Can we change Minimalism to Naturalism?

[Ian Andrew]

min·i·mal·ism (mn-m-lzm)
n.

2. Use of the fewest and barest essentials or elements, as in the arts, literature, or design.

Everyone uses the catch phrase "Minimalism" to describe the work of a particular group of architects. Yet it's such a poorly coined phrase to descibe the movement since many of the projects involve major manipulations of the land even if well hidden from the player. Yet all their work is lumped together based upon an aesthetic quality.

Why the hell did we not end up with a more accurate phrase such Naturalism or Naturalistic as a description of the movement since much of what drew our attention was an aesthetics quality. I do believe there is something deeper to the architecture, but I'd hardly call that Minimalistic either since its about options and alternatives.

What I struggle with most is when I occasionally talk about a minimalistic approach to working on a site, largely based around an enviornmental approach to design and it's always mistaken for an aesthetic appearance rather than an working approach.

I hate the phrase, always have, always will ...

[Bill Brightly]

Ian,

I see your point and I'll support the change. But could it be that "naturalism" has other well-known meanings?

Definition: naturalism
 
Part of Speech Definition
Noun 1. (philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations.[Wordnet]
2. An artistic movement in 19th century France; artists and writers strove for detailed realistic and factual description.[Wordnet]
3. A state of nature; conformity to nature.[Websters]
4. The doctrine of those who deny a supernatural agency in the miracles and revelations recorded in the Bible, and in spiritual influences; also, any system of philosophy which refers the phenomena of nature to a blind force or forces acting necessarily or according to fixed laws, excluding origination or direction by one intelligent will.[Websters].

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:

I understand what you are saying, but the bottom line is that trying to describe anyone's design philosophy in a single word is always doomed to failure.  As you note, too, most people mistake the look of certain courses with a design philosophy, though the same philosophy could yield a way different aesthetic on a different site. 

"Minimalism" is a far from perfect term, but I fear that "Naturalism" will be equally misunderstood.  Look at the bright side:  at least they don't call it "links-style" anymore.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian - not to try to change your mind on the hate thing , but a few years ago I had a thread about M vs N, in which I equated N with F (i.e. freedom).  An architect outlined some general goals/prinicples which I assume others share.  I paraphrase, and bold:

One of the most important skills in golf construction is to blend in the edges of where one has worked so it's hard to discern where the artificial work started.  Ultimately, the reason that's so important is that if the golfer can't tell what is natural or artificial, then in theory the golfer will have unlimited options as to how to play any hole, instead of one or more which have been obviously prescribed by the architect.  One even takes it to the level of trying to blur where the mowing lines stop, because even THAT sets limits on where a golfer might be supposed to play.  We can't afford to maintain an unlimited amount of fairway, but we can try to make it LOOK that way.

Which is to say, I think the GOALS of N and the APPROACH that is M sometimes align very well, but not always and not necessarily so -- and especially not if the IDEAL is F.

I go back and forth in my own mind. Sometimes I want N and F at any costs; but sometimes I want to know in my heart of hearts that the land is as close to its original state as possible, and the M has ruled the day.

Peter

[Brian Ross]

Ian,

I have been thinking about this recently as well.  When speaking to my advisor a couple of weeks ago, I used the word minimalism to refer to some aspects in the development of my thesis project.  She took a similar stance to yours, stating that there is nothing minimalist about developing something on a former surface coal mine, no matter how lay of the land my proposed plan would be.  She advised using the word "responsible" as opposed to "minimal" to refer to the type of development I was proposing.  Having thought about this since then, I believe there is some merit to using the word "responsible" to describe the movement we have come to know as Minimalism. 

But, as Tom already noted, it is silly to try and describe a design philosophy in one word and responsible is far too broad a word to try and define a movement with.  Let's just be happy that golf development "seems" to be trending in the right direction! 

[Bill Brightly]

Ian, I thought you had a shot when I saw that Peter weighed in...

[David Harshbarger]

I'd go with "Enlightened Pragmatism."  

Make the best (most fun?) course possible based on the needs of the target market
Accentuate the unique characteristics of the site
Do so efficiently with both the build budget
...and the maintenance budget

In some cases, that might mean manufacturing everything.  In others, just cutting the grass and cutting the pins.  In either case, the art is making it fun, and if reasonable expenses are required to amp the fun factor while ensuring sustainability, it would be malpractice not to do so.

[Bill Brightly]

I'd go with "Enlightened Pragmatism."  

That got nixed by the sales and marketing department

[Peter Pallotta]

I'd go with "Enlightened Pragmatism."  

That got nixed by the sales and marketing department

   Those damn marketing departments! They've been the ruin of many a great idea....

Bill -- if my post has any value, it was because I quoted almost verbatim a well-established voice on this site, which voice isn't mine.  (I think Ian is weighing whether or not to shoot me down, but he can't until he figures out who the un-named source is!! Clever, i thought...)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jay Morrish once suggested that he was a "necessitilist".

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,
I have always disliked the term Minimalism but Naturalism has too many other connotations as Bill Brightly indicated.

Frugalism...........  that should do it. The School of Frugality.

I have just conceived these somewhat ugly, but apt, words  out of necessity! It is hard to imagine pleasing aesthetics coming out of the school of thought manacled with the above moniker but time will tell!

It appeals to this lad's heritage to boot!

In all seriousness I do not think it too bad a description.

Cheers Colin

[Mike Nuzzo]

Jay Morrish once suggested that he was a "necessitilist".

Most architects say they have a minimalist approach and everyone says that they work with the land.
But in practice I often see a huge pile of dirt to build a tee because it was on the plans even though there was a perfectly suited land form just a dozen yards away and it also would have hid the cart path.

I wish clients wouldn't believe the hype (M. Young) and check out the work in person (D. Mahaffey).

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I agree in general and specifically about clients hiring on work and qualifications, like Gil recently experienced.

To me the real proof is how much earth is moved on a good golf course holes you like.  I have lots of courses that move around 100,000 CY yards of earth.  No one example of moving, say 400,000 CY proves much about anything.  Sometimes you need to move 400K CY to solve flood or other problems, create good holes, or fit a course in the housing development paying you to create a course to increase their land values.  Not all courses start with high ideals, which can be a problem. 

Don Knott (formerly of Jones, know on his own) had this quote - some of us are minimalist by choice, others by budget! 

I think there are lots of architects out there in our camp of not moving much earth when the opportunity presents itself. 

I also think its a mistake on some sites to move less earth just out of a philosophy of doing so, if it means creating bad holes.  I have seen it happen all ways.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

It always sounds like we're much alike, even though I know we're not.

Can I ask, on your last best project, how many holes did you build where you didn't do any grading in the fairway?  And how many greens did you build at natural grade, without cut or fill being imported?

At Streamsong, we did fairway grading on holes 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14.  Two of those were to create features, two to improve visibility, and two were filled just to get them dry.  But we didn't do any fairway grading on holes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 15, 17 or 18, apart from losing some dirt out of the bunkers.  As to the greens, they're all shaped a bit, but we only took material to one of them, the par-3 10th.  All the rest are pretty much at grade.

[JESII]

Tom,

This is a stupid question, I hope, but does "at grade" mean you just stirred it up and threw some seed in? Or does it mean something else?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

This is a stupid question, I hope, but does "at grade" mean you just stirred it up and threw some seed in? Or does it mean something else?

Jim:

No, there were only a couple of greens where we left the contours pretty much intact.  Those are pretty difficult to come by in this day and age, when a slope of 3% is considered too severe.

We shaped the rest, but all of them with just the material that was right there ... no hauling fill in or out, and generally, cut-and-fill of less than a foot.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - your answer to Jim brings me right to the heart of Ian's post. WHY use only the material right there (no cut and fill etc), and that as a second choice to leaving the ground exactly as you found it? How would YOU characterize that approach -- is it a philosophical choice, an aesthetic one, a practical/cost-saving choice - a combination of all three and more?

Thanks
Peter

[Michael George]

Tom:

Probably more than any architect, you have been linked to the word "minimalism".  This, along with the successful courses that you have designed, certainly has served you extremely well.  However, I think over the last couple of years, the word has been given a meaning of "not moving dirt" instead of many of the concepts that you espoused in "Anatomy".  Based on your posts, I have never gotten the feeling that you have a problem with moving dirt where necessary to have the best golf course.  

I was wondering though whether you think the word "minimalism" (and your link to it) has recently and unfairly hurt your chances to get a job.  For instance, have you ever sought a job where the owner did not hire you because he wrongfully felt that you would not "move any dirt".  



  

[Emile Bonfiglio]

Ian:
I understand what you are saying, but the bottom line is that trying to describe anyone's design philosophy in a single word is always doomed to failure. 

So "Doakasim" is probably off the table then... Such is life, besides I think Colton already used that phrase on his explicit version of "I'm on a Doak" anyways.

[JESII]

Tom,

This is a stupid question, I hope, but does "at grade" mean you just stirred it up and threw some seed in? Or does it mean something else?

Jim:

No, there were only a couple of greens where we left the contours pretty much intact.  Those are pretty difficult to come by in this day and age, when a slope of 3% is considered too severe.

We shaped the rest, but all of them with just the material that was right there ... no hauling fill in or out, and generally, cut-and-fill of less than a foot.

Thanks Tom.


Ian,

I would think each step in this direction is good...even if we're using the worong words.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sam Snead asked what abandoned golf course he was looking at when he first viewed the crucible of architecture, the TOC. What he saw was a traditional golf course, one that could almost be mistaken for a naturally occurring part of its environment. To my way of thinking he unknowingly paid the course the highest of compliments with his remark.
There will never be one perfect word to describe 'minimalism'.  No other school, be it in the arts, literature, building architecture, etc., can be explained by one word, just as one word could never describe to Snead what he was about to experience at TOC.  People interested in GCA will always have to look past the one word descriptors and delve into the philosophy of what minimalism or naturalism are about.
 
   

[Tim Nugent]

How about, Udowhatuhavetodo-ism?

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - a good one, but I think it takes 2nd place to Colin's "Frugalism", which strikes me as ham-fisted and homely enough to be used only sparingly....

Peter

[Randy Thompson]

Ian,
I like it, can I use it in my next interview or marketing ventures or is it already pattened? I wonder what the spanish translation would be, I guess I could just do like Archie Bunker and add an a! Naturalisma! yup, I like it!

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - your answer to Jim brings me right to the heart of Ian's post. WHY use only the material right there (no cut and fill etc), and that as a second choice to leaving the ground exactly as you found it? How would YOU characterize that approach -- is it a philosophical choice, an aesthetic one, a practical/cost-saving choice - a combination of all three and more?

Thanks
Peter

Peter:

I think you made a false assumption above, if you meant to imply that I would always choose to leave the ground exactly as I found it if that was possible [if the grades worked].  My first duty is to make sure the course is interesting to play, and on the majority of holes, that's going to require a bit of manipulation.  If I found a nice, flat site for a green, I wouldn't just take it and build a boring hole.

So, why do I do it the way I do?  I'm not going to go all Max Behr on you here, even though I understand the ethos in what he and MacKenzie wrote about golf being a natural sport.  At the same time, Jim Urbina and I had a few philosophical discussions with Jack Nicklaus on the same topic -- Jack's view being, what difference does it make as long as you build a better golf hole? -- and we never really gave him an answer that we were satisfied with.  I'm well aware nowadays that building a course this way is much more sustainable [I'll get to that in my next post], but that was not the reason I started doing things my way, either. 

I have never really said so in these terms, but I think the reason is because my method is exactly how I imagine all the great courses I admire were built.  St. Andrews and Pine Valley and Merion and Pinehurst No. 2 were all constructed, to one degree or another, but they were done in a day before USGA greens and before we had big machines to haul dirt around the site from one place to the next.  All of the shaping work was confined to small areas, where men [or maybe teams of horses] could dig out the bunkers and use the dirt for contouring right in that area.  It's a very practical approach, which produced some undeniably great results.

It occurred to me after I had worked for Mr. Dye for a while that almost no one built courses that way anymore.  Nearly everyone used big scrapers to move dirt around the site, oblivious to the damage they were doing to the soils en route.  I decided to see if I could go back to the old method.  All of the other benefits that came with it [environmental, aesthetic, practical, budgetary] were just byproducts of that approach that reinforced that I was on the right track.