Did Seth Raynor have an artistic bone in his body?

[TEPaul]

Humphrey Repton was a novice in golf course architecture!


(Maybe he coulda been a contenda but he was born too early!   On the other hand, if he'd only listened to his predecessor Lancelot "Capability" Brown who was born even earlier he might've learned the basic English LA Serpentine line or even if he'd listened to that Philadelphia insurance man a century later he might've been able to do something as unengineered looking as Merion East! But Prince Puckler, now there was a man with some raw talent who they say always wanted to be a GCA but the art form didn't exist when he was arranging ponds and walls and trees).

[Tom MacWood]

Did he ever create or did he just use the same holes over and over....I don't know ..just asking....

You don't know? I would have thought you would have known that answer before starting such an incendiary thread. Raynor created and he used/re-used a number of templates, and he did it on a remarkably diverse combination of settings: low country wetlands, parkland, mountain, ocean front, lakeside, etc. No one took better advantage of the natural attributes of a site, and that takes some artistry in my opinion.

[Sean_A]

Did he ever create or did he just use the same holes over and over....I don't know ..just asking....

No one took better advantage of the natural attributes of a site, and that takes some artistry in my opinion.

Hhmm, pretty tall statement.  Care to back it up in any way?

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

I'd back it up by saying Raynor had two major advantages over most of his contemporaries: 1) an extraordinary number of naturally blessed sites 2) a design style (and construction style) that allowed him to place his greens, tees, fairways just about any where he chose on a site...in other words as close to the best natural features as he wished.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:

Personally I don't think of the ability to route a course as being "artistic".  It is more a form of engineering ... particularly on hilly sites where it is akin to finding the path of least resistance. 

In fact, that's why I think a lot of golf course architects are not particularly good at routing.  The landscape architecture curriculum seems to clash with engineering in many ways, and you often see projects that the l.a. would say were "ruined by engineering," mainly because the l.a. had failed to come up with a design where the necessary engineering wouldn't look out of place.  The ability to think about both at once is not very common.

[Mike Sweeney]

I'd back it up by saying Raynor had two major advantages over most of his contemporaries: 1) an extraordinary number of naturally blessed sites 2) a design style (and construction style) that allowed him to place his greens, tees, fairways just about any where he chose on a site...in other words as close to the best natural features as he wished.

I would add on to Tom's thought here and say that when he did not have a great site, his engineering skills kicked in and turned holes into very unique holes. See #14 at Yale, The Knoll.

Look at the comparison of Yale and Mountain Lake. Yale has wild terrain, ML mild. Yale today has 1 true fairway bunker (more in the original, but not many) because he used the terrain. Mountain Lake has many fairway bunkers due to the Florida terrain.

He did what he needed to do to make it interesting.

In general, I feel like most of his engineering skills were used at greensites rather than fairways where he used the terrain for the most part. He probably was NOT very artistic which is why in general (but not always), I prefer CB Mac involved courses over Raynor alone courses. CB Mac added a flair to the process.

[John Mayhugh]

Plenty artistic enough for my tastes.

[Jud_T]

Anyone who's ever seen Shoreacres knows the obvious answer to this question.

[George Pazin]

Mike...

I am sooooo with you.  I've only played one Raynor (and another he worked on with CBM) and I have LOVED the golf.  But the courses don't look natural at all.  And the pictures of other courses of his don't look natural at all.  But again, they look like fun golf.  Just awkward looking.





Geometric looking features with harsh angles and edges.  I don't get it.  Again, fun golf...but if we harp so much on natural courses...what gives?

Maybe not natural, but sure looks pretty damn artistic to me. So much so that I have a hard time seeing how anyone could say otherwise.

I work with different levels of art every day - from hand drawn napkins to computer designs created by people with expensive degrees and years of experience. It's pretty obvious to me who has talent and who doesn't, but then again, it's so subjective that maybe the real differences lie within me.

Here's one thing I know: you can walk around MoMA and see things that seemingly could be done by anyone, yet are generally only accomplished by a rare few. Figure that one out and you'll see the artist within Raynor.

[Phil Benedict]

This has nothing to do with artistic merit but one thing that's interesting about Raynor is his evident popularity with the wealthy suburban class of his time.  Almost all of his courses are private and many are in upscale places.  It's not like he didn't have competition - it was the Golden Age, after all - but there must have been some cache associated with his name.  

[PCCraig]

This has nothing to do with artistic merit but one thing that's interesting about Raynor is his evident popularity with the wealthy suburban class of his time.  Almost all of his courses are private and many are in upscale places.  It's not like he didn't have competition - it was the Golden Age, after all - but there must have been some cache associated with his name.  

Was it his name, or Macdonald's? In George B.'s book he notes that in Macdonald's later life he referred all of his business to Raynor.

[Tom_Doak]

This has nothing to do with artistic merit but one thing that's interesting about Raynor is his evident popularity with the wealthy suburban class of his time.  Almost all of his courses are private and many are in upscale places.  It's not like he didn't have competition - it was the Golden Age, after all - but there must have been some cache associated with his name.  

Phil:  Pat has it right.  It wasn't cachet ... it was referrals.  Though it wasn't all from Macdonald.

Years ago a superintendent at one of the Raynor golf clubs told me I didn't understand how cheap his membership was.  I told him he was wrong, I understood perfectly, because they were the cousins and siblings and in-laws of the members at all the other Raynor clubs we consult for!

[PCCraig]

This has nothing to do with artistic merit but one thing that's interesting about Raynor is his evident popularity with the wealthy suburban class of his time.  Almost all of his courses are private and many are in upscale places.  It's not like he didn't have competition - it was the Golden Age, after all - but there must have been some cache associated with his name.  

Phil:  Pat has it right.  It wasn't cachet ... it was referrals.  Though it wasn't all from Macdonald.

Tom:

Who else was a source of referrals for Raynor? 

[Sean_A]

Mike...

I am sooooo with you.  I've only played one Raynor (and another he worked on with CBM) and I have LOVED the golf.  But the courses don't look natural at all.  And the pictures of other courses of his don't look natural at all.  But again, they look like fun golf.  Just awkward looking.





Geometric looking features with harsh angles and edges.  I don't get it.  Again, fun golf...but if we harp so much on natural courses...what gives?

Maybe not natural, but sure looks pretty damn artistic to me. So much so that I have a hard time seeing how anyone could say otherwise.

I work with different levels of art every day - from hand drawn napkins to computer designs created by people with expensive degrees and years of experience. It's pretty obvious to me who has talent and who doesn't, but then again, it's so subjective that maybe the real differences lie within me.

Here's one thing I know: you can walk around MoMA and see things that seemingly could be done by anyone, yet are generally only accomplished by a rare few. Figure that one out and you'll see the artist within Raynor.

Yep, looks good, but how many times do we need to look at the same stuff?  This is the basic problem with riding rough shod over-naturalism in gca.  It ain't hard to get painted into a corner.  Okay, so 40 years ago, before the PC and the internet, Raynor walks away cleanly because very people get to see a decent cross section of his work.  I still think it works today because there aren't all that many Raynors about and the man was about creating shots.  However, for me, architecture at its best is more than just about the shots.  If we are talking artistic, I have to throw originality into the mix and atention to details.  This is why I think Raynor comes up a few pennies short of the best archies in terms of artistic expression.  An engineer had an idea and likely wisely stuck with it. No harm, no foul.  But to go on about Rayanor's artistry is beyond the pale.

Ciao  

[Keith OHalloran]

Sean,
Would you be willing to share some of the architects  that you do feel are artistic? I think it will help me in understanding your point of view. Thanks

[Sean_A]

Sean,
Would you be willing to share some of the architects  that you do feel are artistic? I think it will help me in understanding your point of view. Thanks

Keith

Colt, Alison, Simpson, Dr Mac, Ross, Thomas, Doak, C&C etc etc. I would even throw Fowler in there just becasue of his reluctance to tart up a property with shaping (whereas Raynor shaped the shit out of his courses, but didn't really tart up his properties).  I would venture to guess all were more orignal than Raynor as well.  This doesn't mean Raynor wasn't good, he was, but in a more niche fashion than most of the other famous archies of the golden age.  I probably sound quite harsh, but that isn't the intention.  Raynor intrigues me more than most archies despite his peculiar style, not because of it.  Plus, its not something I am gonna get to see often so it will always have that fresh feeling for me.  However, I think on a weekly basis, I would need something which works with nature a bit better.  

Ciao  

[Keith OHalloran]

Thanks Sean,
I find it interesting that you have included some of the modern guys that people associate with a minimalistic style. It seems that they would have a way to artistically create a course while "creating" very little, or to say it more appropriately, they give the impression  that they created very little. At the same time, Raynor "manufactures" courses that are highly regarded and even though the courses are great, the fact that he "created" them is seen as less artistic.
I guess the art is in the details.

[Jud_T]

Sean,

Which Raynor's have you played?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Which Raynor's have you played?


Good question.

Sean, which Raynor courses have you played ?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Good question. You've certainly played enough Macdonald and Raynor courses and I sure have too. Would you say you can see any differences or distinctions between a Macdonald/Raynor course or style and just a straight Raynor course and style, and if so what do you think those differences and distinctions are or were?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Good question. You've certainly played enough Macdonald and Raynor courses and I sure have too. Would you say you can see any differences or distinctions between a Macdonald/Raynor course or style and just a straight Raynor course and style, and if so what do you think those differences and distinctions are or were?

TEPaul,

I'll address you question after Sean lets us know which Raynor courses he's played.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Why? My question to you has nothing at all to do with your question to Sean Arble. By the way, Patrick, did you ever play the old Links GC? If you did tell me what you thought about it. Macdonald never said much about it but he sure did have plenty to do with it, and not just with doing it but also afterwards (for instance he apparently adamantly refused to let the club use rakes or have any). There may be a good reason he never said much about it in his book which might be part of the same reason he never said much about The Creek Club. By the way, that seminal blowout meeting over The Creek Club and its problem holes happened at a Creek Club board meeting at The Links Club in NYC! If you read the meeting minutes it isn't hard to tell the walls were virtually rocking! Macdonald resigned from The Creek Club shortly afterwards, giving as his reason that he wanted to go to his cottage in Bermuda and write his book by which I suppose he meant he wouldn't be around much. A few months later they made him an honorary member. 

[George Pazin]

Yep, looks good, but how many times do we need to look at the same stuff?  This is the basic problem with riding rough shod over-naturalism in gca.  It ain't hard to get painted into a corner.  Okay, so 40 years ago, before the PC and the internet, Raynor walks away cleanly because very people get to see a decent cross section of his work.  I still think it works today because there aren't all that many Raynors about and the man was about creating shots.  However, for me, architecture at its best is more than just about the shots.  If we are talking artistic, I have to throw originality into the mix and atention to details.  This is why I think Raynor comes up a few pennies short of the best archies in terms of artistic expression.  An engineer had an idea and likely wisely stuck with it. No harm, no foul.  But to go on about Rayanor's artistry is beyond the pale.

Ciao  

Some artists embrace originality, others prefer to refine their style.

At any rate, I don't see many excessively praising Raynor's artistry, going beyond the pale, placing him at the top when it comes to architect's artistry. The question was, did he have an artistic bone in his body. Sure seems like he had more than one to me.

[George_Bahto]

well guys, thanks

I guess I do not have to finsih the Seth Raynor book after all  - perhaps you guys have done it for me

interesting responses

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:

Why? My question to you has nothing at all to do with your question to Sean Arble. By the way, Patrick, did you ever play the old Links GC? If you did tell me what you thought about it. Macdonald never said much about it but he sure did have plenty to do with it, and not just with doing it but also afterwards (for instance he apparently adamantly refused to let the club use rakes or have any).

Tom P: 

I played The Links GC with P.B. Dye in 1985 when we were starting to do the work at Piping Rock.  We must have been some of the last "visitors" to play the course.

Luckily, I also arranged [through Jim Albus and a couple of members of The Links who were also members of Piping Rock] to get permission to take pictures of The Links before they bulldozed it.  I think they are the only set of photos of the golf course around, because when I'd first gotten a tour of the place, the superintendent told me that they didn't allow photographs, because Mr. Macdonald didn't think photos did justice to the course.  I only mention that because your post suggested that Macdonald had a falling out at The Links, but it seemed that he had influence there long after his death, because all of the staff remembered him personally.