So if I understand the majority on this site, eye candy is a bad word, relegating those of us who love drop dead big deep bunkers to the hall of shame and ignorance.
I hereby nominate myself as an honorary member of the Eye Candy Society.
Cary,
As president of the ECS, I hereby accept your nomination. If you require verification of my bona fides, please contact Jeff Brauer; he was present when the famous Redanman installed me in the position for life after I came to Jeff's defense for his alleged use of "eye candy" and directional bunkers at his Cowboys course. The honor, however, came at a considerable cost as Redanman simultaneously rescinded his invitation to play Pine Valley with him in the fall. After several years of waiting for the call, I am beginning to think he was serious! BTW, admittance to the ECS is your second favorite painting (just kidding, though I do admire your work).
Ally,
Those damned "rankers"! Have you considered that those ill-informed folks might actually see a larger population of courses which include scale, boldness, and other things you might call "eye candy" IN ADDITION TO "subtlety"?
Jeffrey Stein,
I think that B & B is a wonderful course and look forward to playing it again, maybe next year. But in your discussion of the routing, the rhythm and flow of the round, have you given any thought to what happens when the wind blows from the north at, say, 30-35 mph and you pile on a score of avg. double bogey on the first 8 holes (you can reverse the scenario). Getting home quickly might be quite a relief! I know, the wind doesn't always blow that hard, and who cares about the scorecard. It is all about shot values, however one chooses to define them.
Out and in routings do have some issues; all courses do, even my beloved Cypress Point. If the owners/members/customers have the money, what is wrong with "eye candy"? Or is the suggestion that "eye candy" and subtlety/superior design principles are mutually exclusive?
It is curious how the unwashed crowds at famous museums are usually bursting out of the door. Can beauty/"eye candy" not have function? Is observation not participation? Is appreciation of beauty not physical at some level?
As Tom Doak points out, there is a large increase in the number of golf course photographers (not that it doesn't have much to do with changes in the medium and channels of distribution- digital technology and the internet- as opposed to the unsophisticated tastes of the golfing masses with too much money in their pockets). Beauty does sell. Might we wish to take ourselves a little bit less seriously (to think that our sensibilities and discernment are somehow superior)? After all, Golf is a big world.