Kelly Blake Moran:
I think architects should be allowed to criticise other work but I am uncertain if it needs to be done as a public service, or as you say in a way that everyone benefits. Writers do critique other writer's work, but I bet if you study them they are pretty soft on each other, with some exceptions. I think the exceptions are when two cultures clash, when two people from very different philosophical islands collide.
I agree that critiques are a good way of identifying and exploring the clash of cultures. It seems to me that golf architecture is long overdue for this type of "colliding" critique.
But peer review is certainly not limited to "writers" and practitioners/critics are very seldom easy on each other. Scientists, academics, doctors, lawyers, philosophers, sociologists, and those in just about every other profession which is potentially cutting edge continually face candid public criticism from their colleagues. It is expected and welcome and seen as a necessary tool by which the genre is advanced. Sure they aren't necessarily outwardly rude to each other, but their criticisms can be pretty biting nonetheless. And this isnt just criticisms from different schools. Some of the best discussions in any genre involve hashing out the details even when many of the basic tenants are common.
I can not imagine many hands-on architects having the time to review other architects work and submit copy. Do you really want your favorite architect leaving their work to others in the company because they have a critics job with a mag?
This seems a cop-out to me. I expect that architects have a vested interest in knowing what is out there if only to better perform their own work. Also there are a lot of architects out there. If 12 architects wrote reviews for a magazine, that would only be 1 course a year. If 24 wrote reviews, that is only one course every two years. I don't think that one review every year or two is much to expect from those who are supposed to be at the cutting edge of their profession.
Plus, I would think it would be in the interest for aspiring architects to write reviews if only to give them access to an audience and increase their name recognition. But you would be better situated to comment on this than me.
And how important is it to you in LA to read a Doak review of a Rees course in Florida? How does that serve the public good? Does that really enrich your life? I think you know what you get when a Ree course opens. I mean there is a corporate culture, a creative culture within every company, particularly the big guys and I bet from job to job it shows in a way that you can almost predict what you will see before you even arrive at the course, so what good is an analysis by another architect of the course.
How important is it to me? Who cares? I am not talking about me but about the golfers, developers, club members/ potential club members, and anyone who might pick up a magazine. The vast majority of these people have either never heard of Rees Jones or (1) know him as the "Open Doctor" and (2) have only heard what the television/magazine commentators have said about him as the "Open Doctor." I doubt that this creates much of a complete picture of his work. So I think a candid Doak review of a Rees Jones' course would be enlightening to a much broader audience than just me. As for me, I'd read it and probably buy the magazine, even if I wasnt going to be on a plane.
Now it would be helpful if the analysis used the course to better illustrate the big ideas that drive that architect rather than to do a hole by hole critique. Again, use the critique to illustrate the cultural or creative divides.
I agree but you are never going to get this until people start being frank and backing up their opinions.
I don't get this need for everyone in the country to know all there is to know about all these courses springing up. I guess it is because like Matt said most of the criticism is in promotion of the course because the course probably bought an ad, or probably paid for the article!! There is no real criticism available in any magazines. There is one I can think of where the architect has a guest column which they use to illuminate architecture using their courses, plus they take out ads in the mag, plus the mag critiques their courses!!! Sweet. No, Matt I am not talking about you so don't go off on me for not naming names.
I didnt say every course, I said courses of note. I think there have been enough courses of note built in the last 100 years to keep us busy enough so that we need not worry about "every course springing up" for quite some time.
I know there is very little real criticism in the magazines. That is what this post is about. As for the magazines being beholden to the courses, I dont understand this and am not really convinced that this need be the case. But that might be another thread all together.
And if you have the opportunity to see and play the course what value does someone else's opinion have over your own opinion? Again, some value can be gained if that opinion delves into the corporate culture that produces these course, but you never see that type of analysis. It is not just the particular course that needs a hard look by an expert critic, it is the corporate culture that needs illumination, the big ideas that drive that architect and his/her company.
I may choose to spend my money elsewhere if a review convinces me that a particular course or particular architect is not my cup of tee. I certainly don't have the resources to play them all and decide for myself, nor do I have the knowledge. I want golf to be a learning experience, where someone gives me a helping hand understanding what I should be looking for in a course. I need a golf docent to appreciate the art I am viewing/playing.
As for your opinion that understanding the "corporate culture" and "big picture" is the key to understanding modern architecture, this sounds like the makings of an interesting review, and it sounds like you have the knowledge and passion to write it.
Why don't you let Doak take your wife for a week and then give you a blow by blow critique of how she was? Is his opinion going to change your opinion of her?
One of my beginning tenants is that it is best to read the review through the personality/style of the reviewer. If I read this sentence alone I would conclude that the writer is an oafish boor who lacks the decorum to avoid tasteless analogies involving my wife. If I had come to this conclusion, I wouldn't give you the courtesy of responding to such a disrespectful display. But, since I am somewhat familiar with you and your writing style from past posts, I will assume that your words were merely thoughtless and that no insult or disrespect was meant. That being said, I'd appreciate it if you leave my family out it your colorful analogies in the future.
_____________________________
Andy and Dan, I am starting another post regarding the link between advertising and reviews.
______________________________________
Darren, I'd like to see that, but you might you'll need more pages if you plan on TEPaul contributing.
I'd prefer to see something more mainstream though, so as to reach out to those that don't know what the hell we are talking about.