News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Peter Pallotta

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2008, 04:54:41 PM »
George - that was one of my favourite parts of Rich's post. There's a LOT there. I've already tried to pick away at it in my envy...

Peter

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2008, 04:59:35 PM »
Peter, I don't think I really agree with it, as it almost implies an equivalence between my home muni and Oakmont, but it is interesting to think about.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Thomas MacWood

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2008, 05:01:37 PM »
If an artist or writer is ahead of his time, he may starve to death, but no one is going to alter his work, and perhaps future generations will come to appreciate it. If a golf architect is ahead of his time not only will he starve, but to add insult to injury, he gets to watch others alter his work. Golf architecture is a tough racket.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2008, 05:04:45 PM »
Yes, George - that's exactly what I think Sir Richard is trying to accomplish, i.e. a blurring of the lines between our local munis and Oakmont. For what majestic end/purpose, I don't yet know. I keep asking him questions to see a) whether or not he really means to do this, or is instead working out a theory on paper and on the fly, and b) whether or not he's right.

Peter

Tom M - yup, so it seems to me too.   

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2008, 05:29:57 PM »
Yes, George - that's exactly what I think Sir Richard is trying to accomplish...

Peter --

I think he's just trying to get you to say ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBh1d7R2n6Y.

And he's almost there!

Dan
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Kyle Harris

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2008, 07:08:03 PM »
They'll get Phil Collins to write the music.

I'm sure the "I'll make you an Offer You Can't Refuse" production number will be a dandy !

I'll assume that's a dig at Phil Collins...

...writer of perhaps some of the most complex and "inaccessible" drum parts in modern music.

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2008, 09:11:02 PM »
Sorry Kyle.

Phil Collins - fantastic drummer. Played drums on some of my very favorite music.

He also wrote the music for the Broadway musical "Tarzan." That music is where I was coming from on the aforementioned "slam."
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Peter Pallotta

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2008, 09:12:27 PM »
Dan -

You think?

Really?

No, it can't be. Can it?

If so Dan, he won't get it from me. No, siree. The best he'll get is someting like: "Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead."

Peter
(thanks for the link)

« Last Edit: July 29, 2008, 09:31:55 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Mark Bourgeois

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #33 on: July 30, 2008, 10:03:47 AM »
Interesting that the discussion has focused on the definition and meaning of accessibility. To be honest, I thought it was one of those terms everyone sort of knew without really thinking much about it.

I say this because the topic of "dumbing down" architecture periodically comes up on here. Isn't that the same thing as making the architecture more accessible?

George, that's a good description. Can you apply it to some of the questions and just give us a few examples out there in the real world?

I'm really interested in the practical application of the concept and whether the thoughts behind the questions hold up, like inaccessible architecture being more at the mercy of the course being maintained a certain way, and the maintenance having the power to regulate the quantity of accessibility on a design that is supposed to be inaccessible.

Rich, well done. I would have called you an old artificer but Peter admirably laid that one on you. With global warming we should all be more worried about our wings melting anyway.

Regarding your points of art and complexity, I don't think GCA comes close to art either because art is separate from function and a course's first priority must be function.

So it is "design," and like all design must make accessibility a priority. That's the pinnacle of craftsmanship, which is what design is about.

BUT: if a golf course were a design, we sure do see lots of users fail to use it properly, and not just because of lack of skill. This gets at your complexity point.

So it is not art it is functional design which has as its pinnacle functionality which in turn demands accessibility or else why make a tool for example no one is capable of using?

And yet like a tool or an instrument that can be accessed by only a few, a golf course allows many uses.

And so to your point re complexity I'm not sure we are back to complexity wrought by a designer's limited capacity for design or the inherent nature of a course.

Accessibility can be regulated by a designer and is all the time - well, not all or even most of the time and what about my question of whether it's done less frequently today and if so why?

It's like making a tool that anyone can use, and then hiding another tool - or a separate function within the same tool - inside that first tool but which only a few can access, owing perhaps only to knowledge or awareness and not to skill level.

Does anyone remember our discussion of Simpson's application to course design of the legal / logic terms suppressio veri and suggestio falsi? How do these relate?

Good lit references that I need to think on but hasn't it been said that Do-blin could be reconstructed from Ulysses?

So even there art can embed design in itself, and be read at another level altogether.

Perhaps Hitchcock 50s films are the better analogy. They served a commercial purpose first yet embedded within them are probably two-levels' worth of accessibility. Out of Tom D's concern for protecting private lives we probably shouldn't discuss the deepest level.

Many thanks to all for the excellent comments! Maybe you could pull out just a question or two from the list and take a crack at it. And apologies if I've missed just that - reading on a 1 inch screen as I am does not provide an expansive perspective.

Mark

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2008, 11:17:50 AM »
George, that's a good description. Can you apply it to some of the questions and just give us a few examples out there in the real world?

I lack the breadth of course experience to provide good concrete examples, and the few I can think of would quickly divert this thread into an argument about other courses' merits, so I'll have to think a bit more on this.

It is interesting to me that Rich implies the designer/architect doesn't make that much difference, yet all the rankings panels - Goodale Michelin system included - imply the converse.

One need only read Rich's wonderful piece on Dornoch - My Home Course by Rich Goodale - to see his true colors.

 :)
« Last Edit: July 30, 2008, 11:19:46 AM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

TEPaul

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2008, 06:01:12 PM »
Richard Farnesworth Goodale said:

"Of course, Tom, and your thoughts confirm my hyopthesis--that the more complex that artificers (e.g. music makers, movie directors, golf course architects, etc.) try to make their products, the less accessible their craft is to the people who enjoy and buy their products.  Sometimes this complexity works in terms of making the products/experiences "better," but some times it does not, and as self-appointed critics, we can rarely tell others why this is so much beyond the classic explanations of "Just because!" or "Trust me!""


Peter Pallota responded:

“Rich -- that was an absolutely terrific post; just a wonderful post. I've read it twice now, and will read it again. (I'm embarrassed to think back to our past exchanges; surely you have been humouring me.)  There's is so much to think about there; beautifully expressed. I think that I may disagree with some of it (keep humouring me), but it seems to me to form the bedrock and foundation for any meaningful discussion of how gca can and might be analyzed.
Excellent, excellent post, Rich.


Ricardo, The Magnificent:

It certainly was a wonderful post. What has come over you lately? Is it just that you are all the better for seeing me?   



Rich Goodale

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #36 on: July 30, 2008, 06:45:28 PM »
Tom

Thanks, even though I think Peter was referring to another post (reply #13), and of course your fine company and seeing your exquisite golf swing always lifts my spirits!

George

I don't think I was arguing that designers are irrelevant, but rather that their influence on how a course actually plays is relaitvely limited, due to the fact that every shot made by every person is different, and there is no way they could plan for all such situations.  Of course, "better" course will more consistently offer "better" shots to all levels of golfer, but they do not have a monopoly of this by any measn.

Mark

Call me an old artificer if you wish as I consider it such a fine compliment that I used the analogy in my article on Old Tom Morris a couple of years ago.  I agree with you on the priority of function in GCA, but there are many other people on this forum who will strongly disagree with us.  And, of course, thanks for the thread.

Peter

Thanks for the thinking, and I'm not really trying to "blur the lines" between Oakmont (or even Dornoch) and the local muni, just recognise that the latter has much more subtlety than most of us give it credit for, and thus is in many ways as "inaccessible" as the most finely crafted layout.

Dan

Thanks for the Molly Bloom clip.  It puts yet another possible definiional slant of "accessible" into the discussion.

Rich

Rich Goodale

Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #37 on: July 30, 2008, 06:46:15 PM »
....sp[eaking of which, it's my bedtime....

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Accessibility of Architecture
« Reply #38 on: August 01, 2008, 02:55:15 AM »
I find the dichotomy of gca as art or design very interesting.  I can understand both perspectives though I tend to think of gca as design.  However, archies make choices which have little to do with the function of there creation.  Of course, some may believe that the art and design elements can't be separated.

I am also intrigued by the idea of infinite complexity.  This would suggest that nature and its effect on the short and long term playability of a course is in effect a co-designer.  I spose  this gets to the heart of what architecture is.  Many believe that architecture must be man made -   natural land forms utilized in a design are somehow not architecture.  A position which doesn't seem too extreme, yet I don't know what these features are if they are not part of the architecture of the course.  It also strikes me that much of the infinite complexity of a course is down to the natural landforms which presumably create less predictable outcomes where a shot is concerned. 

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing