Re: How Much of Ross' 407 Can We Trust?
« Reply #15 on: Today at 12:29:11 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: Tom_Doak on Today at 09:30:13 AM
The answer to the original post's question is, who knows?
My question is, why do we care so much about accreditation? Isn't the real question whether the course turned out well, or not? There is some b.s. assumption that if Ross made one visit, then it must be good ... and if he didn't, it must not be. That's what all the signature designers want you to believe.
What would we say about a project if Jack Nicklaus only visited the site one time?
But again, what difference would it really make? Either the course is great, or good, or it isn't. The result doesn't always coincide with the number of visits by the principal.
Seems like we're talking about two different kinds of accreditation in this thread. The first, addressed by Tom, is figuring out the extent of the involvement of the architect. The second is actually getting the right architect's name associated with certain work.
I can appreciate the thought that we shouldn't care that much about how much time was spent on a project, if the work turned out well. But I do think that figuring out who exactly is responsible for that work is important.
Sven
Tom and Sven,
There are indeed two issues being discussed in this thread: attribution (who made it?) and aesthetics (how good is it?).
The attribution issue we're looking at in this thread is not unlike the one Renaissance literary scholars have been pursuing for centuries: who wrote the plays of William Shakespeare? How many did he write? Did he write the whole work himself or with collaborators? Or did he merely aid some other author or director, unknown or unknown, to get his play onto the stage. Because of the greatness of both artists, these questions are very important; and accurate attribution has real significance for the artists' legacies as well as for aesthetic appreciation.
A related matter that we give far less attention to, even as we acknowledge the value of their work, is how much Hatch or McGovern or Maples (or anyone else) is there in a Ross course? We all know that Ross often made his architectural drawings from topographical maps, then essentially turned the construction of the course over to one of his people or the crews employed by his clients. In such instances, the number of visits he made to the site is of little consequence. What the builders made of the site once they got their feet and equipment on the ground basically determined what the course would become and how fine it would be to play.
To go back to the Shakespeare analogy, the author prepared a text, but after he died, every Shakespeare play presented in theaters and on film, became the creation of the directors or actors who realized, in action, on the stage, the artist's text, the theatrical counterpart of the architect's drawings, if you will. We hear of Joseph Papp's Tempest or Olivier's Hamlet, but never of McGovern's Aronimink or Maples' Raleigh Country Club, for example.
A satisfactory resolution of the attribution issue raised in this thread must encompass, I feel, a list of the architects who both supported Ross in building his original design, and those whose significant modifications enabled the course's evolution into its contemporary form. By "significant modifications," I do not mean course maintenance matters such as installing irrigation, rebuilding bunkers and resurfacing greens with newer clones of traditional grasses. After considering these matters, it will be possible to answer, for each design, how much Ross there remains in the individual golf courses. Then, and only then, will we be able to write down, as on any golf scorecard, the true number Ross accomplished in his life's work.
The aesthetic issue then will become whether or not the evolved or redesigned course maintained or enhanced or eviscerated the original Ross design.