifiable genius at one yet not the other?

One way to answer this is to ask whether there are examples of architects who designed different forms of courses but who always did better at one form.

If you foolishly have read so far, you may have another question: what the heck are the forms, anyway!? The critical aspect is that each type must demand a significantly different design talent than the other types.

I see three possible typologies:

1. Geologic / topographical: mountain, parkland, heathland, links, desert.  I'm not sure these require different skill sets.  For example, are inland / parkland and links distinct insofar as the nature of design genius in each may be different; i.e., you could be truly gifted at one yet just okay at the other?

2. Design style or "school," eg, minimalist, naturalist, maximalist, etc.

3. Business model: high end public, resort, small private, second club, playing membership, country club, etc.

Are there examples of designers who had cracks at projects of all types, and who produced inspired works in one form yet only average works in the other form? That might indicate legitimate differences in required design talents from type to type and strengthen the hypothesis for "genius of diversity."

Again, the mark of distinction is that the form in question demands a distinct design talent. Is a desert course substantially different in that regard from a marsh course or a links?

If there are distinct forms, has anyone transcended form and revealed unalloyed excellence?  Does the genius of diverse excellence help rightly “spread” or differentiate a handful of designers from everyone else?

On a lesser but still impressive standard, has anyone achieved the "Beethoven Standard of Excellence," ie certifiable works of genius in two forms?

Is anyone willing to share their thoughts on whether distinct forms exist and any designers who have demonstrated genius of diverse excellence?

How do these designers measure against the standard?
MacKenzie
Colt
Thompson
Macdonald

Mark

[JESII]

Good post Mark, and very interesting...the night before last at about 2 am there was a special about DaVinci and his diverse genius...

As to your point...can anyone other than those closely involved in the process answer your question of how diverse are the sites they work on?

My instinct is that an architect would need to prove successful on a number of these different sites to qualify as a genius...so, to me, GCA would be one skill...playing would be another...Are there any golfing genius' currently designing golf courses?

[tlavin]

The title of this post reminds me of Dave Eggers' great book, "A Staggering Work of Heartbreaking Genius".

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sully,

No, it's not simply a matter of how diverse the sites are, I think really it comes down to how diverse the "forms" are.

For example, a designer could have designed numerous parkland courses whose topography varies considerably, yet they're still parkland.

The idea is to see whether designing Course "Form A" requires a significantly different skill set from designing Course "Form B."

The classification system used might be topographical, but it could be something else, such as business model or design "school."  (One thing we do hear on here is designing a low-budget course requires a different skill set than designing a high-budget course.)

If distinct forms demand different skill sets, then a designer who excels across forms has accomplished something special and rare: maybe golf-course architects have a legitimate claim to qualify as "geniuses."

But if it's pretty much the same deal no matter which form, then there is no opportunity for diversity of excellence, and that can't be used as a marker for genius.

A bigger conclusion from that: maybe golf-course "architecture" doesn't belong in the field of "real" architecture or design.  It can't meet a test used in the four arts.

Mark

[Phil Benedict]

I just don't think any golf course architect is in the same league as Mozart or Picasso.  Timeless art is in a different category than a well-routed golf course.

There are plenty of one-dimensional geniuses. Einstein comes immediately to mind.  Good at gravity.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Phil,

Then forget the "genius" crapola in the post: can you come up with a classification system that allows for diversity of excellence in the field of golf course design, or is it a matter of "good at one form, good at all / most forms"?

Mark

[Phil Benedict]

Phil,

Then forget the "genius" crapola in the post: can you come up with a classification system that allows for diversity of excellence in the field of golf course design, or is it a matter of "good at one form, good at all / most forms"?

Mark

My guess is that architects would say it's pretty much one skill set.

Are there any architects who designed great courses of one type but lesser courses of another type?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Phiiiil,

That's my question!

But I bet if we think a little on it, we can come up with at least an example or two...

Mark

[Phil Benedict]

Phiiiil,

That's my question!

But I bet if we think a little on it, we can come up with at least an example or two...

Mark

I guess I'm not being very helpful, am I?  

There are architects who've designed great courses but not great championship courses, notably Tom Doak.  It's probably  because he hasn't had the opportunity.  From what I hear, Sebonack might have championship potential but he had Jack's input there.  CBM and Seth Raynor didn't design any championship courses, did they?

[cary lichtenstein]

Guadi's architectural works in Barcelona were clearly the mark of a genius, ditto Salvalador Dali in paintings...I think the closest we have in golf is probably Mike Strantz body of work.

The biggest problem today is probably the developer and the project as it ties the hands of the golf architect to do something more practical and less creative artistically.

[Bill_McBride]

There are a number of skill sets required to be a golf architect, and the good ones are excellent at each of these diverse talents:

Sales - securing a client

Management - building a team to collectively produce the golf course

Planning - routing the course to take maximum advantage of the landforms

Engineering - planning the drainage, cart paths, irrigation, etc

Design - creating the various holes that make up the whole

Agronomy - selecting the most suitable grasses for the site

.....and I'm sure there are many more, some involving the thick skin required to listen to and respond to GCA.com members!

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays to all our golf architect friends who frequent this wonderful site.  Thanks for all the cool work you do.  

[Mark Bourgeois]

Billy Mick Bee,

You had me there for awhile, but that post there ain't gonna be no thread-killer!

But these skill sets you refer to: those are more like skill categories, what what?

Maybe there are different skills in each category, and these skills attach to specific forms across the taxonomy of design.

For example, sales: maybe your skill is in selling to municipalities but that's a different skill than selling to billionaire individuals.

Or maybe you can route lights-out on a desert course but can't route a mountain course.

I can't say that I've come up with an answer on my original questions, though.

Thinking out loud: why is it that some architects are known more for certain types of holes, yet possibly even regarded as weak on other types of holes?

Like, say, an architect who can design great short 4s, but whose par 5s are indifferent.

Or an architect known for bunkering, but whose greens are regarded as uninspiring.

Doesn't this hint at the possibility of diversity of excellence across forms, too?

Oh yeah, Happy Holidays!

Mark

[Phil McDade]

Mark:

Great topic. Michelangelo immediately comes to mind. In contemporary times, I immediately thought of two folks from the music world -- Ben Sidran (from right here in Madison WI!) and Walter Becker of Steely Dan. Sidran is an accomplished pianist, singer, songwriter (and those three don't always go hand-in-hand; there are plenty of folks good at one but perhaps not two or all three), record producer and writer/critic (he's really quite a good writer). Becker has a lousy voice, but he's a very good guitar player, writes/co-writes songs very well, and is highly regarded as a producer/studio wizard.

I suppose one could argue that for Sidran and Becker, much of those skill-sets are related, but I'd say the same for the Sistine Chapel and David. And I think the same would hold true for a golf architect -- they are designing golf holes, after all, not buildings.

The one that comes immediately to mind was Mackenzie -- Royal Melbourne (flat, sand-belt, no water to speak of), Augusta (really tough, hilly terrain, and some really artful use of water as a hazard re. 12 and 13), and Cypress Point (varied terrain to work with, quite so in some cases, and the use of water hazards as almost window dressing, but what dressing!) are all thought to be among the best courses in the world, by a fairly wide acceptance of opinion (perhaps the original Augusta as opposed to its current form).

Ross, Tillie, and even my favorite -- Langford/Moreau -- don't seem to have quite the diverse body of greatness that Mackenzie showed.

Does that get at it?

[Mark Bourgeois]

See, Phil, I've been thinking about MacKenzie, too.

Lahinch is a pretty well-regarded links, isn't it?  Add that to what you've got, and there could be a diversity of excellence there.

So, is he an example of this?  And to your point about Tillie et al, is he the example of this?

Also, it seems interesting to me that if we go with topography / geology as the accepted form (not saying we should), then the links-form is the limiter.

Very few designers get the chance to work with real linksland as those properties tended to get taken first.

It's like Bill Clinton supposedly said of his two terms in office, to be a "great" president, you need to have a major war on your watch!

So maybe it comes down to opportunity, or maybe not: does designing a links demand a substantially different design skill set (not selling or those other, non-design things Bill McB put forth) from designing, say, parkland?

I would guess Tillie and Ross would have designed excellent links given the chance (well, certainly Ross, dontcha think?), but does that mean everyone else would have, too?

Does geology as a form "spread" architects out, revealing diversity of genius?

Mark

[Phil McDade]

Mark:

Certainly opportunity is a major part of this. I don't know entirely the canon of either Tillie or Ross, but their best-known works (WF, Quaker, Fenway, the Black for Tillie; Pinehurst, Seminole, the Mass. courses, Inverness for Ross) all seem to be of a type -- largely parkland, or parkland-like in nature. Perhaps Pinehurst is an exception; I can certainly see some parallels to that and, say, a Royal Melbourne. Tillie strikes me -- maybe similar to Colt in this regard -- as a truly outstanding architect within the confines (mainly) of one sort of course: parkland-style courses.

I think there is a distinct difference in people's opinions about links courses -- some like the relatively flat but subtle contours, angles of attack, and whatnot of the Old Course or a Muirfield. Others prefer the hully-bully of a place like Cruden Bay or Royal County Down. Lahinch is perhaps more of the latter? And, interestingly, its two best-known holes (though perhaps not the best ones) are Old Tom Morris holes I believe -- the Dell and Klondyke, both with severe blind elements.

One case of of architect who seemed to do well in both mediums -- links and parkland -- was James Braid, who (unlike several noted golden-age architects) was a supremely gifted player. Carnoustie was largely shaped by Braid's vision and routing (I think...), and Pennard is largely a Braid design (and he refused to change some of its famed quirkiness, according to Jim Finegan). Yet Braid also did Boat of Garten (a largely overlooked parkland course, partly because of its remoteness and lack of length, but a top-flight course nonetheless), Blairgowrie and several other well-respected parkland courses.

I've had some interesting conversations with folks about how Doak used what most folks consider the "worst" of the Pacific Dunes property -- the relatively flat sections -- as transition par 5s to get from interesting parts of the land out to and back from the coastal holes, and found ways to build holes of merit for those par 5s. Doak's two links-ish courses -- PacDunes and Ballyneal -- certainly get a lot of acclaim on the GCA board, moreso than his parkland courses, it seems. Has Doak had a really outstanding parkland-like opportunity? I don't know; I'm not nearly as well-versed on his work as others on the board.

[Norbert P]

Quote from the movie "Dark Star" . . .

[Doolittle attempts to convince the bomb not to explode]
Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?
Bomb #20: Of course.
Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?
Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.
Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.
Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.
Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?
Bomb #20: Hmmmm... well... I think, therefore I am.
Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists?
Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun.  "  
   End movie quote.

Great question Mark, and well composed. I have no great answers - never do - but you've stewed up an intriguing quandary. Like Da Vinci inventing helicopters and garage door openers and painting the Mona Lisa, these archies must have some breadth of imagination on various canvasses, no doubt, for some respect, eh? Thanks again, I will be keeping an eye on this one . . . before it plummets.

[RJ_Daley]

Opportunity in golf course architecture assignments or projects as mentioned above seems to be a critical factor in considering genius.  Not every archie has had that wide spread chances or opportunities to show their stuff.  Yet, some have shown great talent in one or two similar types of terrain characteristics.   But, even across several terrains and climates, and soils, talent to work with diverse land doesn't rise to diversity of genius to me.  

Talented across many canvases I think of C&C, Doak, Dye, and the ODGs mentioned like MacK.  

But, I like the other definition of diversity of genius used above.  They guys like Michaelangelo, painting, frescos, sculpture, poetry, anatomy through pathology, Da Vinci, painting, engineering, invention and plan draftsman are diverse geniuses.  

Modern pop arts have their geniuses too, IMO.  Tony Bennett, singing, articulator of lyrics, painting, etc.  

Back to GCA, in that vein, Strantz and Des Muirhead had diverse genius.  

So I want to know if Doak can sing, play music, compose, paint, sculpt, or do brain surgery...  

[RJ_Daley]

BTW Slag, I haven't seen that movie, but isn't the obvious answer for Bomb #20:  I am therefore, I go Booom!

[Jim Nugent]

One question I have about genius in golf course architecture is the tiny number of golf course architects.  Take your Mozart example.  Many millions of people have written music.  It's real easy: there are no barriers to getting started.  

What a difference in golf course architecture.  Only a minuscule portion of one percent of people has ever designed a golf course.  The barriers to entry are huge.  

When almost no one on earth has ever done something, how can we really know if those few who do it are geniuses?  

btw, I prefer Beethoven to Mozart.  Though Mozart was the greater prodigy, Beethoven impacted music more, IMO.      

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jim et al,

What I meant by "genius" was more a genius associated with a certain activity; intrinsic to that activity: to have a genius, not be a genius.

Those who are amazingly good at it may have a genius for it, or they may be highly organized and, essentially, good at copying what they've seen elsewhere.

So my question is, can you sort out those who have a genius for golf course architecture versus those who are just really good?

The concept of "diversity of genius" is one way you might be able to figure that out.

More deeply, what I'm shooting for is whether golf course architecture is complex or "artsy" enough to contain a genius intrinsic to it.  Or whether it's too prosaic, as Phil notes, hilariously I might add, here:

I just don't think any golf course architect is in the same league as Mozart or Picasso.  Timeless art is in a different category than a well-routed golf course.

To fit this question into a broader issue, some people claim that golf-course "architecture" actually is "architecture," or even "art."

If it is, then it should be able to meet the diversity of excellence test.

If it isn't, then we have as the highest articulation of the field Pete Dye's comment that it's 90 percent drainage.

Lastly, everyone is attaching to the topography / geology taxonomy.  I'm not sure that categorization provides enough diversity to spread architects.  Maybe it does; I think we're sort of working through whether MacKenzie, Braid, and Colt achieved a diversity of excellence not found in others.

But what about business model?  I would think designing a low-cost muni is a very different set of talents than designing a single-sponsor's unlimited-budget dream course.

Mark