[Peter Pallotta]

As I've said before, I'm grateful to the professionals who participate here, and for their generosity; if the work I did had a discussion board dedicated to it, I'm not sure I'd participate in it at all, let alone so fully. On the other hand, it seems to me the vast majority of posters are generous in their praise, and the posts by in large respectful. So in the end, it's a wash.

But I'm not so sure we'd do better focusing on courses and not architects - does the audience for/consumer of any music or art or housing or medicine care what "restrictions" the producer was working under? Should they?

That most of us here have learned to make allowances for the restrictions faced by golf course architects seems to me a big win for the profession. 

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Ah what do you know?  You're a RED WINGS fan for Gawd sakes!

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Ah what do you know?  You're a RED WINGS fan for Gawd sakes!

Jeff

You shouldn't go there.  You support a cast off team that now calls Texas home when all reasonable hockey fans know there shouldn't be hockey south of the Mason-Dixon!  Was that candid enough? 

If the (South?)Stars aren't careful, their recent form of trying to duck the Ducks will result in a first round series with the Sharks.  See man, they can't even come up with proper names for hockey teams out there.  Sharks & Ducks sounds like some typically California bad idea gone gone wrong - probably the name of drinking establishment full of hairless vegetarians.

Ciao

[Carl Rogers]

It takes a lot of work to be an effective critic and the willingness to leave a lot of mental baggage at the door.  Not many people can.

I am in a related field ... architect as in buildings.

I am most interested in projects (builings, too) that have clear acknowledged constraints, but do not get pistol whipped by them.  How well does a project acknowledge or play up its possibilities?

To the would be critic ... be clear about what you are critical of.

[George Pazin]

Tough situation for Tiger (who simply uses the name for fun, not nefarious reasons, imho).

There's a lot of things in life we all hold back on, for whatever personal reasons ('cept maybe the mean JK ), but it would be a real shame if discussion of something like golf course architecture were an area people felt the need to overly censor themselves, in fear of offending others. At some point people have to act like adults and accept criticism.

Heck, I'd guess Barney wouldn't even mind if someone gave him a less-than-flattering opinion of a road he built; he'd probably do what any sensible businessman does and reflect on the criticism, determine if it's warranted, and act accordingly.

Someone recently asked me to design a t shirt image from scratch for a volleyball tournament. I spent several hours of my time searching for ideas and ended up coming up with something totally new and different for this client, whom I've been printing t's for for some 14 years. They didn't even give me a single comment when I submitted it to them, they simply handed me a printout of the most basic design that someone found off Google images a couple days later.

I was pretty po'd at the time I wasted, but I didn't lash out at them. We simply had different ideas.

More seriously, I was just reading a TePaul thread about how true evaluation requires a site visit, extensive study, etc.  I was struck by how little a gca fan gets out of his inner  enlightenment beyond the satisfaction of "knowing" (or in many cases, thinking they know.)

Why do you do it, man? (BTW, that's a real question to the board, not a rhetorical one!)

Why does anyone do anything?

Just to use Doak as an example - It does the world of golf no good to have him believe that we want to see the same green over and over an over.  If not us then who is going to stand up and scream to stop the madness.

You have a very interesting definition of the word same.

[John Kavanaugh]

George,

How many Doak greens have you played?  I can recall 54 myself built over decades of work and believe each one could be substituted to any of his courses without disruption.

note:  It's not easy to be honest as it often reveals your own faults. ie: racism, stupidity, vanity, etc. etc.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

The two whiniest groups I've encountered in my 20 years of writing professionally: soccer mommies and golf course architects. Neither have a clear view of reality and take any sort of honest, legitimate criticism of their work or their child as an unfounded, mean-spirited vitriolic rant against them personally. With both groups the responses are simultaneously humorous and pathetic.


Anthony

[Tom_Doak]

Tony:

Sure, golf course architects are sensitive -- just like you're sensitive if somebody tells you that you're a crappy writer.  Most people don't have to deal with critics in their daily lives, apart from their families.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tony:

Sure, golf course architects are sensitive -- just like you're sensitive if somebody tells you that you're a crappy writer.  Most people don't have to deal with critics in their daily lives, apart from their families.

But professional writers are told this all the time in one way or another, sometimes in the most-brutal fashion.  In fact there's even a name for these people: "editors."  The truly horrible ones are called out for special distinction: "copy editors."

Taking criticism is what separates professionals from amateurs.

[George Pazin]

Tony:

Sure, golf course architects are sensitive -- just like you're sensitive if somebody tells you that you're a crappy writer.  Most people don't have to deal with critics in their daily lives, apart from their families.

But professional writers are told this all the time in one way or another, sometimes in the most-brutal fashion.  In fact there's even a name for these people: "editors."  The truly horrible ones are called out for special distinction: "copy editors."

Taking criticism is what separates professionals from amateurs.

Golf course architects have editors as well - they're called clients. In fact, every business owner has them.

Anthony -

I have met very few people in my life who take criticism well. I think I do as well as anyone, and I'm prone to reflexive responses as well. It's human nature, and not nearly confined to soccer moms and golf course architects.

John -

My total is 18, and I can't think of how any 2 were interchangeable, at least in the "same" sense.

[TEPaul]

"Thank you for your post....you are a great American and golf Critic.....why don't you wear socks with those little thin sole loafers?"

BECAUSE, Michael, great Americans and great golf Critics never wear socks with little thin sole loafers! That is SOMETHING that SIMPLY is NOT DONE!

Michael:

Did you know that perhaps the most significant event in the history of mankind was the creation of agriculture? Can you guess what perhaps the second most significant event in the history of mankind was?

Actually, there is a third most significant event I should mention but we can get into that later.

[Lloyd_Cole]

The artist in the public arena enters into a tacit contract with the critic. He makes his work available for evaluation and in exchange he may gain recognition and fame. He is aware that all critics may not value his work equally or at all, but he accepts that the critic is part of the system into which he paces himself his work, his aspirations. The critic's loyalty, however, is to his readers and his job is to illuminate, educate, entertain. While the critic's job is to lead the reader, one who's judgements are consistently out of sync with the mainstream of his readership is out of business quickly. It is not in the critic's best interests to slam a work that he knows his readers will enjoy. Still, his credibility, in the eyes of his audience is essential and he cannot love everything - this must be illustrated and negative reviews are necessary to make the positive ones have any meaning.

All the above make fraternisation between the critic and the artist ill advised, and yet it is inevitable that the artist will gush to the critic who has lauded his work. But how will he receive the next work?

The artist is fields like mine, or GCA, invest massive amounts of man hours and make huge emotional investments in their current project(s) - they have to believe that they are creating something of great artistic value. It is therefore impossible to 'rise above' negative criticism, and not to take it personally. In the short term, anyway.  Maybe none of the GCA designers here have ever designed a rotten or mediocre course and so wouldn't know the feeling of looking back, years later at the negative review and thinking 'that was actually on the money and yet I was furious about it at the time...'.

I have made several mediocre albums - generally speaking these records were also reviewed negatively. Overall, I think if I were to assess the critic's role in my career, it has been a positive one. But this is not to deny that there are some writers out there who were 'out to get me'.

The value of the attack dog critic is moot -  the writing is often entertaining and the idea of the vigilante critic protecting the public from crap art is an attractive one. There is nothing worse than reading a positive review and thinking 'Well, if that dullard like this, I certainly won't' (this was the case with Rolling Stone in the 80's - there were no bad reviews, just less good ones, therefore no meaning). However I think that once an artist, or GCA has become established, then the use of the attack dog is is of questionable value and it shows clear editorial bias. Don't send Geoff Shackleford to review a Fazio course unless you want blood. However, Geoff's attacks can be witty and make great reading. So the editor make as a decision... Once an artist has established himself, and proven himself in the market (I hate to write that), then he has established his own context, and, frankly the next Fazio course is best judged in comparison to his best works. If you can't bring yourself to accept the idea of a 'best' Fazio course, then you'll be an attack dog. There are some who would argue that the critic should never lose his vigilante edge and constantly strive for the eradication of bad art, but it is too late, if you didn't stop them entering the mainstream, you can't criticise them out of it.

And then there is the effect of marketing which seeks makes all of the above irrelevant, anyway...

[Kirk Gill]

Lloyd Cole - as usual a most illuminating post. Your relationship to this topic is perhaps unique on this board, and most interesting.


"It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business."
                                                   -Michael Corleone


"Tell that to Solozzo's head"
                             -Anonymous

[Tom_Doak]

Lloyd:

Thanks for your post, which illustrates the "why" of something I've always known but never really been able to articulate: 

"Once an artist has established himself, and proven himself in the market (I hate to write that), then he has established his own context, and, frankly the next Fazio course is best judged in comparison to his best works. If you can't bring yourself to accept the idea of a 'best' Fazio course, then you'll be an attack dog. There are some who would argue that the critic should never lose his vigilante edge and constantly strive for the eradication of bad art, but it is too late, if you didn't stop them entering the mainstream, you can't criticise them out of it."

I think this is absolutely spot on.  There are some posters here who constantly bash one architect or another, or just can't stand a certain style ... I even have one or two of the latter myself.  There comes a point at which it makes no sense for me to go to more of that guy's courses, because I am just going to make the same criticisms all over again, and I'm blind to the differences or improvements in his work.  At the same time, others pat themselves on the back for being open-minded and big-world, and yet their critiques of actual courses are either bland praise or just run down a checklist of "things to include" that have nothing to do with actually making the most of the ground.

BUT, nearly all artists have their better moments and their worse ones, and I think it's important for someone to ferret out the differences -- to praise people for doing something that's both good and original, and to remind them when they're slipping into bad habits or failing to advance.  I wish there were more people around who could really do that.  The rankings clearly don't do such a thing.  Most often, an architect's "best" courses are ordered on the circumstances of the job (most beautiful site, least housing intrusion, etc.) instead of the golf holes that were built or how the site was used.



 

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Lloyd:

I think you make some wonderfully valid points. You and I have discussed critics and criticism before and I think we have very much the same opinion: it’s part of creating something that is out in the public and so be it.

I still think there is no excuse for the whining of architects whose work is criticized. If they create something that is in the public eye they have to expect criticism they find unfavorable. And this idea that anyone who knocks an architect’s work has an invalid opinion but those who also laud an architects work have valid opinion, is horseshit. I guess because I've created so much, probably at least 2,000 articles in my life, I've come to understand there is often valid points from critics who are doing it for the wrong or right reasons. I try to listen to them all.

I found some of the reviews of my book perplexing, but so be it. I like what I wrote and those critics are entitled to their opinions. I’m not arrogant or insecure enough to think what I wrote is perfect.

I sent most of the reviewers of my book a thank you for taking the time to read and review the book. I also know that what is being criticized is my work and not me. If they are, in fact, criticizing me then they have their own issues to deal with and it's not about my work or me.

I think I've also experienced a different level of criticism than most so I find it laughable that an architect would give two shits about the rantings of someone on website. I think if I were them I’d take a hard and long look inside to try and figure out why the opinions of people who have no bearing on my success or happiness, either personal or private, matter to me. That’s just a world-class insecurity issue.

I was a police and sports reporter for close to 15 years. Real criticism is when someone threatens you with bodily harm or worse for something that you wrote, which in fact, was correct. The truth may set you free but is sure as hell isn't going to always stop you from getting your ass kicked or shot.

Anthony

[TEPaul]

Lloyd:

Interesting post of yours. It seems to me it says a lot more about the world of perhaps the professional critic, his responsibilities to himself and his readers although perhaps somewhat to the integrity of some art form, than it says about artists and what they do in what might be termed something of a purist artistic expression. And what about the artist's position in a world where professional critics seem to matter so much or to be percieved that way generally?

In other words, is an artist's audience really just professional critics so that they can pass along what they think to a whole mass of unintelligent and unthinking readers or viewers or listeners or golfers?

If any of that is even remotely true it's not just remarkable but more than a little depressing too.

In my opinion, a philosophical concept like a "Big World" theory should exist, and who can really deny it should always become stronger? If it were not so then it just continues to lead people to not really trust their own judgements or to frankly even think for themselves except through some intermediary who is doing nothing much more than telling them what they should think.

So why do we even have professional critics? Why are they even necessary? I think you sort of touched on it in the end of your post----eg they are just another cog in the big wheel of business.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Tom

No need to be depressed. The marketers trump the critics when the chips are down because money talks. A critic might suggest we listen to A or B, but when we hear adds for C and D every 10 minutes on the TV, well, many folk seem to buy C and D. It doesn't matter if it is crap or if it is a lie (see Political TV ads) - it works. See Ohio. If you want to be depressed about something - then maybe consider the education system which sends folk out into the world that gullible, that dumb. That's when you get into conspiracy theories - bad schools and 7 Eleven diets keep the masses dumb and docile... no uprising on the horizon in this country.

Critics are a filter - we need them. I can't listen to every record, I need help deciding which course in NC to play. That's all, unless you want a guru...

[Jim Nugent]

So why do we even have professional critics? Why are they even necessary? I think you sort of touched on it in the end of your post----eg they are just another cog in the big wheel of business.

We have professional critics in part because that big world is so big.  We have limited amounts of time and resources.  How do we decide to spend them?  The critics help us.  Similar to how Consumer Reports helps some people decide what products to buy. 

We also have critics because many (most?) people want/need leaders to tell them what to do. 

Also the critics are fun.  They entertain us.  Many are frustrated writers or artists themselves.  Not quite good enough, not quite creative enough, to make it on their own.  But give them somebody else's creation, and they can sink their hooks into it.   

Lloyd Cole, a question.  Which would you prefer:

a.  An album the critics love, but that bombs in the marketplace
b.  An album the critics hate or are luke-warm towards, but sells millions.

Stated otherwise, would you rather have success in the market or success with the critics?  They don't always go hand in hand, either in music or gca. 

 

[Mike_Young]

Read these lyrics.....most would pass this guy off as a quack but he is genius..... IMHO a music critic that was into Fogelburg, Macanally or some of those guys would never give this musician the time of day....and his "presentation" would eliminate many others from giving him a chance.....golf architecture is the SAME  way.....
While Tony says that golf architects are "whiny"....not really.  I think most just keep doing their thing...of course listening to critics...but still doin their thing....      I just want to be the EMINEM of golf architects.....

Yo, his palms are sweaty, knees weak, arms are heavy
There is vomit on his sweater already
Moms forgettin' he's nervous
But on the surface he looks calm and ready
To drops bombs, but he keeps on forgetting
What he wrote down, the whole crowd goes so loud
He opens his mouth but the words won't come out
He's choking, how? Everybody's jokin' now
The clock's run out, time's up, over BLOW!
Snap back to reality, oh there goes gravity
Oh, there goes Rabbit, he choked, he's so mad
But he won't give up that easy, no he won't have it
He knows his whole back's to these ropes
It don't matter, he's dope, he knows that
But he's broke, he's so sad that he knows
When he goes back to this mobile home
That's when it's back to the lab again, yo
This whole rhapsody, better go capture this moment
And hope it don't collapse on him

You better lose yourself in the music
The moment you own it you better never let it go, oh
You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow
Cuz opportunity comes once in a lifetime, yo
You better lose yourself in the music
The moment you own it you better never let it go, oh
You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow
Cuz opportunity comes once in a lifetime, yo
You better

Verse 2

Soul's escapin' through this hole's that is gaping
This world is mines for the taking
Make me king as we move toward a new world order
A normal life is boring
But superstardom's close to post mortem
It only grows harder, homie grows hotter
He blows us all over, these hoes is all on him
Coast to coast shows, he's known as the Globetrotter
Lonely roads got him
He knows he's grown farther from home, he's no father
He goes home and barely knows his own daughter
But hold ya nose cuz here goes the cold water
These hoes don't want him no mo', he's cold prada
They moved on to the next shmo who flows
Who nose dove and sold nada
And so the so proper
His toll, it unfolds and I suppose it's old, partner
But the beat goes on
Duh duh doe, duh doe, dah dah dah dah

Verse 3

No more games, I'ma change for due called rage
Tear this muth....kin' roof off like two dogs caged
I was playin' in the beginnin', the mood all changed
I've been chewed up and spit out and booed off stage
But I kept rhymin' and stepped writin' the next cipher
Best believe somebody's payin' the pied piper
All the pain inside amplified by the
Fact that I can't get by with my nine to five
And I can't provide the right type of life for my family
Cuz, man, these goddamn food stamps don't buy diapers
And there's no movie, there's no Mekhi Pfifer
This is my life and these times are so hard
And it's gettin' even harder tryin' to feed and water
My seed plus teeter-totter
Caught up between bein' a father and a pre-madonna
Baby momma drama, screamin' on her
Too much for me to wanna stay in one spot
Another damn or not has gotten me to the point
I'm like a snail, I've got to formulate a plot
Or end up in jail or shot
Success is my only muthafuckin' option, failure's not
Momma love you but this trailer's got to go
I cannot grow old in Salem's Lot
So here I go, it's my shot
Feet fail me not
Cuz maybe the only opportunity that I got

Duh doo
You can do anything you set your mind to, man
EMINEM

[TEPaul]

Lloyd:

That's a good and logical defense of yours above on the need for critics and/or marketing. At least, I guess it's a defense of them on your part, or maybe it's just an explanation.

On the other hand, I really do love those times when the critics are apparently all wrong and the public loves something on their own despite panning by most all the critics. A few of my favorite movies from the past got to icon status via that route.

I'm old Lloyd, and I sort of miss those days when there was basically a new movie every Saturday night at the local theater in Daytona Beach. A world like that did not need movie critics or much marketing----the public did the demand thing on their own. Basically the public just went to the movies on Saturday night and they liked what they saw or they didn't.  It was a pretty simple world. If a movie was really popular the theater just held it and kept playing it until the audience had seen it enough.

I think I saw Rear Window and Mr Roberts something like a dozen or thirteen times and Bonnie and Clyde was the last movie a friend of mine and I sat through twice in New York! 

I guess the deal with an ultra capitalist world is it just tends to create a huge amount of product and perhaps that's a good thing for a number of reasons. But there sure has to be a real downside in that for those in it as it never will be able to overcome some kind of natural "supply/demand" equation. In other words, more product=more failures! There's no other possible way, I guess.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

On the other hand, I really do love those times when the critics are apparently all wrong and the public loves something on their own despite panning by most all the critics.

TE:

If critics pan something and the public loves it that doesn't mean the critics are wrong. As an example, the critics hate the music of Britney Spears and the public loves it. Do you think the critics are wrong?

What the public hates to admit is that in many cases the critics do know what they're talking about. A friend of mine used to be the movie critic for Rolling Stone. The dept of his knowledge and the truly vast amount of films he's seen is astounding. He knows way more about movies and can speak and write eloquently about why a movie is good or bad than 99 percent of the people I know. He comes to the table with an informed thought process and I would listen to his one opinion over the millions of lemmings that are the buying public, who would rather go see Rocky XIV over No Country for Old Men.

Anthony

[archie_struthers]

 

As an amateur architect I got a lot of slack in building Twisted Dune. Also was an easy target unlike "name" architects who have a body of work /reputation that can inure them from public criticism ...the emperor has no clothes analogy....

A critic , who turned out to be a nice fellow when interrogated , really didn't like Twisted Dune...he just didn't like it. Although I disagreed with his analysis of shot values on various holes, and why I built them a certain way. It's his opinion, and although the exercise in analysing why he made some disparaging comments was interesting, it revealed little.

Architecture...like art ...is very subjective

[George Pazin]

If critics pan something and the public loves it that doesn't mean the critics are wrong. As an example, the critics hate the music of Britney Spears and the public loves it. Do you think the critics are wrong?

What the public hates to admit is that in many cases the critics do know what they're talking about. A friend of mine used to be the movie critic for Rolling Stone. The dept of his knowledge and the truly vast amount of films he's seen is astounding. He knows way more about movies and can speak and write eloquently about why a movie is good or bad than 99 percent of the people I know. He comes to the table with an informed thought process and I would listen to his one opinion over the millions of lemmings that are the buying public, who would rather go see Rocky XIV over No Country for Old Men.

Anthony

They're up to Rocky XIV? Looks like I have some catching up to do....

I don't think the public hates to admit critics know more - they hate that most critics constantly remind them of this and act accordingly.

Mike Young -

Do you think Eminem really writes his music/lyrics?

[Lloyd_Cole]

"Lloyd Cole, a question.  Which would you prefer:

a.  An album the critics love, but that bombs in the marketplace
b.  An album the critics hate or are luke-warm towards, but sells millions."

Jim
I wouldn't base my judgement upon either, but I think both of the above would merit a listen, at least, unless it was a formulaic predictable album.

There are many examples of the critics being wrong. In the UK 'the critics' loved Springsteen until he 'sold out' with 'Born in the USA', which he did, in a sense - it was the first album he'd given CBS that they felt had the goods to merit a massive marketing campaign - in short there were several radio friendly tracks and the album sleeve featured the stars and stripes. What 'the critics' were unable to accept was 'Born in the USA' is still a pretty good record - sure it's production values are aimed at mass consumption 1980's style, but there are some fine songs and not all the production is overblown...

I think there has been some interesting discussion here re Florida courses - I'm now of the opinion that all that water is often the only cost effective option and much as I don't like that much water, I'm not going to blame it on the architect, or accuse him of  'dumbing down'.. which I might have done a few years ago when I understood less.

One thing I have noticed in music criticism is that many willfully hold on to their naivety, as if by doing so they somehow remain pure. This type of thinking helps nobody.

[John Kavanaugh]

Most critics could have as easily been dentists but mother issues got in the way.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()