Herbert Leeds and what makes an architect tick

[Thomas MacWood]

"Dev" Emmet designed the course FKA "The Women's National"!! That just totally figures! That more than proves that that little fairy person "Dev" Emmet was the world's greatest architectural producer of feminine or even homosexual architecture! The course was obviously only intended for weak little women and gay men! I doubt even Marion Hollins, the strapping lesbian US Amateur Champion who could hit the ball a country mile was in the slightest bit challenged by her own golf course--Glen Head G.C. or formerly known as the "Women's National G & CC" (the G & CC part of that club stood for "golf and Cat Club" but very few remember that now!).

It wouldn't surprise me if Marion, the brains and inspiration behind "Long Island Women's National G & CC" was so disappointed in the lack of challenge of the effeminate architecture of that course that that was the very reason she hied on out to California and got Seth Raynor (who died on her) and then Alister MacKenzie (another real man) to build CPC on which she was responsible for the creation of the famous 16th hole with its massive carry, which, by the way, she proved to everyone was possible by busting a shot from the long tee positon to the green's present postion.

TE has always been fond of exploring the personal picadillos of these famous golf architects, from CB's Hen House to Tilly's Flask architecture to Emmet's gay designs (by the way I don't believe Emmet was gay). I personally believe it is important to explore the backgrounds and personalities, and some cases demons, of these men. Historians certainly don't steer clear of exploring good and bad characteristics when trying to discover what made famous figures tick. The editing of MacKenzie's politically incorrectness in SOSA got me thinking. Why should golf architects be immune, isn't it important to get an accurate and complete picture of these historical figures. What made these figures the architects they would become?

Myopia Hunt's Herbert Leeds is an interesting example. The left side of his face scarred by grotesque mark. Not dispirited he travelled the world, graduated from Harvard, excelled in athletics, became a world class competitive sailor, and prehaps the best amateur golfer of Boston in the 1890s (along with Qunicy Adams Shaw who was another interesting character and future golf architect).

Leeds also never married, and was involved in some interesting living arrangements. James Parker was also a lifelong bachelor. Neither man worked during their lives - they lived off hefty trusts. They shared an apartment for twenty odd years at the Somerset Club, a prestigious men's club on Beacon Hill. Perhaps a turn of the century Odd Couple. That situation changed before 1920, Parker was out and a younger man moved in with Leeds, Robert Barlow. Barlow was a lifelong batchelor also, and the athletic director of a Boston prep school. They were living compainions at the time of Leed's death.

Is a golf architect's personal background and lifestyle fair game?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Why should it be?  What do the less auspicious details of my own personal life really have to do with my design work at all?  Whose business is it but mine?  And why would that equation change once I've passed on?

[Thomas MacWood]

Why should golf architects be immune from total exploration?

[Tom_Doak]

Immune, I don't know about, but maybe exempt.

Are we really public figures to the point that the libel laws are different for us?  (If so then I can go back to writing The Confidential Guide, I guess.)  I thought most people had the right to privacy up to some point where they made themselves public figures in the media, and I don't know that doing your job as a golf course architect qualifies you in that respect.

Are historians immune from total exploration?

[JWinick]

I don't think golf architects are really public figures.  The only public figures are ex-players.  Certainly, Mr. Doak or Mr. Coore can have dinner undisturbed.   Consequently, I'm not sure it's every appropriate to speculate on the personal lifestyles of a golf architect.

But, when the work of an artist reaches critical mass, it's only natural to study the background of said artist to see the source of his or her creative vision.  

[Thomas MacWood]

TD
Thomas Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemmings, George Crump's suicide, and Stanford White's affair with Evelyn Nesbit, how can you tell an accurate history without delving into these subjects?

[TEPaul]

"Is a golf architect's persanal backgroung and lifesytle fair game?"

I don't see why not, particularly ones who are now in the realm of history and whose lives seemed to diverge from the run-of-the-mill, like Leeds, Crump, Wilson, Macdonald, Thomas, Mackenzie, Tillinghast, Behr, Crane, Simpson, Hunter, Muirhead, Dick Wilson et al.

It sure has occured to me that golf course architecture has had more than a usual collection of "characters", probably "oddballs" and certainly more than a normal amount of "tragic" figures.

People who spend time or their lives in some form of ART are probably more prone to these kinds of things than most and honestly they fascinated me----their idiosyncracies, odd personalities and sometimes ultra strong wills and opinions.

By the way, to clear the record for about the fifth time, I have no idea if Devereaux Emmet was gay. Mentioning that and his gay architecture was just an on-going joke that some over-wrought critics like Moriarty took huge umbrage at. The only reason I ever said that about Emmet was because of that hilarious photo of him known as the "cat in the hat". In his white suit and hat he looked like a spitting image of some former day Tom Wolffe!  

Herbert Leeds was a well-known confirmed bachelor, and he was also well known for being an utra mysogynist. Back when I was growing up it seems most thought homosexuals generally hated women, didn't want anything to do with them or to even be around them (my how times have changed! ). With Herbert Leeds' this was reportedly the case.

Was Leeds a homosexual? Probably but I've never heard anyone state that as a fact. It seems like those who revere him for his architecture or whatever would just as soon avoid the subject altogether.

I welcome you trying to figure out what made Leeds tick, MacWood. Matter of fact from the way I've seen you deduce things in the past it should be pretty interesting and probably pretty funny to see what strange tangent you'll launch off on and then claimed you proved.

Unfortunately, before you launch off on Herbert Leeds I really think you should back up your claim that Willie Campbell designed the first nine holes of Myopia. Something tells me this thread is just another one of your diversions to avoid backing up what you claimed about Campbell and Myopia, and probably because you know you can't.


"Is a golf architect's persanal backgroung and lifesytle fair game?"

Tom MacWood, you know you really are a terrible writer and an even worse speller. You misspell words constantly in your posts but that misspelling above sort of fascinates me. Do you think there's something vaguely Freudian in your spelling of personal as pers-anal in this particular thread?  


 

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Doak (not Macwood),

You ask, "Why should it be?  What do the less auspicious details of my own personal life really have to do with my design work at all?  Whose business is it but mine?  And why would that equation change once I've passed on?"

Wouldn't you say that your travels studying golf courses as a young man be one of the "less auspicious details" of your own personal life? Yet, wasn't the result of that time, the things you observed and learned, at least partly responsible, if not the major inspiration, for the development of your own golf course architectural design philosophies?

I believe I once mentioned to you in private that I already consider you an historical figure in golf course architecture. I am of the school of thought that golf course architectural design is a true art form for it inspires and challenges and the game that is played on the canvasses of the sport provides joy, misery and affects every human emotion. If that isn't an art form then art doesn't exist.

As such your work will be long studied as you did with so many others before you. Part of that study will be an attempt to 'get into your mind' so to speak, and in order to do so one has to get to know 'you the person' in order to know 'you the designer.'

The passion of Van Gogh's troubled existence is brought to life and examined through each of his canvasses. One might enjoy them even if they have no idea of what he endured when alive, but these are never inspired as those who do know are.

This concept of "Historical Figurage" puts that figure in an awkward position. Do they accept it? If so, how does that acceptance limit them in their day-to-day lives? The spotlight of fame, even in as obscure an art form as the field of golf course designing, is bright and revealing.

Like it or not, your life will be examined long after you're gone and by people such as yourself who also has examined many personal aspects of the course designers that you admire... It comes with the territory called greatness...

[TEPaul]

"Why should it be?  What do the less auspicious details of my own personal life really have to do with my design work at all?"


TomD:

What the less auspicious details of your own personal life have to do with your design work is what Tom MacWood wants to "research" and determine. I wager inside of a week he will have conclusively PROVED what the less auspicious details of your life have to do with your design work.   

Since he wants to look into people's lives maybe I should start a thread looking into what it is in Tom MacWood's life that makes him tick, although "tick" might not be the best operative word.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
I don't believe in whitewashing these men's backgrounds and personalities, and I hope the same will be true when the USGA profiles these men. The influences and background of the creative genius has always been of interest to historians. For example what was about Van Gogh's background or make up that contributed to him becoming a great artist.

The questions we have with Leeds, first of all was he a great designer, and if he was, what were and who were his influences. How did he get to that point.

Bob Labbance wrote an interesting article on Leeds several years ago. According to the article at Brookline Leeds went from beginner to scratch golfer in a very short period under the tutelage of Willie Campbell. As we know not only was Campbell a great golfer, during his short life in the States he was also a prolific architect. In addition to his influence on Leeds the golfer, was he an influence on Leeds the would be golf architect?

In 1896 both Leeds and Campbell went from Brookline to Myopia, was that just a coincedence? Leeds is credited with laying out the second nine at Myopia in 1898. Was his mentor involved?

TE you wrote:

Was Leeds a homosexual? Probably but I've never heard anyone state that as a fact. It seems like those who revere him for his architecture or whatever would just as soon avoid the subject altogether.

I don't think we should ignore the subject. Over the years you have often touched on the drinking of Tillinghast, Mackenzie, Thompson and others; the hen house Macdonald set up at the NGLA; your knowledge and understanding of Crump's suicide; Emmet's gay architecture, etc. Why should we treat Leeds any differently?

Leeds lived at the Sometest Club with James Parker (and later with Robert Barlow) for years. By the way Parker was also he prominent figure at Myopia. They weren't the only men co-habitating at the Club. In the 1890's and 1900s, the Somerset men's club was known as one of the centers of Bohemian attitudes in Boston.  Did that Bohemian attitude contribute to Leeds interest in design? We know Leeds was great lover of boating and yachting, what were his other interests?

What year did Leeds assume controll of Myopia - it appears to me it was 1899 or 1900. What is interesting to note, in the national golf guide of 1901 he is listed as the architect of Myopia. Campbell who died in 1900 is completely written out of the picture, and 1901 was prior to most of Leeds major bunkering projects.

Leeds made several trips to the UK. Where did he go? And what did he borrow from, if any thing? Did changes to Myopia coincide with these trips?

There are many unanswered questions.

[BCrosby]

Private stuff about famous architects is always interesting. Private stuff about anyone who is famous is always interesting. For that reason there will always be people looking into it, fair or not. It's a fact of life.

I am, however, very skeptical about assuming there is a causal link between the private and the public. Things aren't that simple.

For example, Thomas Jefferson seems to have been a fairly sleazy guy in private. But it is not very clear to me what, if any, bearing that had on how he drafted the DofI or how he conducted himself as president or whatever.

Dick Wilson's tragic drinking problem is another good example. It cost him some jobs, he was a mess. But the relevance of that to his design style escapes me.

There is a People Magazine type fascination with the private. It's irresistible. But that stuff oughtn't be given much weight by good historians. It's probative value is dubious. It's the public record that really matters. It's also the public record that is, at the end of the day, almost always much, much more interesting.
 

Bob

 

[Phil_the_Author]

Bob,

You observed that, "I am, however, very skeptical about assuming there is a causal link between the private and the public. Things aren't that simple."

The history of golf course architecture is filled with examples of private being the causal link to the public. let me give you an example. Tilly and Shawnee.

Most on here know that this was Tilly's first design but how many can say WHY it? Some might know that Tilly and Worthington were friends, even good ones, but how many know that Worthington himself had designed at least one nine-hole course and could easily have decided to do so at Shawnee and his Buckwood Inn? That raises the question of 'Why Tilly?' to a new level.

Tilly and Worthington were more than merely good friends, they and their families had for many years vacationed together in the area where the Buckwood Inn and Shawnee would be built. The Tillinghast family even has photographs of them, taken by Tilly, together during these.

During these vacations Worthington's idea to build a resort in the area crystalized and having a golf club as part of it was viewed as more than just a convenient necessity, it was the lynchpin to the project.

So again, with so much money being agmbled on the venture and having done a golf course design in his own background, one now really must wonder 'Why Tilly?' a man who had never designed a course before this.

It is quite obvious that it was "the private" that made "the public" decision to choose Tilly as the designer a reality. In fact it was "the private" that also enabled Tilly to talk Worthington into "the public" decision to have the course host an Open tournament with enough prize money to immediately attract the best players to compete, both Americans and others from across the ocean.

One can easily wonder how different Tilly's career may have been without the immediate success of Shawnee. Would we have his great championship creations located all around the country if he hadn't been given this opportunity by his close friend?

Sometimes things are that simple...

[Thomas MacWood]

Bob
When I was writing my essay on Crump you urged me to drop any reference to his suicide. IMO you can not tell an honest and accurate account of his life without delving into his suicide, and what led up to it. The story of PV is incomplete if you do not discuss what inspired Crump, his trials and tribulations, and how he ultimately met his demise.

What is the purpose of history. Isn't for future generations to learn from past mistakes and successes. Or do you believe the role of history is to tell a completely anticeptic story, and to prop up these historical figures. IMO you won't learn anything from that approach. We should explore good and bad and grey, so we can get a complete picture.

[Mike Sweeney]

Immune, I don't know about, but maybe exempt.

Are we really public figures to the point that the libel laws are different for us?  (If so then I can go back to writing The Confidential Guide, I guess.)  I thought most people had the right to privacy up to some point where they made themselves public figures in the media, and I don't know that doing your job as a golf course architect qualifies you in that respect.

Are historians immune from total exploration?

Tom and Tom,

Just a quick check on Google reveals:

"Tom Doak" = 80,000 results on Google

"Tom MacWood" = 1370 results on Google

"Michael Sweeney" = 430,000 results on Google, but it would be hard to find me between the Bassoonist and the baseball player!

[Phil_the_Author]

""Michael Sweeney" = 430,000 results on Google, but it would be hard to find me between the Bassoonist and the baseball player!"

Well there goes my trivia question , "Name the only baseball & bassoon playing golf course architecture junkie in the world!"

I guess that also means you're not a piano restorer, owner of packetattack.com, wote the book Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) or rank 80th on the Midas List?

Bummer... I was so impressed by you for quite a while now...   

[Thomas MacWood]

"Tom MacWood" = 1370 results on Google


...and 1366 of those hits can be traced to TE Paul.

[Peter Pallotta]

The trouble is, creative genius isn't like you and me.

Yes, Machiavelli argued that he could see the Prince better from his lowly position, just as he could gauge the height and majesty of a mountain better from the valley below it than from its summit.

But that was just clever marketing. It isn't true.

It would take a historian of genius to interest me in an exploration of the private-public relationship in the lives of creative geniuses.  Anything short of that and what you tend to get is bad history and bad psychoanalysis.

Don't get me wrong. I few years ago I would've been in complete agreement (with Philip's first post). Part of me still is.  But to use an example, recently I've found that, while I can listen to Mozart's Clarinet Concerto with pleasure and interest because I know roughly when and in what circumstances he wrote it, I get the fullest possible enjoyment out of -- and the most complete participation in -- the music itself only when I empty my mind of all of that background noise and truly and simply listen.

Two different experiences, both gratifying in their ways. But it seems to me that if I truly value Mozart's music above all else (and not my ideas about it or my speculations about his life and times), then I should try my best to simply listen.

Or in golf course architecture terms, to simply look and walk and play the golf courses themselves.

Peter
But this won't stop me from speculating about Max Behr's ideological beliefs.   

[Phil_the_Author]

Peter,

As empty as you can make your mind and quietly sit there listening to Mozart's Clarinet Concerto, though for me it's his Marriage of Figaro, you don't ever, even just occasionally, ask yourself, "How did he ever create siomething so beautiful?" before going back to the silence of the music?

It is the asking of that question, "How?", that necessitates the next one, "Why?", followed by "What made him so different?"...

Wanting to understand that whichmakes others different fromyourself is natural and as much the purview of the historian as it is any social scientist. I find that the attempt to learn the answers to "How?", "Why?" and "What?" greatly increases my joy and respect for the creation and makes me better for not having sat there and simply listening without asking.

It is the same for golf course architecture. Be honest, haven't you ever wished that you could sit with tom Doak for an afternoon and simply try to "pick his brain?" so to speak, to understand how he and his team have been able to create the wonderful works of golf architecture art that they have?

That is what leads inspires the historian to look and those interested in history to read what has been written...

[Peter Pallotta]

Philip - a really good post.

The short answer is yes. For me it's mostly the Benny Goodman small groups; and I've read all I could about Mr. Goodman, and flatter myself that I understand him and his music (and the relationship between the two) better than most, even better than the experts.  And for me it would be Ben Crenshaw, and I'd like to sit on a bench at Sand Hill with him and smoke through a pack of cigarettes together as I try to understand what he's really trying to do with his golf courses, and why.

But the longer answer is that the questions you (and I) tend to ask, e.g. "How" and "Why" and "What made him so different" are from a different realm of the mind/spirit than the experience of actually listening to a searing clarinet solo or of actually hitting a fade against the wind as you try to land a ball short of an undulating green. I would say certainly no worse a realm or no less valuable a realm, but a different one; a different lens through which to explore the work of the creative geniuses we admire.

And there's the rub -- the attempt (by many I believe, including me when I was writing television biographies of famous people) to bring those two different realms/lenses together and, for the sake of a powerful narrative arc, to try to pretend that they aren't different is what often leads to both a poor critical analysis of the work itself and a poor history of the genius himself. 

Now it might work in the opposite way, i.e. the bringing together of the two lenses might make better both the critical analysis and the history -- but I'm not sure I've often seen that happen

Peter   

[john_stiles]

I'm just about all  'People' magazined out.      All the personal stuff does tweak my curosity from time to time,  but that is about it.

As to GCA,  I don't think you can look at the architecture and tell whether the GCA was a tortured soul,  someone trust worthy and beloved, or a twisted maniac.

By the way,  Palmetto GC was initially 'laid out' by Herbert Leeds and Stanford White designed the clubhouse.   Go figure.

[Mike_Cirba]

John Stiles,

Oh...I think I've played courses where I could clearly identify the architect as a "twisted maniac", but that's probably because it takes one to know one. 

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Tom:

Great post, you are onto something. It took others to point out to Nicklaus that a majority of his greens favored a high soft right-hand fade.

The lives and personalities of all artists are reflected in their work, whether they want to admit it or not.  Often times it takes decades for that to come to life, only once their work is viewed in its entirety. The problem with architects, however, is so much of the actual creation is left up to subordinates that it is hard to tell what is theirs and what is just an underlings interpretation of what the architect desires, which is probably revealing in its own right.

And what a wonderful homophobic diatribe from TE; I never saw that before. Michael Savage would be proud.

Anthony

[Thomas MacWood]

It would take a historian of genius to interest me in an exploration of the private-public relationship in the lives of creative geniuses.  Anything short of that and what you tend to get is bad history and bad psychoanalysis.

Peter
Creative geniuses are human beings. Historical figures are human beings. The best historical accounts do not avoid or ignore their private lives. Historians understand exploring the private life is intregal to understanding the public life. And you don't have to be a genius or a psycoanalyst to uncover who, what, when, where and why. Based upon your flowery response it seems you believe recording the history of these men and trying make sense of it is a futile process. Thankfully your view has not been a popular one over the last few millenium, otherwise we would know nothin about nobody.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom

I don't know how you came to that conclusion from reading my two posts.

I admire very much the dedicated and careful work of true historians, and the passion (and love for a subject) that engenders that work.

I'm not sure how well done much of that work has been (not very, IMO), and thus how true the pictures of the great historical figures are. 

Your own defence of 'historical revisionism' from a few weeks ago suggests that you feel the same way.

My language was flowery, but not self-serving.

Peter

[George Pazin]

In a theoretical sense, I don't see how anyone can be exempt from a critical examination of his private life - the only real question is whether anyone else (or any sort of critical mass) would be interested in learning the rest of the story.

I feel pretty certain even my parents couldn't get through a biography of me. And I'm not certain anyone who knew all the details could still develop of an accurate picture of me, at least as I see myself.

But, hey, maybe that's the point.

The biggest danger is that almost all people tend to develop final opinions very quickly and are sadly reluctant to ever revisit them.