Is minimalism a tangible or intangible?

[Mike_Young]

After reading TD's thread on PD.....just got to wondering......

[JESII]

When TD suggests that it is actually just making it look like not much was moved...intangible.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Mike

As I recall Tom wrote quite eloquently on the subject in his Anatomy of a Golf Course. I came away from reading it feeling that there was indeed never nothing for the architect to work with, if he was willing to embrace that idea. So it is almost a truism, I suppose.
This Bill Coore quote is choice, I think - "I have learned from Ben that a subtle contour or the consideration of a wind angle will serve the purpose of good golf more than any heavy handed creation could ever achieve."

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Even if we can't perceive the work that was done at PD, or any other course for that matter, there is a tangible result.
If you are asking about the idea of minimalism as presented by TD in his essay, I'd say it's made up of tangible components.
The ether, on the other hand, is always intangible.

[Mike_Young]

Lloyd/ Jes,
I agree with your comments but as Lloyd mentions "subtle contour" I can move three times the dirt obtaining a subtle contour than I would move for an obvious "heavy handed creation".....proably the same applies to music....

[Joe Hancock]

How appropriate would it have been had there been one correct response to this thread, and no more?

 

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd/ Jes,
I agree with your comments but as Lloyd mentions "subtle contour" I can move three times the dirt obtaining a subtle contour than I would move for an obvious "heavy handed creation".....proably the same applies to music....

Mike

I think that make perfect sense.

You want a natural looking/feeling course. I think if you are a minimalist purist then you don't move earth unless you have to. But then when you do, you move as much as is needed to get it right. No contradictions, or conflict of interests there.

[Mark Pearce]

I hate to resort to semantics (no, you're right, I don't really) but how can a word used to describe a style of architecture or even a style of architecture itself possibly be tangible?

I honestly don't understand the question.

[John Moore II]

The work itself is of course tangible. But what happens may or may not be. Some courses may look like no dirt at all was move and seem completely natural, but be 100% fabricated. In the same sense, courses can seem totally fabricated, but be very much natural. The key has been said here before, minimalism makes it LOOK like nothing was touched, where on many other designs, its obvious that much dirt was moved.

[Mike_Young]

The key has been said here before, minimalism makes it LOOK like nothing was touched, where on many other designs, its obvious that much dirt was moved.

JM,
That is my issue and I think that is what TD is trying to ask in his test re PD.  Most on here think they like minimalism IMHO but what they really like is long natural earth forms.....they don't know if it took minimal earthwork or massive dirt moves......IMHO true minimalism would be work at tees and greens with very little fwy work....true a word cannot be tangible....I guess I have come to the conclusion that minimalism is a "look" that many know when they see it but the development may not be minimal at all.

[John Moore II]

Mike-I agree. I have tended to use the word Naturalist moreso than minimalist. At least with naturalist, it doesn't imply that minimal work went into the project. Just that the final work looks like it belongs and flows naturally into the surroundings. Strantz did this very well. Doak and Coore/Crenshaw do it as well.

[paul cowley]

I think its intangible because no one here ever seems to figure it out.....or is able to come up with a consensus definition.

[Mike_Young]

I think its intangible because no one here ever seems to figure it out.....or is able to come up with a consensus definition.

Your statement makes me an intangible.....I like that....

[tlavin]

It is:

malleable
ineffable
corruptible
debatable

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I don't know whether it is tangible or not, but I know what we do is largely misunderstood.

Your definition of "true minimalism" -- "work at tees and greens with very little fairway work" -- is pretty much what I've tried to do over the years, unless we are working with a site which doesn't have natural drainage at all.  Nobody could have built a minimalist golf course by your definition at The Rawls Course -- it was too flat and the soils were too heavy.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mike:

 Nobody could have built a minimalist golf course by your definition at The Rawls Course -- it was too flat and the soils were too heavy.

Yes you could have but it would have been wet and flat  

[JMorgan]

Given a particular property, I'd say it's an intangible, as one man's meat from a settled-upon routing -- with maximum as-is use of nature-made green sites and land forms for course features -- will differ from another man's version of 18 holes.  

[John Moore II]

Tom--would you say that my definition of Naturalism is on the mark? I think that generally what you try to do is make the course look like it fits with the nature of the site. If that requires minimal work or not is not addressed, just that the finished course LOOKS like you simply move a shovel full here and there and threw down some grass seed. Is that on the mark what you generally try to do?

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

I don't know whether it is tangible or not, but I know what we do is largely misunderstood.

Your definition of "true minimalism" -- "work at tees and greens with very little fairway work" -- is pretty much what I've tried to do over the years, unless we are working with a site which doesn't have natural drainage at all.  Nobody could have built a minimalist golf course by your definition at The Rawls Course -- it was too flat and the soils were too heavy.

Tom,
I understand that in most sites that are availalble for golf today, none of us could build a "true minimalism" golf course.  AND I do think most   people misunderstand or confuse minimalism with a minimalistic look.   IMHO.  AND yes I know you could not have built a minimalist golf course at the Rawls site from how you describe it.  BUT I hope you are not confusing me with someone that has ever tried to describe your work as minimalism. I have thought you tried to work as you described above and I have always assumed when you designed a job such as Rawls that others would assume it to be minimalism even though you may have known it was not.  AND no one has ever heard me say there was anything wrong with trying to create a minimalistic look.....most just can't stand to move dirt and not let it show whether it be for drainage purposes or not....JMO

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

That last point is interesting, I've never thought of it that way -- although I've had more than one client who did insist that if they had to spend the $$ to build an irrigation pond, they wanted it IN PLAY on a hole or two instead of hidden off to one side.

[paul cowley]

Guys...there are very few natural sites that allow for a designer to move a minimal amount of dirt to create a really good golf course.

On the opposite side....I have moved massive amounts of dirt trying to make a site look 'minimal' in the quest to build a really good golf course.  

[John Moore II]

Paul-what you say about moving dirt to make it look minimal goes back to my idea of calling it Naturalist. I am not trying to change the lingo of an eitire field of work, I am just saying that minimal implies very little work and movement while 'natural' at least just gives the idea that you tried to make it fit with the area its in, not accounting for what you may have had to do.

[paul cowley]

Johnny.....we are in strong agreement.....but I am curious...why don't you use More of your name?

[Mike_Young]

Paul-what you say about moving dirt to make it look minimal goes back to my idea of calling it Naturalist. I am not trying to change the lingo of an eitire field of work, I am just saying that minimal implies very little work and movement while 'natural' at least just gives the idea that you tried to make it fit with the area its in, not accounting for what you may have had to do.

JM,
My question to you would be.....you call Mke Stranz minimal style and above you say  "fit with the area its in"   ...does Bulls Bay "fit within the area its in?......I say no....but then I don't call M Stranz minimalist either......building a 70 ft hill is a littl epast even minimalist look....wouldn't you say?  JMO

[John Moore II]

Mike-I did call Strantz a minimalist the other day, and knew I was incorrect as soon as I posted. Thats when I came up with naturalist. Tobacco Road fits naturally, its in a very sandy region and he uses the sand pretty well. I would not have thought the hills in #1 at TR were unnatural if I had not been told. Since it used to be a quarry, I thought they were probably there when he took over the site. I have never played Bulls Bay, even though I hope to soon. But based on the pictures, I would say it took some extensive work to do what he did, but it looks as if he just threw down some seed in a coastal dune field. I have seen coastal areas look like that with sand, since I grew up in a place somewhat like that. Minimal? No. Natural? More or less.