[TEPaul]

Rich:

Has it occured to you yet that now that we have honed this subject of GCA down to fairly establishable theories on Creationism and Naturalism that we have also discovered the real reason John Kavanaugh is so fond of Fazio architecture and so agin stuff like Coore and Crenshaw architecture? 

Futhermore, Richard, I think we have now come to the pass and the part that the real reason you've always been so pussy and antagonistic towards Behr and his philosophies, theories, assumptions, conclusions and his writing is that, at this point, not only do you know that Behr was smarter than you but you also know that we know that you know that Behr was smarter than you, and that fact just thoroughly pisses you off and eats away at you like a cankering sore.

[Sean_A]

Come on TP, Behr was a hack.  If he was decent with a pen do you think he would have cared about his esoteric golf nonsense?  The man needed a good editor.  I for one will take Rich over Behr any day for his thoughts on architecture and golf. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"I appreciate the caveat (heads up) on interpreting out of context. So much of it, even out of context, seems to be so universally true. Especially his understanding of the human nature."


Adam:

It is just so interesting to me that you would say something like that about Behr. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by Behr's understanding of human nature, but I'm wondering, if, by chance, you mean his belief and contention that most all golfers would not criticize (and want to change) something in golf architecture they perceived as being natural or a damn fine man-made facsimile of Nature, while they would criticize (and want to change) something they preceived to be clearly artificial and man-made.

If that is the case, as much as I admire Behr and his writing and philosophies, that is the one thing I believe he pretty much missed the boat on and was wrong about.

The only reason I say that is because now we have over eighty years to see the reactions of Man the Golfer to various types and styles of golf architecture since Behr wrote what he did and I think it has been pretty plain to see that Man the Golfer either doesn't notice those things or just doesn't really care. At this point, I'm even willing to consider that there may be more golfers in this world who actually PREFER the look and fact of artificiality in golf architecture than those who don't.

If that is the case (and I'm not exactly contending that it is) I suspect I may know the reason for it, and most ironically it just may be the ultimate analogy Behr attempted to draw (without actually specifically stating it) between Man's inherent relationship with Nature compared to Man's inherent relationship to Man himself, and all that that analogy and comparison may entail.

On the other hand, I'm the eternal optimist and I'm also willing to consider that perhaps Man the Golfer has never really been shown enough of the truly natural in golf architecture to be able to appreciate it as Behr apparently believed he would.

[Kirk Gill]

Isn't that just so cute and impressive that you made that remark on here over five years ago and before Kirk Gill came on here or even before Kirk had been potty trained?

Who says I'm potty trained?


I'd still like to know what you think about this quote "May we not say, then, that in the degree the golfer is conscious of design, in that degree is the architecture faulty according to the highest tenets of the art?" I'm not sure on what level he means this. Obviously a golfer would want to be conscious of design elements that affect his shotmaking choices. Is Behr talking only of the aesthetics of the course here, the stuff that is outside the strategic needs of the game?

I haven't seen any photos that I can remember of Behr's designs as he designed them. Could anyone post some to show how Behr's own work lived up to his personal aesthetic?

[TEPaul]

Sean:

I'm not even going to bite on that last post of yours other than to say it is certainly apparent to me that some can swim deep and some either can't or just don't want to for various reasons that probably aren't even worth going into on here.

I would also add, again, my "Big World" Theory---eg golf and golf Architecture is a great big thing and there is plenty in it and plenty out there to potentially appeal to everyone!  

I believe the only real mistake Behr made in his writing and in his philosophies on golf and GCA is that he basically OVER-estimated the sense and sensiblity of golfers generally----not all but many to perhaps most.

[Norbert P]

  The Personal Interpretation of Golf Course Aesthetics is scaled by our own anthropomorphic values that are generated by empirical and mystical experiences after processing through chemical and electrical Rube Goldbergian pachinko-like glandular and neural pathways.

[TEPaul]

"I'd still like to know what you think about this quote "May we not say, then, that in the degree the golfer is conscious of design, in that degree is the architecture faulty according to the highest tenets of the art?" I'm not sure on what level he means this. Obviously a golfer would want to be conscious of design elements that affect his shotmaking choices. Is Behr talking only of the aesthetics of the course here, the stuff that is outside the strategic needs of the game?"


Kirk:

You know, that question of yours really is such a good one and probably a pretty fundamental one when it comes to understanding what Behr really was saying or trying to say about GCA and naturalism vs artificiality.

I'd remind you that Behr very much did say and write that he certainly accepted the fact that there were what he called "necessary exceptions" inherent to the game of golf and it's playing that were not compatible to a complete application or transposition on Nature and landforms wholly unchanged. Again those "necessary exceptions" for golf he referred to were tees, fairways, greens, sometimes rough and sand bunkers where sand was not naturally indigenous. His only advice on those "necessary exceptions" was that the architect should attempt to make them as naturally appearing as you could even realizing it may not fool the close and searing observer.

He actually wrote those things a number of times in his articles but as to his quote you cited above, I do believe Behr really was a pretty clever writer and what I just said above is probably contained in that remark you quoted with his use (twice) of the word "DEGREE"---eg by that I assume he never meant to imply complete lack of the man-made and man-created in golf architecture.

On the other hand, as I said in the last post, it seems that Behr may've OVER-estimated the sense and sensibility of many to perhaps most golfers in this vein. On the flip side, Behr may've never expected to see golf analysts quite as dedicated and quite as nuts about ALL the ramifications of these subjects as some are on this particular website, the likes of which has probably never existed before in the history of golf and golf architecture, as far as I know.

[Charlie Goerges]

Is Man a part of nature? Yes

Is Man apart from nature? Yes

I will confess to not having read every post of this thread (because I don’t like to pollute my thinking with the ideas of anyone born before 1987  ), but I am glad this subject has come up.

It seems clear that man is a part of nature. What is less clear is whether the work of man is natural. Setting aside for now the idea that man was set apart by an omniscient being, I think there is an argument for the idea that man and his works are apart from nature in some sense.

My reasoning is based on the idea that natural selection is no longer affecting the human race. One of the main ideas in natural selection is that the likelyhood that an individual will survive long enough to reproduce is not terribly high. That likelyhood has risen considerably for the human race, which has allowed for technological advancement to occur. So, to me, anything created or derived from creations after natural selection would be “unnatural”.

Now, before anyone accuses me of eugenics or saying the human race is stagnant or any other negative thing, I don’t think the lack of natural selection acting in humans is a bad thing. The fact that not only the “strong” (whatever that may mean) survive, has greatly advanced the human race. It has freed the human race from worrying soley about survival, and allowed the creation of everything from art and religion to conveniences and luxuries. It has allowed for the idea of beauty to disseminate to everyone.

So when discussing the merits of a work of art or architecture, perhaps the more relevant question is not whether the work is “natural” or not, but whether the work is “beautiful” or not.

[TEPaul]

Kirk:

I should also tell you that at this point I've gotten to know pretty well most all the architects that many on this website admire and sort of tend to glorify. And I've been around all those architects when they are confronted at various times and in various places with some of the apparently over-thinking, over-arching nuts cases that participate on this particular website, very much including myself.

And I've carefully observed the reactions of all those architects in those particular situations and it is my observation that about half the time, one can see, if one looks very carefully, a sort of vacant and far-away look in their eyes when they are confronted with these people and what they ask and say and maintain about various things to do with GCA.

I have also observed that most all those architects I refer to are basically some pretty nice people but they tend to excuse themselves and when they do I have distinctly noticed that they walk away sort of shaking their heads quietly!

Matter of fact, I've never really been to the graves of any of those fantastic old guys with the exception of Macdonald, Whigam and Raynor who, remarkably, are all buried within about thirty yards of one another. The time I visited was that same time Wayne was accussed of actually pissing on their graves which of course is completely ridiculous and never remotely happened. Nevertheless, there were a group of us there and we actually were extremely reverential as we talked about how smart they all were and what remarkable work they did and how they did it and even what they were thinking when they planned it and built it.

It was pretty quiet out there, Kirk, and I thought I heard some muffled laughing. I couldn't really make out where it was coming from but it seemed to be coming from underneath the ground we were standing on.  

[TEPaul]

Charlie Georges:

I like your thoughts in post #57 a lot but it seems like the aspect you forgot to include and consider which might be by far the most relevent to this kind of subject is the fact that MAN, of all living things on this earth, for whatever the anthropological reasons, has gotten to a point where he has the capacity to not only dominate this earth including all living things we're aware of but to completely destroy the entire thing as well.

I think MAN has certainly come a long way in both understanding this earth and Nature but in also perhaps having his basic inclination to actually dominate it all for his own reasons go a bit beyond the pale in the overall natural scheme of things.

Something tells me this inherent desire to dominate all things around him has perhaps allowed him to actually glorify his abilities and capacities to make, create or control things and that may in some way serve to make him appreciate or even glorify the man-made over the natural, even though he is not unaware of the importance of the natural or its raw beauty.

I think this is the basic duality which is a lot of the ethos of Human Kind and it actually does play out somehow in how golfers look at various things to do with golf and golf course architecture including the perception of what's natural and what's artificially created by us.

[Charlie Goerges]

Tom, you were born before 1987 weren't you? 

But seriously, you are right, I didn't address that fact. Part of the reason is that the value judgement of what the human race does with this power (a good point to discuss and to continue to discuss) is separate from whether that power is simply natural or unnatural. The other part of why I didn't address it was that I didn't want to take the extra time at that point.

On another thread, Kirk Gill brought up the idea that the works of human kind perhaps ought to be considered natural (I'm paraphrasing). He used the construction of beaver dams or bee hives as examples from nature. I can't dismiss the idea out of hand, but the idea that a freeway could be natural like a bee hive just didn't sit well. I then began to think about why I felt this way and what I wrote in my previous post was the beginnings of my answer.

Anyhoo, I'd like to see the discussion continue so here is my reply:

I think that we need to get our terms straight when it comes to natural. I've not looked up the word in the dictionary, but I would guess that there is a definition of natural that states something like:

"part of nature, of a kind with nature, not created by man"

And a definition that states something like:

"resembling or similar to nature"

When we say a golf course looks natural or that a designer should strive to create something that looks as natural as possible, I think we are using the latter sense.

But now to the separate question of the qualitative; I like a course that looks natural (resembling nature), where the hand of man is less evident. There is a great deal of beauty in nature, a type of beauty that is more appropriate to the task/activity of golf than the type of beauty present in a painting by Michaelangelo or Pollock in my opinion.

I’ll have to stop there, I know I didn’t get to all of your points, but hopefully I’ll get a shot.

Charlie

[TEPaul]

"Tom, you were born before 1987 weren't you?   "


Well, that depends on how you ask me and what you ask me about. I was actually born a whole bunch of times depending on a number of things. I suspect there might be a few things about which I ain't even been born yet.


When it comes to trying to decide if Man is part of Nature in the context of what Max Behr was trying to say about golf and golf course architecture and the different types and styles it can have---eg pretty natural or natural appearing vs the obviously man-made, I really don't think the idea of whether Man is part of Nature is that relevent. Even if a man like Behr would readily admit Man is part of Nature there surely is and will remain a whole lot of very important issues with golf and golf course architecture in the natural vs artificial equation or comparison.

[RJ_Daley]

TEP, I don't know if you read my post about duality, and Manechean philosophies, but to me it sounds like those same issues that St. Augustine was addressing, only missing the whole golf thing by a millenium or so.

Of course, the nut cases of GCA.com are probably the only body of thinkers on this subject to be found in the modern world, excluding the few scribes of the various magazines like the Shacklefords, Kleins, Whittens, Papazians and a few others.  But to delve into these concepts in the depth that GCA.com folks do, is akin to the cults of the dualists, Manechean Hearers, and the followers of the Bishop of Hippo, who actually makes the effort to posit and conjecture on such lofty subjects.  

To that end, from my limitted understanding, all golfers, golf course design philosophers, and critic observers are playing in the Manechean side of the sensible equation, and no one (even Maxie his own self) was truly playing in the realm of St. Augustine's defined intelligible realm or that side of the fence of eternity when contemplating the meaning and ideal of golf as the sport or game played on the natural field where we become one with nature (or some verison of the creator).  And, it seems Max and all of us actually know or sense that, which makes us all Manecheans living in the sensible realm - aware of the light and dark side - and only flirting with the intelligible realm in our loftiest contemplations of being one with nature (creator) always falling a bit short.

I think that Max and every inspired golf course architect/designer understands that we can only follow our best  informed understanding of what is sensible, tangible and possible with the limitations of what is given to us in the physical world, and if so inclined or inspired to create a field of play for this game with an ideal of interfacing seemlessly as possible with nature, we can only keep trying, and will never really succeed.  It is the pursuit of the ideal that leads to the joy, and the pursuit is all that there is, here on the planet.

[TEPaul]

RJ:

Even if Behr may've gotten excessively philosophical (with naturalisim vs artificiality, duality, morality, good and evil etc) perhaps as something of a background or preface, I don't think that's really what we need to discuss here.

In the end what Behr was really trying to get at was a whole lot more practical about golf and architecture than just that.

Bob Crosby has written a really great essay on this kind of thing (because it provides a real insight into Behr and his philosophies) and I think one of the best things about it is he actually recast the terms and probably the entire subject where it should be. He assumed this whole debate that was cast as "Strategic VS Penal" architecture may've been sort of the rhetorical flourish of a debate context (the term "penal" architecture that is).

Bob is casting the real issues behind their debate as "Strategic" Architecture (and what the likes of Behr & Mackenzie probably actually meant by that term or idea) versus what he now calls "Equitable" Architecture (and how that term much better describes what Joshua Crane was really trying to get at).

When you see it I think you'll understand why the term "Equitable" architecture is so much better to describe Crane's ideas for golf and architecture than the term "Penal" was.

Bob also has a new term he calls C,P&P (Control, Predicatability and Proportionality (of penalty)) that I think you will see describes really well and goes directly to what Crane was trying to get at with what is well termed and described as "Equitable" Architecture rather than "Penal" Architecture.

[RJ_Daley]

TEP, I ask you now; in one of those mutiple times you say were born - or are you now, a 'dualist' and member of the Manechean party?   

[Kirk Gill]

God bless you Charlie, I think that was a post of mine you're referring to, not the estimable John Kirk, although it was, I believe on a thread that he started.

Good ol' Wikipedia says about Nature:  "It is often taken to mean the "natural environment" or wilderness – wild animals, rocks, forest, beaches, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the latter being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind."

So it may be that by definition the word natural implies something not of human origin. I will, going forward, try to live with that definition, although referring to myself as unnatural feels.......unnatural.


That said, I'm sure Tom was right when he wrote above that the folks that are actually in the business likely shake their heads at this kind of discussion, or smile ruefully, or get all glazed over. It's fandom, of a sort, and the fan in fandom derives from fanatic, and the special brand of lunacy practiced on these threads is likely of less relevance to the practice of architecture than it is to the appreciation of it. Or it may just be that we're over-intellectualizing something that is innately done by some architects. Or it may be what RJ said in his last paragraph, in a fashion more eloquent than am capable of expressing.

[Charlie Goerges]

Kirk, sorry about the fox paws. I feel like the guy on the commercial who kept calling his interviewer Dumb'-ass instead of Du-mas'.

At any rate, you needn't think of yourself as unnatural. You (as a human, not an individual) are not the result of the human mind.

[TEPaul]

"TEP, I ask you now; in one of those mutiple times you say were born - or are you now, a 'dualist' and member of the Manechean party?      "





Well, RJ, in and of my new attempt on here to consider things more carefully and answer them more honestly and accurately, I guess I'm going to just have to answer you on that one as best as I possibly can, huh?

Am I a dualist and member of the Manechean Party?

Firstly, just a bit of basic house-keeping---eg I think it's Manichean not Manechean (even though, to me the pronunciation should basically be the same  ). And believe it or not I did know what that word meant even though I just checked again in one of my dictionaries. The reason I knew what that word meant is during my useless years for reasons I've never been too sure about I actually attempted to MEMORIZE the entire Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

Am I a dualist? I guess so but maybe not in the way you're think of or in the way of conceiving of things in just the context of good and evil (do you think those two birds---ie Good and Evil need to be capitalized?). I'm probably a dualist or a trebleist or even much more (like maybe a dualist to a factor of about 12) because I like my "Big World" theory on golf and golf architecture and maybe everything else too. I like the idea for other people because I think there are all kinds of tastes out there (all the way from really bad taste to really good taste) and they should ALL be accommodated. I like the "Big World" theory for me too for the same reason I don't like to drive the same car every day.

Am I a Manichean or a member of the Manichean Party? Maybe I am but if I am I'm going to disavow it anyway.

Do you want to know why I'm going to disavow it anyway, RJ?

OK, pardner, I'll teyell you whaaat (in the style and accent of a good Southern Touring pro---as in "Leeeave eeet alone weeend!") even iffin' you don't wanna know I'm agonna tell ya anyways.

I don't want to be a member of the Manichean Party because even iffin I know what that means I just don't like the sound of it. I don't like the sound of the word Manichean, OK?! To me it sounds like I'm asometing like the Manchurian Candidate out to assasinate someone and that don't sit that well with me and my self image right now.

You see these days I'm less into intellectualizing things and more into basic emotion and if I don't like the sound of something then I figure it just ain't for me.

You asked an honest question, RJ, and you got an honest answer. Well, sort of.

[TEPaul]

"I will, going forward, try to live with that definition, although referring to myself as unnatural feels.......unnatural."


Kirk, maybe it does but I bet it feels pretty good anyway, right? Come on, be honest, it feels pretty danged cool, huh? HUH!? Sort of like you can just go out for a brief time and do all the weird and crazy and artificial shit you always secretly wanted to try.

Come on, be honest, It's true isn't it? Don't try to BS me; I know you secretly think it's pretty danged cool to be unnatural, at least for like seventeen minutes!

I use the seventeen minutes because I will never forget this campaign guy who the day Tunney won and during the victory celebration and after the Tunney US Senate campaign in California was over went up to the ultra sultry Ann Tunney who had that wonderful dark Irish look to her and said: "Come on Ann, now that the campaign is over and I don't actually work for you guys anymore would you mind spending the night with me because I've been having constant sexual and unnatural fantasies about you?"

To that Ann said: "You must be drunk and that is a really silly thing to say to me."

The guy then comes back with; "Well, then if you won't spend the night with me can I just take you into that room over there for seventeen minutes and lock the door because I think I can do everything to you I've fantasized about in seventeen minutes or less.

To Ann's credit she actually just feel out laughing and didn't say another word. But after that I doubt she ever gave the guy another seventeen seconds!

[RJ_Daley]

Hey Tom, its all OK by me.  Just so you are not one of those Zoroastrians... 

[TEPaul]

Hey, Pardner, I'll teyeell ya whaaat, that doesn't sound too good to me either whether it's a religion or whatever but I'll teyeel ya whaaat, Pards, any friend of Zoro is a friend of mine and any enemy of Zoro is an enemy of mine too.

[Charlie Goerges]

"Tom, you were born before 1987 weren't you?   "


Well, that depends on how you ask me and what you ask me about. I was actually born a whole bunch of times depending on a number of things. I suspect there might be a few things about which I ain't even been born yet.


When it comes to trying to decide if Man is part of Nature in the context of what Max Behr was trying to say about golf and golf course architecture and the different types and styles it can have---eg pretty natural or natural appearing vs the obviously man-made, I really don't think the idea of whether Man is part of Nature is that relevent. Even if a man like Behr would readily admit Man is part of Nature there surely is and will remain a whole lot of very important issues with golf and golf course architecture in the natural vs artificial equation or comparison.

I think you'll come around to (what I like to call) "our" way of thinking, just let me get home take off my shoes and commune with some monster trucks and then I'll fully explain.

[TEPaul]

"That said, I'm sure Tom was right when he wrote above that the folks that are actually in the business likely shake their heads at this kind of discussion, or smile ruefully, or get all glazed over. It's fandom, of a sort, and the fan in fandom derives from fanatic, and the special brand of lunacy practiced on these threads is likely of less relevance to the practice of architecture than it is to the appreciation of it. Or it may just be that we're over-intellectualizing something that is innately done by some architects. Or it may be what RJ said in his last paragraph, in a fashion more eloquent than am capable of expressing."


Kirk:

That kind of thing---eg what real architects and such actually do and think on sites, reminds me of this story Hidden Creek owner Roger Hansen once told me about Coore and Crenshaw and The Boys.

Roger showed up one day on site and noticed them all out there somewhere just staring motionless at something. They didn't see him so he just observed them for about a half hour and they hardly moved at all, no talking, nothing---they just continued to stand there motionless staring at whatever it was they were looking at.

Finally, Roger couldn't take it anymore so he rushed up and said: "Hey Guys, time is money around here you know, what the hell are you all doing?" And they said: "Oh sorry, Roger, we were just conceiving a hole together over here."


CharlieG:

Monster trucks, huh? If you happen to see a flock of D-8s on your way home why don't you ask them what they think of natural vs artificial or even what they think of Max Behr? If any of them happen to be running maybe it would be a good idea if you didn't ask them if they think they're UNNATURAL.

[Charlie Goerges]

CharlieG:

Monster trucks, huh? If you happen to see a flock of D-8s on your way home why don't you ask them what they think of natural vs artificial or even what they think of Max Behr? If any of them happen to be running maybe it would be a good idea if you didn't ask them if they think they're UNNATURAL.

Instead of monster trucks, it ended up being bouncy balls.

Questions like, whether the works of man can be natural or what is meant by the word “natural” in a given context, matter because they are a part, however small, of the creation of a common design language. That language can be used to create design, but it can also be used to understand design or evaluate design. Arguably parts of my earlier posts are rather too philosophical to be of much use in the field, I’m fine with that. (I don’t think my wordiness here is what will keep me from breaking the glass ceiling for stupid people in the golf architecture industry.  )

In an earlier post I mentioned that I thought the type of beauty that is present in nature is more suited to golf than the type of beauty that is present in a work of high art. This is based on my idea of the purpose of golf. I can’t define the purpose exactly, but I can say that it is closer in essence to a hike than to touring a museum or taking an exam. So, if the essence is hike-like and not museum-like, then I will find the course to be more beautiful (which is only one aspect of my enjoyment of it) if it more closely resembles nature than a Mondrian painting.

My idea of the purpose of golf is not the only right one. If my argument form is valid, I should be able to substitute a different idea. To wit: if the essence is exam-like, then a course that resembles an obstacle course will be more beautiful. Form follows function, and if we take it to its logical conclusion, QED, we’ve proven your “Big World Theory” to be a cogent theory.

None of this is to say that the world tilts on such questions. In real life, this kind of thought doesn’t always have a place. It certainly doesn’t in my job. Usually it isn’t “form follows function”, it’s just “function”. So thank goodness that I have this site where I can aggravate, harass, call-out, and commiserate with people like those who post here. Otherwise I’d never get to ‘DO philosophy’ (as one of my professors would say), I’d only get to read about it.

[TEPaul]

"In an earlier post I mentioned that I thought the type of beauty that is present in nature is more suited to golf than the type of beauty that is present in a work of high art. This is based on my idea of the purpose of golf. I can’t define the purpose exactly, but I can say that it is closer in essence to a hike than to touring a museum or taking an exam. So, if the essence is hike-like and not museum-like, then I will find the course to be more beautiful (which is only one aspect of my enjoyment of it) if it more closely resembles nature than a Mondrian painting."


CharlieG:

Are you aware of what Max Behr wrote about the difference of and for the golf architect as an artist compared to the paint artist, due to the vast difference in their "mediums?"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()