Is simplicity the boldest move...

[Philippe Binette]

In any form of art, simplicity is a bold move...

In architecture, pure lines leads to timeless design... the greeks to Mies Van der Rohe

My favorite line of all in Landscape architecture comes from FL Olmsted while designing Mount Royal Park in Montreal... '' It's a mountain, all I can do with it is a mountain ''... so basically, all he did was route a path that will use all the visual and spatial qualities of the site.

It's seems like it's missing in our world now, simplicity... Look at music, there are no James Taylor anymore, no songs like Angie by the Stones... a man a guitar and a voice... nobody is bold enough (or have enough talent) to do that, so back vocals, back beat, electric guitar solo etc.

It also come down to this question, when was the last time a great enclosed course was built, where it's hard to built on the dramatics of the property?... I hope it's not Harbour Town, that would be 40 years ago.

[Chip Gaskins]

my favorite use of simplicity is the approach to #9 and the green at Bandon Trails:



It looks like they just mowed the native and threw out some seed.  Constraint!

(yes that is Push Up orange pants on my British buddy)

[TEPaul]

"Using hazards for the purpose of interest alone, he may use them in the way of emphasis to bring out the highlights of a hole. They can be made formidable or small. Often a tiny pit placed just in the right spot, so small that it can have little effect upon actual play, can be a mental hazard with tremendous effect upon the morale of the golfer. But to place such a pit is as truly an art as one revealing scratch of a pen by Rembrandt which we ordinary mortals could not duplicate with a thousand scratches. The pseudo golf-architect will have faint glimmerings of an idea and will try to catch it with numerous bunkers; whereas, the true artist will place just one bunker upon the sore spot and it is done...."
Max Behr, "The Nature and Use Of Penalty" (Golf as a sport, not a game)

[Mark_Fine]

The truly great designs are "simple" but "complex" at the same time.  Just because something is simple in design does not necessarily mean it will offer exciting and thought provoking golf. 

Take a flat field, mow out a green surface and add a few teeing areas.  Pretty simple, but not very compelling golf 

[TEPaul]

Ah, Philippe, is that the guy who played Johnny Cash (Jauquin Phoenix?) in the movie "Walk The Line" I saw briefly playing the guitar on Norah Jones' right and behind her?

[George Pazin]

George -

Believe me, I don't want to take a single thing away from the courses that Mike Young, Mike Nuzzo, Paul Cowley, C&C, Tom D, Ian Andrew (and others) have designed and built, and that Philippe is describing.  (I consantly praise and encourage that simpler approach.) But the fact that those several designers have chosen a simpler approach, and that the courses they have so designed exist and have gotten much praise, suggests to me that this approach isn't the "boldest" move - Philippe's question. It is a bold move, yes, but not the boldest. (My post tried to describe the difference.) By the way, I don't think the boldest move is a viable one -- not for a professional architect who wants to have a long career.  But that doesn't mean I can't still wish for it...

Peter   

Here is the thing I think your analysis overlooks, imho (and I do mean that, I'm not trying to be argumentative): it's impossible to know where the folks listed would be if they had done more typical, flashy work. They're well known and highly regarded on here, but we're a tiny segment of the golf population. They might be hanging with TO like Jeff Brauer (kidding, Jeff) if they did flashier work.

I still have to ruminate over your earlier distinction.

[Peter Pallotta]

Kelly - I think you used a phrase a while back that's relevant here. I'm not doing it justice because I can't remember it exacty but it was something like: "Most courses today are built by architects looking through the wrong end of a camera".  (It was much better than that). 

George - From Philippe's other posts, I think I may have misunderstood him, and maybe we're a lot closer in what we're talking about than I thought. I was just making the distinction between simplicity borne out of an idea (and an ideal) and simplicity borne out of absolute necessity. In the former, you could move tons of earth in order to end up with a simple and understated course; in the latter, you'd have to do the best you could with what you had, but you'd be happy with that -- in the name of economy and simplicity.  But you're right - it is still bold, what those architects mentioned did and do

Peter

[Eric_Terhorst]

I'm sorry Phillippe, I didn't get what you mean from the Norah Jones example

To illustrate simplicity I might have chosen this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oGVDLcpXQ8

or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoPL7BExSQU

Or pick just about any sentence from Norman Maclean's story "A River Runs Through It"  e.g.,
"The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time."

Ok, I'm getting carried away.  I like Kyle Harris' quote, and Chip's comment about Wild Horse brings to mind the simplicity of #2 and #3 where the one bunker in the middle affects play on both, and Kyle Henderson's mention of Pacific Dunes--#8 would be my choice of the most wonderfully simple hole there.  The discussion of C&C's work in connection with simplicity brings to mind Talking Stick North--#2 is the best known example.   Highlands Links #2 comes to mind. 

I'm not sure those examples of distilled simplicity are the "boldest" move or "courageous." To me those choices require a quieter approach than "bold" but do require a certain firmness of artistic vision and execution. 

How would you view Forrest Richardson's #11 at Las Palomas?  As I look at the picture below, it seems like there are both bold choices (as I would think of them) and simplicity both in the artificial geometry and in the smooth undulations of the sandy property. 

[Tom_Doak]

Philippe:

This is an excellent topic, and I believe your premise is correct.

Nearly all designers are consumed by trying to compete with each other, at some level, for priority position in the business, and I think that's what leads to so many "overdesigned" projects.

I would also say that the collaborative process for which we have been lauded may sometimes get in the way of simplicity ... having six talented shapers and associates on a site leads to a LOT of ideas.  I have tried to deal with this on a couple of projects by restricting the number of bunkers they are allowed to suggest/add, but I plead guilty to sometimes making our courses more complicated than they need to be.

[John Kirk]

TEP,
Yes that was Joaquin Phoenix back there.

Beautiful song on the video.  Norah Jones plays simple music.  Johnny Cash's simplicity is legendary.

Simple?  Yes
Variety?  Yes, please.

In general, I think a simple playing field yields a repetitive challenge, whereas a more complicated field, in the form of rumpled or undulating ground, yields a varied challenge.

He goes in and takes the coveted 35th reply spot.

Great thread. 

[Mike_Cirba]

While many of us promote simplicity of design in theory, I don't see a whole lot of corresponding promotion of simplicity in practice.

Kalen Braley recently started two threads that consisted largely of pictorials of Bonneville Golf Course in Salt Lake City, Utah.

One of the nines was built by Willie Tucker in the 20s, and the other by William and Billy Bell in the 50s, and the nines are very simliar in that they both almost wholly utilize existing ground contours and natural features for interest, with very little in the way of man-made hazards and bunkering.

Both threads stayed on Page one for about 5 minutes.

On the other hand, threads with bunkers in Los Angeles that look created by 100-year San Andreas Fault shifting movements I'll expect to stay on page one for the next three weeks, much as I love them myself.

I have a friend who had this idea that we could create a calendar of rugged, ripped, rippling bunkers and sell it to folks here at a premium...bunker "porn" he called it, and when I'm drooling myself I really can't disagree.

I just have to call BS when the vast majority of us are looking for "the look", and still evangelizing for "simplicity" and "natural" at the same time, because there is a deep crevasse of a credibility gap that most of us are falling into here.

[Philippe Binette]

Simple course probably don't photograph well, so they have little chance of staying a long time on this website

[Mike_Cirba]

Simple course probably don't photograph well, so they have little chance of staying a long time on this website

Phillipe,

Yes, nor do they "market" well or make good golf magazine centerfolds. 

It's a shame, because in my opinion, they are exactly what we need to be building.

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

You make some solid points, that lesser known off the beaten path courses like Bonneville won't get much love even though they are a joy to play and are great examples of minimalist yet very interesting golf.

Even I must admit , when I first played there 2 years ago while I did see the genius of the original 9, I completely missed the cool stuff on the back 9.  When I went back recently, it was like finding a gold mine with all the subtle yet challenging features that were expertly used to promote fun golf.

[BCrosby]

Mike/Philippe -

Yes (ou oui, comme vous voulez).

There are vanishing few architects today who can afford simplicity. Simplicity carries many, many hidden costs.

Bob