Should an architect reveal creative inspiration?

[TEPaul]

On another thread on the first page Anthony Fowler asked:

"How much do you think Gil's routing (Union Bay) was influenced by Kittansett. When he described the planned 12th tee shot at Union Bay, he could have just as easily been describing 16 at Kittansett.  Any thoughts?"

Should an architect reveal creative inspiration?

Personally, I think this is a extraordinarily complex question, and I think I tend towards an answer of no, they should not, even though I find it hard to explain why. However, I realize so many on here would just love to hear all architects reveal their creative inspirations probably even in minute detail

This basic subject has come up a number of times, in a number of ways and for a number of reasons with most all the architects I know and have talked to, watched work etc. The reality mostly seems to be that there are so many inter-related considerations going on out on a particular site, on individual holes that the actual attributing of creative inspiration of a hole to some other hole somewhere and certainly a routing to another course somewhere gets kind of lost in the shuffle of people, practicality to do with land, drainage, construction, whatever. A sort of general strategic concept may filter through in some manner or form but that seems to be it----maybe not always but mostly. 

Not that some architects didn't dedicately try to attribute some of what they did to other holes elsewhere, generally famous and long respected ones. We do know that Macdonald did this and very publicly and vocally. It also seems true to say, historically, that others began to wonder about this and perhaps ever mildly criticize him for it.

Anthony, in a few days Steve Shaeffer is having a GCA get-together over here and although I can't guarantee it Gil may come for a short time early.

If he does I'll be sure to ask him your question above. My hope is he won't really answer it. My sense is it may be tougher to answer even for him than some on here suspect. I've known him a long time now and I see how he gets interested in certain things, holes, certain features, maybe even a drawing style (Gil is an excellent drawer). He's also a real student of some old works and old architects. It seems like sometimes he's asking himself why; why did they do this or that and out of that type of general inquiring spirit comes a whole bunch of complex inter-related creative inspirations, I guess.

But for me, I'd prefer the creative inspiration of architects always remain something of a mystery.

ROSEBUD!   

[Adam Clayman]

Should an architect reveal creative inspiration?

Personally, I think this is a extraordinarily complex question, and I think I tend towards an answer of no, they should not, even though I find it hard to explain why. However, I realize so many on here would just love to hear all architects reveal their creative inspirations probably even in minute detail

Tom, It is complex so maybe others are still formulating their responses. I'll gladly play DA and argue that only full gca geeks would even consider asking a question like "what was your inspiration?" A subset so small, not answering it defies logic and perhaps decency.

From my travels, I'll often feel the inspiration from previously built holes/courses that I've known. I'm partial to the backwards realization when I'll finally see what inspired others to create what I had only seen up to that point.  Knowing the design team's methodology and what older courses/styles they openly praise, makes this identification easier. Even if it's only a feeling of an inspiration. C&C, imo, have a repeated pattern towards emulating such classics as Riviera and Prairie Dunes.(probably others too) Not bad company to keep, wouldn't you say?

Behr would probably consider only one proper answer, "the land", and he'd probably be right about that. Otherwise, the influences could be found out to be based on the whims of the times, confirming the designers ego as the real inspiration.   

I'll stop there and see if we get something going with this On topic thread.

[RJ_Daley]

Adam, for my way of thinking, I don't know what else you can get going on in this thread, as you seem to have said everything.  At the risk of yet another boring thread that folks have noted, 'adds nothing' I still have to say, I agree with you... 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mr. Paul, sir,

I agree with you that inspiration ought to remain a complete mystery to the gca fan.  It is also often a complete mystery to the gca themselves!

Frankly, any "inspiration" talk is probably a sound bite from the gca.  If the real inspiration were made known, it might read something like this:

"Well, I copied holes 1, 3, 7 and most of the back nine from my last project.

"I was too drunk to come in on the Tuesday we were designing the front nine, so holes 2,4 and 5 were really the work of my new associate. It seemed like a good time to break him in and make him feel part of the team.  I was so hung over that when I first looked at the sketches, I thought he had proposed double greens, double tees and double fairways on those holes.  One hole had a double fw, but I thought it was a quadruple fw.

"I played CC of Charleston and like the Lion's Mouth, so the 6th is a watered down version of that. I am too scared to make it quite that tough."

"I did decide to make 8 and 9 something really original for me, though. In truth, the on the 8th hole, the housing developer left us with some crappy land and I had to make that hole blind.  That will probably please the golf club atlas crowd!

On the 9th, I couldn't figure out how to route it, and rather than admit that, I made up some BS about how great the Alps hole is, so I decided to create a modern classic."  I hope the GD and GW panelists buy that explanation, because I could really use a course that makes the "Best New" lists this year.

Of course, none of the gca's participating here would ever be in that position.  We are inspired by the land and the classic courses!

[Jim Adkisson]

Tom, 2 words: Old Macdonald...

[Tom_Doak]

We are not telling where any of the holes at Old Macdonald came from. 

[Joe Hancock]

We are not telling where any of the holes at Old Macdonald came from. 

It would be more fun if you didn't tell anyone where any of the holes at Old Macdonald are!

 

[Lou_Duran]

If I am understanding the question correctly, I side with candor and full disclosure.  I would rather hear it from the horse's mouth than from a third party with questionable expertise and reliability interpreting what it is that the designer intended or was influenced by.  I get a kick from museum guides speculating on what the artists were contemplating, often hundreds of years before, or MacKenziephiles waxing on how the master's training in camaflouge and fortification techniques is responsible for his stunning bunkering at CPC (famous disappearing bunkers when looking at the hole backwards, from the green to the tee).  I suspect that if we really knew the truth it would be closer to Jeff Brauer's examples.

If nothing else, the introspection required to articulate the design process is well worth the cost of whatever mystery and small talk is lost.  And it may also lead to better architecture.

[Steve Lang]

  Only in a time capsule with at least a +25 yr opening date..

[TEPaul]

"We are not telling where any of the holes at Old Macdonald came from.   "

TomD:

OK, I buy that. You generally keep these things pretty close to the vest and I like that but could you at least give us some hint on how you got the holes of Old Macdonald to the site. Do they make containers big enough these days for something like a par 5 or long par 4?

Mr Brauer, Sir:

Good post; I intended this to be a Reality Thread and you complied.

I'd like to see an architect answer something like this:

"Where does your creative inspiration come from?"

"Ahh, it generally comes from the middle drawer on the right."


I know an architect who carries little paper cut-out holes around in his pocket and some of them actually have hinges in the middle (I guess so they can be doglegs right or doglegs left on topos). One time I tried to fit one that was probably a long par 4 onto the topo as a short par 5 and I ripped it in half by mistake so we now call that hole "Strategic Disconnect" (there's about a 75-100 yard section across the middle that was never touched and has never been maintained) and I think it's gaining respect and may be considered one of the great ones someday.

[Bart Bradley]

Tom:

I think that if an architect makes a choice to use a feature or a variation on a feature created by someone else, they probably owe the originator of the idea a nod...if it is there own work elsewhere or something more nebulous (like the curve of their wife's back), they should keep it to themselves.

Bart

[paul cowley]

Gee Tom.....good question but I can't answer it. I mean I want to try...but jaysus its so broad.

You might as well ask me to sum up the creative process in a constantly shifting life and learning tableau.

Inspiration comes from experience and exposure to all the stimuli that have been absorbed prior to the moment one is inspired.

I'm old enough to chronical how the design process has changed in me.

When I was young I had raw creative energy....but not enough experience.
I'd compensate by drawing furiously....in a compulsion to get things on paper where I could see it, move it around, and make it something tangible.

I'd dash all over the world looking, observing everything....others work, terrain, weather, water, nature, cultures....it didn't make any difference in my quest to fill my brain with most anything. I figured a while back that I had slept over two years of my life in the front seat of various Ford Pickup trucks.

I remember once sitting for most of a day at 15,000', perched above the fields that lie outside the Teng Boche Monastery....all the while watching 300 Yaks and porters snake their way in and fil up the plain below....it was a French Everest Expedition, and I was thinking Jeysus...it takes all this stuff to climb a mountain? It was only a little later that Messner blitz/climbed Everest solo...with no oxygen...which impressed me.

I'm older now and I guess I don't carry as much superfluous baggage.
I internalize and am able to roll it around in my head better, sans all that external clap trap.

Now I'm content to analyze the sites various givens and just give it a go.
Design on the fly, inspired by all that's proceeded me....the inspiration being a constantly evolving process.

I doubt any of this begins to answer your question.

BTW....thanks for allowing me the opportunity to look like an even bigger idiot than I can appear at times.

Namaste.









 

[Mike Nuzzo]

Tom Paul,
Why would you prefer intent stayed a mystery?
Cheers

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I know you didn't ask me, but the answer is probably "because the work should stand for itself."  If its good, do we care what the inspiration is?

BTW, who was it who said something like "Everything is either a copy of what I do or a reaction to what I do?"  Is it fair to say that gca inspiration is typically a copy or a reaction?

[paul cowley]

Mike,

I know you didn't ask me, but the answer is probably "because the work should stand for itself."  If its good, do we care what the inspiration is?

BTW, who was it who said something like "Everything is either a copy of what I do or a reaction to what I do?"  Is it fair to say that gca inspiration is typically a copy or a reaction?

Well Jeff....I guess that begets the question of whether or not we should start another thread...."is there really anything New in Golf Design lll"

 

[BCrosby]

Could TomD and JeffB be channeling Benjamin Franklin?

Uncle Ben once said:

"Originality is the art of concealing your sources."

Faulkner said something to the effect that he stole every idea he ever had.

I think people make too much of the "influence" thing.  What's original, what's derivative, what's copied is very hard to sort out in gca. It's especially hard for the architect himself to sort out. They are probably in the worst position to answer such questions.

Which means that architects ought to given a pass on the issue. Answering those questions should be left to history.    

Bob



 

[Tom_Doak]

Bob:

The only problem with "leaving those questions to history" is that 50 years from now (or maybe even tomorrow) somebody will get on a website and claim to read my mind.

I agree with Jeff that the work should stand on its own, because I get tired sometimes of reading how other architects are inspired by the great masters.  I've got a big library of ideas in my head that I've seen over the years, and sometimes I lean on one of them in particular ... but just as often the inspiration for something comes out of left field.  Pete Dye told me once that a lot of cool things he'd done on golf courses were actually things that the crew misunderstood; I didn't believe him then, but with more experience, I do today.

For at least some of my work I have written down what I remembered to be the inspirations for those golf holes and those ideas, but Mr. Keiser convinced me not to publish them for Pacific Dunes -- or at least not right away -- and I think he was right about that.  It will mean much more to publish those thoughts later, once everyone else has tried to write the history themselves.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

It woud be okay to publish later, as long as the thoughts were written at the time of the work (or shortly after) and not edited.  Don't you think the story of creation gets a bit more heroic when recalled years later?  Think (omigodnotthisagain) Merion?  I just don't want any stories of Jim Urbina hopping on his bike in the middle of the night, riding to your house, and blurting out an idea for moving one hole at Old Mac.......especially if it happened at 10AM in the morning or never really happened at all!

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I agree.  The worst form of revisionist history is the architect's own.

[Actually, it's the owner's.]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

It could be.  But in this environment, most public courses, and some clubs might be on their third owners before even a quickie course bio could come out.  How would a third owner's bio/history read?

If you are thinking about writing your course histories later, maybe you could have one of your guys "plant" a cuddly animal trapped somewhere on your project.  Then, you could rescue it, to make an even better story.  Or, tie yourself to a tree to "save it" but only after slipping the dozer guy a $50 to make sure he doesn't take you down with the tree!

Can we doubt that some gca somewhere has pulled such stunts?  Well, maybe not, but I still think an old man thinking back in history, sanitizes and changes what his real inspiration was, perhaps even mixing it up with inspirations for other projects inadvertantly. 

BTW, seriously, in my spare time, I am writing my own course histories as I recall them.  Some are getting to be 20 years old but better now than later in any event. I do encourage all gca's to do the same, even if published later.  While its highly unlikely that some future Wayne Morrison will want to do a 5000 page book on me, I guess it could happen that someone would be interested in the history of me, or at least one of my courses.

[JC Jones]

Bob:

The only problem with "leaving those questions to history" is that 50 years from now (or maybe even tomorrow) somebody will get on a website and claim to read my mind.

I agree with Jeff that the work should stand on its own, because I get tired sometimes of reading how other architects are inspired by the great masters.  I've got a big library of ideas in my head that I've seen over the years, and sometimes I lean on one of them in particular ... but just as often the inspiration for something comes out of left field.  Pete Dye told me once that a lot of cool things he'd done on golf courses were actually things that the crew misunderstood; I didn't believe him then, but with more experience, I do today.

For at least some of my work I have written down what I remembered to be the inspirations for those golf holes and those ideas, but Mr. Keiser convinced me not to publish them for Pacific Dunes -- or at least not right away -- and I think he was right about that.  It will mean much more to publish those thoughts later, once everyone else has tried to write the history themselves.

 

So now Mr. Keiser is to blame for "The Making of Pacific Dunes" not being in print (yet)?

[paul cowley]

....you know guys....that is an area in which we differ.

I have close to zero concern about how I will be viewed in the future.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I think it depends on the inspiration. Like anything, sometimes the story is worth telling - sometimes it's better not told.

A

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - and I'm guessing that, ironically, that connects you even more closely with the old guys, or at least with some of them.

I don't imagine Leeds, Fowler, Ross, Colt,Maxwell,or  Wilson all that concerned about the judgements of the future.

Actually, I can't imagine Mackenzie, Tillinghast, Thomas or Thompson all that concerned either.

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

I find that odd, really.  If you have enough ego to compete in the gca business - and we all do - I would think you would have at least some concern for how you and at the very least - your work was percieved.

We have some writings from Wilson suggesting he was image competing with Jones, and Ross has some writings suggesting the same.  The west coast guys took some shots at Raynor in writing.  Yes, all of that might be in the heat of the moment, but just like basebally players who start thinking about whether they deserve the hall of fame, or their place in history, I think most gca's think about it, too.

As always, I could be wrong, and in this case, the only egomaniac in the profession!  I sincerely doubt both, however!