Does minimalism really matter to anyone

[Ben Sims]

Patrick,

It's an interesting question and I find myself defending minimalism to un-washed friends quite a bit.  My answer is usually multi-faceted and complex.  That sucks because I think most philisophical differences in art/style should be attributal to a simple, overiding theme.  

So if I had to make a stab at your question in a simple--since you went to Notre Dame--manner, I say that it is a matter of beliefs.  I believe that mother nature makes the most interesting ground.  I beleive that she is most apt to create the most efficient means of moving water across land.  I think she is more than capable of adding interest where the hand of man would add crude elements.  However, I understand the need for disturbing the natural environment to create golf surfaces.  So in keeping with what I wrote earlier, I think it matters how efficiently and quietly the hand of man moves across the land.  Seemlessly meshing the need for creating interesting golf surfaces with what already exists is at the height of the profession.  The best know how to make even straight lines and angles look like they somehow belong in the environment.  This is why NGLA--though certainly not minimalist from a feature perspective--looks as though it sits well with what mother nature started.

[Anthony Butler]

I don't think a course should be JUDGED based on whether it's minimalist or not ... in the end, the only thing that matters is what you've given the golfer to play.  But I do think you're more likely to give him something good if you give him as much of the natural character of the site as possible.

Brad Klein said something interesting last week at Paramount about evaluating a golf course along the lines of how well it reflects the unique natural qualities of its location. To the degree that a designer can 'improve' on those qualities, that can be a matter of deciding what to retain rather than add.  

[George Freeman]

I believe that mother nature makes the most interesting ground.  I beleive that she is most apt to create the most efficient means of moving water across land.  I think she is more than capable of adding interest where the hand of man would add crude elements.  However, I understand the need for disturbing the natural environment to create golf surfaces.  So in keeping with what I wrote earlier, I think it matters how efficiently and quietly the hand of man moves across the land.  Seemlessly meshing the need for creating interesting golf surfaces with what already exists is at the height of the profession.  The best know how to make even straight lines and angles look like they somehow belong in the environment.  This is why NGLA--though certainly not minimalist from a feature perspective--looks as though it sits well with what mother nature started.

Great stuff Ben!  I couldn't agree more.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It might support that premise if you're loooking for black and white answers, save for two previous statements from the professionals implicit in my post: Tom D's point that "you're more likely to give him something good if you give him as much of the natural character of the site as possible", and JC's point about how his minimalist experiences helped him, after years of being away from the dirt moving model, to "find ways to be more creative with the dirt." In other words, as I hoped my post clearly suggested, in the right hands and with the right land the minimalist approach/ethos will bear good fruit, and will indeed be made manifest on the ground (as oppossed to in theory only).

But, Peter, your qualifiers are so bogus.

The "right land"

What's the wrong land, Shadow Creek ?  Lido ? Yale ? Streamsong ?

You can't insert "The right land"

You have to take the land the architect is given, not the land he'd like.

Some land may be better than others, but, you have to accept the hand/land you're dealt.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

It's an interesting question and I find myself defending minimalism to un-washed friends quite a bit.  My answer is usually multi-faceted and complex.  That sucks because I think most philisophical differences in art/style should be attributal to a simple, overiding theme.  

So if I had to make a stab at your question in a simple--since you went to Notre Dame--manner, I say that it is a matter of beliefs.  I believe that mother nature makes the most interesting ground.  I beleive that she is most apt to create the most efficient means of moving water across land.  I think she is more than capable of adding interest where the hand of man would add crude elements.  However, I understand the need for disturbing the natural environment to create golf surfaces.  So in keeping with what I wrote earlier, I think it matters how efficiently and quietly the hand of man moves across the land.  Seemlessly meshing the need for creating interesting golf surfaces with what already exists is at the height of the profession.  The best know how to make even straight lines and angles look like they somehow belong in the environment.  This is why NGLA--though certainly not minimalist from a feature perspective--looks as though it sits well with what mother nature started.

I hear you, but, this is more fantasy than reality.

Take Old Marsh, Shadow Creek, Lido, The Medalist, Streamsong.

Now tell me about the bounties that Nature has provided

There seems to be an assumption that the land the architect is handed is perfect for golf, but, we know that today, that's not true, for a variety of reasons.

If a superior product is produced, does it matter, other than the cost to the developer, how it's produced ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

PPallotta,

Your statement:

What's actually on the ground says it all would support the premise that minimalism is mostly irrelevant if the product is superior?

Not if "minimalism" is the best methodology for a producing superior product on a quality site.

But, how do you know that ?

Did "minimalism" produce the best product at NGLA ?

Absolutely NOT.

I don't think that the creative process works like a multiple choice quiz.

On this hole, I'll go:

A      Minimalism
B      Moderate Construction
C      Heavy Construction
D      Some of the above
E      All of the above

It would seem, that if the developer gives the architect an unlimited budget, that the architect is going to try to improve the holes/features moreso than if he's given a limited budget.

So, doesn't an enhanced budget lead to more creativity on the architect's part,

OR, does it lead to cookie cutter design ?

Or, a combination of both ?

 

[Ben Sims]

Patrick,

It's an interesting question and I find myself defending minimalism to un-washed friends quite a bit.  My answer is usually multi-faceted and complex.  That sucks because I think most philisophical differences in art/style should be attributal to a simple, overiding theme.  

So if I had to make a stab at your question in a simple--since you went to Notre Dame--manner, I say that it is a matter of beliefs.  I believe that mother nature makes the most interesting ground.  I beleive that she is most apt to create the most efficient means of moving water across land.  I think she is more than capable of adding interest where the hand of man would add crude elements.  However, I understand the need for disturbing the natural environment to create golf surfaces.  So in keeping with what I wrote earlier, I think it matters how efficiently and quietly the hand of man moves across the land.  Seemlessly meshing the need for creating interesting golf surfaces with what already exists is at the height of the profession.  The best know how to make even straight lines and angles look like they somehow belong in the environment.  This is why NGLA--though certainly not minimalist from a feature perspective--looks as though it sits well with what mother nature started.

I hear you, but, this is more fantasy than reality.

Take Old Marsh, Shadow Creek, Lido, The Medalist, Streamsong.

Now tell me about the bounties that Nature has provided

There seems to be an assumption that the land the architect is handed is perfect for golf, but, we know that today, that's not true, for a variety of reasons.

If a superior product is produced, does it matter, other than the cost to the developer, how it's produced ?

That's a highbrow position I think.  My position isn't that a site like that at Shadow Creek has a natural bounty.  Or that land is perfect for golf in all cases.  My position is that a superior product is directly proportional to how natural and subtle the course is created.  In the case of a place like Shadow Creek or Rawls Course, one is very homogenous with its environment, one clearly isn't.  That's the difference.  I don't give a hoot about how much dirt gets moved.  But I care a lot about how professionally that dirt was moved and how it matches the environment.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

The reason minimalism is important is that it gives the designer the best chance of producing the best product.  But minimalism as a methodology has to viewed on a continuum where the site dictates the appropriate level of disruption to the natural setting. Much of the creativity comes in finding the golf course.

You say that "minimalism" didn't produce NGLA.  I both agree and disagree.   NGLA may not be "minimalist" when it comes to construction of some of the greens, but it certainly was "minimalist" when compared to the Lido.

As CBM found out at Lido, "playing creator" may be impossible to resist, but it isn't as easy as it sounds and it is less likely to produce a sustainable masterpiece for the ages.  History has shown that it is much more efficient to find a great golf course then tweak the site to make it all work, than it is is to create a something out of nothing.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - I must not be making myself clear. You're right, the architect has to take the land that is given him. My notion is that "minimalism matters" to the extent that/because a committed and talented and experienced minimalist will a) on a site that is excellent/interesting produce a course that most and best honours the land's natural features and contours while also providing for an excellent test/experience of golf, thereby hiding the hand of man to the greatest extent possible (a good, in my view) and taking advantage of the kind/nature/quality of features and landforms that Mother Nature uniquely provides; and b) on a so-called inferior site, will be able and willing to "see" (discern, intuit, appreciate) better than a 'maximalist' or half-hearted minimalist landforms with the potential to serve as excellent golfing features in their natural state, and thus again deriving the most advantage (aesthetically and playability-wise) from Mother Nature's unique genius (a genius, it's important to note, that doesn't end at the course's property boundaries and so allows for the golfer to drive through the surrounding countryside and then arrive at the course and see/feel that the course and the countryside are of one piece, hewed from the same basic cloth.) When i wrote that the proof is on the ground, I meant only the 'proof' of whether or not an architect who calls himself a minimalist actually is one, and whether he/she is any good.

Peter       

[Tags:]

Tags: