Is Minimalist Architecture "Elitist"?

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

The Augusta National design theory has not prevailed in your lifetime, or mine.  Augusta National combined minimal bunkering with very difficult greens to present a challenge to everyone.  Leaving off the bunkers and then building 2% greens is not the same thing at all.  Just look at how radical my greens are considered by most people ... and then compare them to Augusta's.

It's the Robert Trent Jones theory that has prevailed.

[George Pazin]

It's the Robert Trent Jones theory that has prevailed.

To our benefit?

[Steve Burrows]

I can't quite see how "minimalism," as an intellectual design concept, can be anything except elitist.  In a sense, it is an artistic movement that is a direct response to a previously accepted manner of doing business.  As such (and like any other trend), it was created, and is perpetuated, as a means to suggest that a prior state of affairs is either lacking in substance, or is incapable of expressing the ideals of its members.  For it to exist, it needs to be thought of by its members as inherently BETTER than that which came before, or any other extant artistic sensibility.

That so many on this site lament the possibility that many golfers simply don't understand minimalist design, or may simply prefer to play a "non-minimalist" golf course, extends this notion of elitism even further.  It unfairly elevates this discussion group (which consists mainly of people who celebrate minimalist design) to the status of some kind of enlightened intelligentsia, whereas the rest are lowly savages who wouldn't know a "good" course if it bit them.      

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

I think the RTJ philosophy hasn't really prevailed that much.  I think of big rolling greens, yes, but also fw pinched on both sides, in general.  It may have dominated the top level of courses, but then, that's elitist thinking again......I am thinking of my level of client in general.  What gca's of the 1960's on bunkered their courses as much as RTJ and Dick Wilson?  Not many, IMHO.

Steve,

You encapsulated what I alluded to earlier, you lowly savage, you!  I still don't think minimalism per se can be elitist, but this website is ample proof that its proponents sure can be!   

The only thing I really know about design trends is that some are fads and that none last forever.  In a decade, we will probably be looking at all the flaws inherent in that style of design and figuring out how to move on to something else, just because moving on is the mainstay of popular culture, and perhaps of life itself.  When you get so immersed in some idea, whether minimalism, or as John Lennon alluded, almost any "ism", its hard not to think you have the one true answer.  If minimalism proves to be the golf design style that ends all discussion about golf design styles, I will be surprised, just because it rarely ever happens that way.

[Garland Bayley]

TD,

I think the RTJ philosophy hasn't really prevailed that much.  I think of big rolling greens, yes, but also fw pinched on both sides, in general.  It may have dominated the top level of courses, but then, that's elitist thinking again......I am thinking of my level of client in general.  What gca's of the 1960's on bunkered their courses as much as RTJ and Dick Wilson?  Not many, IMHO.
...

I think you miss the point. Sure, courses with smaller budgets will not be putting in to many bunkers. However, the moment a course thinks they want to add bunkers, the RTJ model gets the most support. Why? Because that's what they see on TV on the tour. In the past, courses with larger budgets simply went that way from the get go. Why do you think people are suggesting we are entering a new golden age? I think most here would agree it is because we are getting away from the RTJ model.

I guess perhaps the ANGC model you refer to is the RTJ model. After all, who had the most impact on the course from his remodel on?

[Tom_Doak]

I can't quite see how "minimalism," as an intellectual design concept, can be anything except elitist.  In a sense, it is an artistic movement that is a direct response to a previously accepted manner of doing business.  As such (and like any other trend), it was created, and is perpetuated, as a means to suggest that a prior state of affairs is either lacking in substance, or is incapable of expressing the ideals of its members.  For it to exist, it needs to be thought of by its members as inherently BETTER than that which came before, or any other extant artistic sensibility.

That so many on this site lament the possibility that many golfers simply don't understand minimalist design, or may simply prefer to play a "non-minimalist" golf course, extends this notion of elitism even further.  It unfairly elevates this discussion group (which consists mainly of people who celebrate minimalist design) to the status of some kind of enlightened intelligentsia, whereas the rest are lowly savages who wouldn't know a "good" course if it bit them.      

Steve:

That's not a post by a lowly savage; it's a post by a master of b.s.

By your reasoning above, EVERY style of golf course design after Old Tom Morris has been elitist, if the designer's goal is try and do something better than average.  [Are you really Melvyn in disguise?]  You could pick on Brauer exactly the same way for trying to justify his lack of carry bunkers as superior design.

I refer you back to Mr. Solow's post.  Of course, you may choose to characterize him as an elitist snob also, but he's got you pegged.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I agree that minimalism cannot really be called elitist.  There is simply no connection, even if I contend that from time to time, it may be the wrong approach for a given project.

As to wing bunkers, I think Colt called them exactly that and wrote about their virtues.  If Ross says no matter where you put a bunker, its the golfers job to avoid it, I suspect any bunker within a hole corridor will induce strategy for someone.  As to choices for the sake of choices, I have asked that question before - why would a gca (esp on a budget) waste time creating bad choices, or even neutral ones, or even ones that might be experienced only by the 0.0012% of top players, and while I have never thought of it, the bottom 0.0012% of players?

While making courses more playable for other than accomplished white males has been a goal of design for quite some time for most, that is not really my argument in whole.  Statistically, flanking hazards catch more missed shots of good players than carry hazards because good players rarely hit even a bit fat.  At the same time, all players miss left to right at similar rates on long shots.  If we recognize this, why would we keep building carry hazards over and over again?

Of course, there is more and more to the equation, but at times, I still feel like many here would build a course for nostalgia reasons, rather than for the 21st century.  There are some features that are timeless, to be sure, but others would seem to be natural casulties of progress (or if you prefer, change)

Jeff

I don't see why centre-line bunkers can't be badly placed so I am not quite following your argument.  A thoughtlessly placed bunker (read designed to make a course tougher rather than more interesting) is just that.  We need some of course, but its as if that sort of bunker has had the upper hand for a great many years.  The fact is, if an archie is looking to compliment natural or man-made features with relatively few bunkers, the biggest bang for buck and golfer choice/decisions is to build centre-line bunkers.  Wing bunkers are important, but imo placement on the wings is WAY over-used compared to centre-line bunkers.  That doesn't mean it isn't one's job not to avoid them (the Ross quote makes me cringe for stating the obvious) only that my philosophy on design is economical.  This necessitates that bunkers be well placed and I am not sure how anybody can argue that the best bunkers are not those which the golfer must think his way round or over. Even diagonal bunkers off the wings are essentially centre-line because the golfer is asked if he wants to carry the thing - if it is well placed. Somehow, the concept of bowling alley wing bunkers got into the designer psyche and it has been predominate for nigh on 100 years.  I'll never understand that theory of design unless we are talking about championship golf.  But then even that doesn't stop the onslaught on par so narrow fairways, high rough and stupidly fast greens have to employed.  It is all beyond me. 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I think my words were that carry bunkers have been reduced, and its not all black and white and all or nothing! Ditto for centerline bunkers, but I only call them cl bunkers if there is some semblance of fw on either side.  And, its not really about championship golf either, IMHO.

There is little doubt that flanking bunkers have taken over the major precedence in design in the last 50 years or so.  I was really just trying to explain why, and why the theory probably took hold.  Its not just dumbing down.  There is a reason.  On the other hand, like most things, gca's probably saw the problems with carry and center bunkers and once they stopped using them, they stopped pretty quickly.  At some point, someone asks why they aren't around any more and starts building them, remembering their good points.  (no feature does it all in gca) 

And as you allude, once we decide to do a centerline bunker like principles nose, we rethink it, putting it somewhere further out than 220 yards, at least from the back tees, etc.  They can be well placed or poorly placed no doubt.

But, if designers and golfers have not preferred cen line bunkers for 100 years now, maybe there is a legit reason.  Again, its not all black and white - the disadvantages to many may simply outweight the benefits to a few, or something like that.  And its not all black and white as to their current use. I put one on nearly every course I do.  Do I like is so well as a tee shot concept that I am going to do it another 13 times?  There are many ways to challenge the golfer off the tee, and I agree that sticking with one type is wrong. 

Which is why I agree with you that there are far too many courses with dull, unimaginative tee shots with only flanking bunkers to challenge. 

[Steve Burrows]

I can't quite see how "minimalism," as an intellectual design concept, can be anything except elitist.  In a sense, it is an artistic movement that is a direct response to a previously accepted manner of doing business.  As such (and like any other trend), it was created, and is perpetuated, as a means to suggest that a prior state of affairs is either lacking in substance, or is incapable of expressing the ideals of its members.  For it to exist, it needs to be thought of by its members as inherently BETTER than that which came before, or any other extant artistic sensibility.

That so many on this site lament the possibility that many golfers simply don't understand minimalist design, or may simply prefer to play a "non-minimalist" golf course, extends this notion of elitism even further.  It unfairly elevates this discussion group (which consists mainly of people who celebrate minimalist design) to the status of some kind of enlightened intelligentsia, whereas the rest are lowly savages who wouldn't know a "good" course if it bit them.      

Steve:

That's not a post by a lowly savage; it's a post by a master of b.s.

By your reasoning above, EVERY style of golf course design after Old Tom Morris has been elitist, if the designer's goal is try and do something better than average.  [Are you really Melvyn in disguise?]  You could pick on Brauer exactly the same way for trying to justify his lack of carry bunkers as superior design.

I refer you back to Mr. Solow's post.  Of course, you may choose to characterize him as an elitist snob also, but he's got you pegged.

Tom D.

I don't think that my opinion is anywhere near B.S. and I will also say that I never claimed to be a lowly savage; I am just as much a snob as anyone.  We all want to experience what we perceive or understand to be the "best" in life, including the golf courses that we play, yes? 

Anyway, I don't really think that a golf course, as a tangible landscape intervention, is in itself elitist. (Having said that, an argument could be made that subtle design features and complex strategies that tend to accompany minimalist designs, and which may not legible to a yeoman golfer who does not possess the vocabulary to "read" the terrain, create a playing field that is in some ways intellectually inaccessible to them, and COULD therefore be labeled as elitist).  What is a shame, however, is when the work of others is marginalized for NOT being minimalist.  Let's not kid ourselves, this thread, as with so many others on this discussion board, treats Fazio as a punching bag, almost solely for the fact that the design program to which he was charged, and to which he accepted, is not something that is associated with how yourself, or C&C (and many other less visible proponents of minimalist style for that matter) tend to do business.  What was accomplished at the Madison Club all seems excessive, to be sure, but it's not wrong or immoral.  To assume differently, or for proponents of minimalism on this website to take jabs as Fazio's business model (which I don't think that you have ever done in public) or to insinuate that his method violates some unwritten code of what golf SHOULD be, takes on the characteristics of a group of people who think that their way of creating a golf course is the best and only way of doing so. To me, that smells of elitism. 

Ultimately, Fazio puts out a product that is desirable to his client, and that is enjoyable to play and pleasing to look at. What more could anyone ask?  Don't you perform exactly the same task, though perhaps in a conceptually different manner.

[Jud_T]

Steve,

Fazio's business model has been quite successful, and I'm sure it's reflected in his bottom line.  If he really wanted to spend the same amount of time on the ground and limit himself to one or two projects a year as some of the minimalists lauded here in the elusive pursuit of the best possible results on the best ground he could have chosen to do so.  He can cry all the way to the bank....

[Steve Burrows]

Jud,

Thank you for proving my point.  Your post implies that Fazio's work is unavoidably inferior, and/or that he should be ashamed of his body of work, or even of his career.  I just don't think that is the case.  Moreover, should he be crucified for wanting to make money while also creating a recreational experience for many, many people? 

I feel a bit ostracized on this website for being a Fazio apologist in this situation, but surely you must also concede that he has created a number of golf courses that are highly revered, even on this site (e.g. Shadow Creek, Wade Hampton, and Victoria National).

[Jud_T]

Steve,

Fazio's work is what it is.  Some of his courses are quite good.  I've even been known to play one or two on occasion...  There's nothing wrong with turning a profit, hey this is still capitalism baby and I'm probably one of the more libertarian types you'll find on this board.  Simple question however...Take two guys of comparable skill.  In a given year, one guy does a dozen far flung courses, designs his greens on a computer and then ships them off to be built.  The other guys builds two courses and does shaping by feel on site, revisits, edits etc.  They both work 225 10-hour days during the year...I think it's fairly clear which guy is likely to make more money and which guy has a better chance of turning out something really unique and special...Fazio sells a predictable style-this is his product.  This is comforting to developers, homebuyers, prospective members and daily fee players.  It's a solid, high-end product with name recognition.  But it's the predictability of the style and the look which is what people buy into.  Just like any product.  If I'm in Timbuktu on business and there's time to fit a round of golf in and there's a Fazio course available, I know what I'm getting pretty much beforehand so I'm happy to plunk down my $100 and hack away...Maybe you can try to make the same argument about Minimalism as being a predictable product, but the ethos of taking what the land will give you sort of works against that argument don't you think?

[Tom_Doak]

Steve:

That's not a post by a lowly savage; it's a post by a master of b.s.

By your reasoning above, EVERY style of golf course design after Old Tom Morris has been elitist, if the designer's goal is try and do something better than average.  [Are you really Melvyn in disguise?]  You could pick on Brauer exactly the same way for trying to justify his lack of carry bunkers as superior design.

I refer you back to Mr. Solow's post.  Of course, you may choose to characterize him as an elitist snob also, but he's got you pegged.

Tom D.

I don't think that my opinion is anywhere near B.S. and I will also say that I never claimed to be a lowly savage; I am just as much a snob as anyone.  We all want to experience what we perceive or understand to be the "best" in life, including the golf courses that we play, yes? 

Anyway, I don't really think that a golf course, as a tangible landscape intervention, is in itself elitist. (Having said that, an argument could be made that subtle design features and complex strategies that tend to accompany minimalist designs, and which may not legible to a yeoman golfer who does not possess the vocabulary to "read" the terrain, create a playing field that is in some ways intellectually inaccessible to them, and COULD therefore be labeled as elitist).  What is a shame, however, is when the work of others is marginalized for NOT being minimalist.  Let's not kid ourselves, this thread, as with so many others on this discussion board, treats Fazio as a punching bag, almost solely for the fact that the design program to which he was charged, and to which he accepted, is not something that is associated with how yourself, or C&C (and many other less visible proponents of minimalist style for that matter) tend to do business.  What was accomplished at the Madison Club all seems excessive, to be sure, but it's not wrong or immoral.  To assume differently, or for proponents of minimalism on this website to take jabs as Fazio's business model (which I don't think that you have ever done in public) or to insinuate that his method violates some unwritten code of what golf SHOULD be, takes on the characteristics of a group of people who think that their way of creating a golf course is the best and only way of doing so. To me, that smells of elitism. 

Ultimately, Fazio puts out a product that is desirable to his client, and that is enjoyable to play and pleasing to look at. What more could anyone ask?  Don't you perform exactly the same task, though perhaps in a conceptually different manner.

Steve:

I am pretty much agreeing with you in my post ... I just said it was b.s. to call what I do elitism if you're not going to call what Tom Fazio does another version of the same thing.

You are right that there are a lot of people on this web site who feel they know what "true" architecture is all about, and dismiss everything else ... to each their own.  But I don't think this thread would have gotten going to this degree, except for the initial implication that "minimalism" gets favored treatment by the elites, coming from the mouth of a designer who has probably spent his whole career TRYING to be elitist, only to find he's on the wrong side right now.  [And by that, I mean whoever the lead associate was, not Tom Fazio himself.  Tom Fazio would not care in the least about this debate.]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve,

Fazio's work is what it is.  Some of his courses are quite good.  I've even been known to play one or two on occasion...   There's nothing wrong with turning a profit, hey this is still capitalism baby and I'm probably one of the more libertarian types you'll find on this board.  Simple question however...Take two guys of comparable skill.  In a given year, one guy does a dozen far flung courses, designs his greens on a computer and then ships them off to be built.  The other guys builds two courses and does shaping by feel on site, revisits, edits etc.  They both work 225 10-hour days during the year...I think it's fairly clear which guy is likely to make more money and which guy has a better chance of turning out something really unique and special...Fazio sells a predictable style-this is his product.  This is comforting to developers, homebuyers, prospective members and daily fee players.  It's a solid, high-end product with name recognition.  But it's the predictability of the style and the look which is what people buy into.  Just like any product.  If I'm in Timbuktu on business and there's time to fit a round of golf in and there's a Fazio course available, I know what I'm getting pretty much beforehand so I'm happy to plunk down my $100 and hack away...Maybe you can try to make the same argument about Minimalism as being a predictable product, but the ethos of taking what the land will give you sort of works against that argument don't you think?

Jud,

You make too many generalizations about Fazio.  First, in all the Fazio courses I have played, there is more variation than your post (or this board) gives him credit for.  Second, you presume that he ships plans off and never visits construction.  My understanding is that they don't use computers (they may now) and do assign a full time (or nearly so) field guy to construction, not unlike Doak assigning Jim Urbina to Old Mac.  And I think a Tom Marzolf, if not Faz himself also visits a lot.  Lastly, while the shapers are not under Fazio's employ, I think he works with contractors familiar with his work, he has say in shapers, and his group is well known for making repeated field changes (in some stories, down to an inch change in the fw) to get what they want.  Faz doesn't draw real detailed plans and most of their work is done in the field, just like a "real minimalist" even if their style is completely different.

His associate has chosen a false argument to make.  As TD suggests, here are the two most successful (commercially and artistically) gca styles of the last 20 years or so.  One has been started in some ways as a direct reaction to the other and is making traction.  The Fazio proponent seems to realize that, but perhaps is clinging at straws a bit in his arguments.

TD mentioned earlier that maybe everything is a reaction to Old Tom (Morris, not Fazio) but I don't think most gca's go back that far!  Dye was a reaction to RTJ.  RTJ was a reaction to something, although it may have been technology and a sense of modernism that seemed to prevail right after WWII.  The GA guys were a reaction to geometric design, etc.

[Matthew Hunt]

Aiming to better than average is not elitism, but progress and in effect normal. I hit top of my year in a very good school for politics last year talking (ie Bluffing ) largely about the corrosive affect elitism has on American and British society and I can’t see anything elitist about minimalism. However the membership of some of the clubs and courses to which minimalism draws inspiration from that’s another story…

“Populism is the worst form of elitism”. The framers of the US constitution got this but it seems the many in today’s world don’t. (Insert own caption here depending o political opinion: ie Obama’s ‘change’/ The Tea Party/ Fox News being so bad it is almost funny)

[archie_struthers]

 


Having built one golf course that is certainly not minimalist,  my taste  leans to simple , uncontrived holes that use the land as it sits.   What I don't understand is when one immmediately discounts anything other than minimalist as bad , without appreciating the shot values , walkability and designers strategy !

[John Moore II]

I recently had dinner with a former senior designer with the most non-minimalist golf course architect in the nation.  In talking about architecture and courses, and with me pluging for the philosophy of taking the land as you find it, moving the least amount of dirt possible, using the contours that the land gives you, etc., he gave the opinion that that philosophy was "elitist."  He said that you are given a piece of land by a developer/owner and are charged with building the best course you can on that given land.  He said that to argue against this would deprive certain areas and people of good courses since there is only so much good land in the country.  And that it was elitist to knock architecture that, while contrived to some degree, built an acceptable course on inferior land. 
He used the Madison Club in Palm Desert as an example.  The land given to the architect was totally flat with no contour.  He said that in his opinion the acclaimed modern minimalist architects could not have built a good course on that land, but that by moving dirt to an extreme amount, an acceptable course was built.  In his opinion, only "elitists" would criticize such a course.
How would you answer this argument?

I'm not sure that elitist is the right word, but some word can certainly apply here. Certainly anyone who thinks that only minimalist designers can build good courses has a narrow view of golf, in my opinion. Good and even outstanding golf courses can be built by all designers, minimal or otherwise. Same with bad golf courses; they can be designed by all. So, in that way, I think to narrow your mind to such a degree that only one type is acceptable is, while maybe not elitist, at the very least foolish.

[Bill Brightly]

John,

I don't think minimalists are saying "non-minimalists" have built bad courses. Rather, the thread was started by a non-minimalist taking a shot at a different style of construction and finished look that is certainly gaining in popularity. There are 100 threads here debating what gca'ers like about each style. What I find fascinating is how the "non-minimalist" architects react on the ground.

Do they simply yawn and keep building the same way? Or do they alter what they do, especially in renovation work, where I assume the majority of work in the US will be done?

I thought the Chicago Highlands pictures were fascinating. Perhaps you can't go by pictures, but I thought I saw  a minimalist style in Art Hills' work there.

[Adam Clayman]

My understanding is that they don't use computers (they may now) and do assign a full time (or nearly so) field guy to construction, not unlike Doak assigning Jim Urbina to Old Mac. 

Jeff, Small point of correction here. Jim is getting design credit. What makes you think Doak assigned it to him?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I wasn't necessarily referring only to Old Mac, so that was a bad example.  But, TD does put a design associate or two on each site, and I think Faz does the same. (or did the same, back when he had scads of design associates).  And the Faz style of "perfection" (his words, I think) requires just as much on site time as the minimalist style.