[Patrick_Mucci]

Rick,

I think the comparison to films is flawed because more often than not the "story" is the creation of a party unrelated to the producer.

Films tend to be more collaborative in terms of input.

With respect to a golf course, I suspect that "THE" routing process, the "story" so to speak, is solely the product of the architect's creativity, and not brought or presented to him by a third party.

The architect is the "Maestro" and the conceptual creator, whereas the producer is often, only the "Maestro" leading the orchestra.

[Steve Burrows]

Though speaking more directly to written literature, the post-structuralist theoretician Roland Barthes argued in 1967 for the "Death of the Author".  He writes, "To give an Author to a text is to impose upon that text a stop clause, to furnish it with a final signification, to close the writing."  His point was that the readers of literature, not the authors, furnish meaning to a text (often in spite of the author's intentions), and that this was/is a positive thing.  

Similarly, Barthes (or any post-modernist) might see the proper attribution of a particular designer to a particular golf course to be unnecessary.  Substitute the phrase "golf course" for his word "text."  It is not WHO designed the course that gives the course meaning or significance, but HOW the course is being received, understood, and played by golfers.  In other words, whether the idea for a given feature on a golf course could be attributed specifically to Tom Doak, for example, or to one of his many talented associates is irrelevant. What is relevant is that such a feature is on the ground and in play for golfers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

I disagree

To negate or denigrate authorship is to deny the genius of creativity

[Peter Pallotta]

An admission: I've found that my desire to study and to know is in direct inverse proportion to the time I spend doing and experiencing. So: I stop trying to learn about God when I'm praying; I stop studying jazz solos when I pick up my clarinet; I stop reading The Five Fundementals when I'm at the golf course; I stop analyzing King Lear when I'm typing a narrative of my own; I stop figuring out how to be a good husband and father when I'm loving my wife and son. Two approaches, both are useful and both are important: the studying-knowing and the doing-experiencing. (Here: Ken, David and Sven on one side; Tom D and Mike Y on the other.) Two areas of focus and attention, two modes of participation -- both valid and postive endeavours, but very different one from the other.

Peter
 

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

That is perhaps true.  

However, Barthes point is that authors must not be placed on pedestals as the sole possessors of either genius or creativity.  These traits are also possessed by readers of literature during the interpretive process, or in our case, by people who play the game, not just those who design the courses.  But if we accept the creative genius of the golf course designer, then we would be forced to deny all of our so-called creativity in the playing of the game.  All of our shot-making decisions on a golf course could no longer be called decisions at all, just mindless responses to lines of play already dictated to us.  

[Jason Thurman]

Though speaking more directly to written literature, the post-structuralist theoretician Roland Barthes argued in 1967 for the "Death of the Author".  He writes, "To give an Author to a text is to impose upon that text a stop clause, to furnish it with a final signification, to close the writing."  His point was that the readers of literature, not the authors, furnish meaning to a text (often in spite of the author's intentions), and that this was/is a positive thing.  

Similarly, Barthes (or any post-modernist) might see the proper attribution of a particular designer to a particular golf course to be unnecessary.  Substitute the phrase "golf course" for his word "text."  It is not WHO designed the course that gives the course meaning or significance, but HOW the course is being received, understood, and played by golfers.  In other words, whether the idea for a given feature on a golf course could be attributed specifically to Tom Doak, for example, or to one of his many talented associates is irrelevant. What is relevant is that such a feature is on the ground and in play for golfers.

+1. Awesome.

[Peter Pallotta]

Though speaking more directly to written literature, the post-structuralist theoretician Roland Barthes argued in 1967 for the "Death of the Author".  He writes, "To give an Author to a text is to impose upon that text a stop clause, to furnish it with a final signification, to close the writing."  His point was that the readers of literature, not the authors, furnish meaning to a text (often in spite of the author's intentions), and that this was/is a positive thing.  

Similarly, Barthes (or any post-modernist) might see the proper attribution of a particular designer to a particular golf course to be unnecessary.  Substitute the phrase "golf course" for his word "text."  It is not WHO designed the course that gives the course meaning or significance, but HOW the course is being received, understood, and played by golfers.  In other words, whether the idea for a given feature on a golf course could be attributed specifically to Tom Doak, for example, or to one of his many talented associates is irrelevant. What is relevant is that such a feature is on the ground and in play for golfers.

+1. Awesome.

Yes, and as good a justification for the GD rankings as I've ever seen. GD should start quoting Barthes as proof that their rating panel gets it right....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

Again, I would disagree.

The "genius" of the design is not in dictating play along predetermined specifics, but in creating a medium that accounts for and accomodates an infinite variety in play.

I wonder, how much of David Suskind's remark about TV programs is attributable to Barthes.

Suskind stated words to the effect that there are no bad TV programs, only bad audiences.

[JESII]

Sounds to me like Barthes is over thinking it...surely someone is the Author/Course Architect/Creator!

I believe what he's trying to say is that because every person is completely different than every other person, there's no way an author can tell me what a book will mean to me...and I've never understood the process of trying to figure out what it meant to them.

Similarly, Tom Doak can't tell me how to play a golf hole...or how I should feel about one of his holes or courses. In the end it is, in fact, his course but I determine what it means to me.

[Rick Shefchik]

Pat, to quickly amend my analogy, I should have compared golf course architects to film directors who write their own stories -- Tarantino and Woody Allen come to mind.

I hope no GCA's here take offense...

[Jason Thurman]

What Barthes is saying is that the author doesn't own the meaning and interpretation of his work. Think of a book like The Bible. All the authors are long dead and the text is often ambiguous, and yet people still find modern application for the text and we're still generating new scholarly theological debates among experts. No one will ever know Moses' intent in writing Genesis, but it continues to carry meaning today.

There's an individual component to that, of course. We all get to interpret it for ourselves. But there's also a cultural interpretation that is more based on what it means to all of us as a collective, but still considering the author's intent irrelevant. It is, in fact, the very lack of knowing the concrete intent of the author that makes the work timeless and unbound by restraints of motive, as debate goes dead if we all agree on the point of a work of art.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, to quickly amend my analogy, I should have compared golf course architects to film directors who write their own stories -- Tarantino and Woody Allen come to mind.

I like that and can live with it.

How about Spielberg and Lucas ?

I hope no GCA's here take offense...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sounds to me like Barthes is over thinking it...surely someone is the Author/Course Architect/Creator!

I believe what he's trying to say is that because every person is completely different than every other person, there's no way an author can tell me what a book will mean to me...and I've never understood the process of trying to figure out what it meant to them.

Similarly, Tom Doak can't tell me how to play a golf hole...

Jim,

He can tell you how to play a given hole, but, once you hit your tee shot, everything changes.

One of the beauties of golf is the infinite variety in accomplishing your goal of getting from point "A" to point "B" in as few strokes as possible.

or how I should feel about one of his holes or courses. In the end it is, in fact, his course but I determine what it means to me.

True, but, there is such a thing as a "consensus"

[Sven Nilsen]

As Pat noted above, there is a distinction between the collaborative effort and the work of the lone artist.  I don't think any of us really think that a golf course is the work of any one man.  On the other hand, most works of literature and art are just that.

When credit is given in the world of golf, it is given to the leader of the team, the guy with their name on the masthead.  Why, in golf, is the name so important?  Would the color of the conversation be different if we referred to a Doak as a Renaissance design?  Or a Nicklaus as a Dublin production, if he hadn't gone the eponymous route?  How important to the marketing of a brand is the use of the architect's name?  Would Donald Ross have been as prolific if his working entity had been called "Dornoch Golf Design?"  My guess is that even if he had, we would still refer to his courses as Ross designs.

The thought that removing the identity of the author eliminates any preconceptions is interesting.  In the world of golf, have we ever been able to do this?  One instance I can think of is The Old Course (and others from its vintage), a course that is experienced with an entirely different set of preconceptions than a Raynor, or a Tillie, or an Engh.  What other courses can we play (or could have been played at one time) that did not come with a name attached, that we could play with a clean slate?  

[Mike_Young]

Part of my work involves searching for the identities of the creators of old golf courses, but I sometimes think we'd enjoy golf -- and movies -- just as much, if not more, if we didn't have a clue who did what.    

Well said.

Both would probably cost less that way, too.

TD,
I have often said we would know golf was back where it needed to be when people had no idea who the architect was.  
I think a good topic would be the discussion of the impact signature architects have had on the game (by signature I mean professional golfers).  IMHO ...none...   Has the game grown because of them or perhaps they helped it shrink due to difficulty and slowing it down.   They increased the demand for over-the-top club houses.   All they have helped is housing values and that was short lived.  I'm not sure knowing the architect had much to do with growing the game at all after WW2 and probably only became vogue after Harbortown.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

I always recoiled at the phrase, "signature architect" or "signature course".

It always conveyed a monetary tier where the "signature" was commoditized and at the upper end of the design fee scale for a particular firm, based upon the lead architect's involvement.

What I never understood, and maybe it's because I'm a moron, was the following.

If I was a developer, and for reasons I won't go into, I wanted Jack Nicklaus to design my golf course, and I approached him or sent him an RFP, and I received a preliminary four tiered fee structure from him, based upon his level of involvement, I would have returned the four tiered offer sheet and stated.  

"I didn't request a design from anyone other than yourself.  
I'm not interested in having anyone, other than yourself, as the architect, point man and general project supervisor.
If you want the project, at $ X, please confirm, if not, also please confirm.  Thanks"

What I'd be keenly interested in knowing, is how many developers followed that route, and how the course designed by Architect B fared over the years.

I'm also aware of the "bank/financing" issue associated with architects and the weight given to Jack Nicklaus projects.

But, now, 20 some years later, I'm curious as to how those "signature" courses have fared, and at what cost.

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
What I saw many times during the boom years from developers were their "marketing VP's" who often were mid thirties or early 40's " and were best buddies with Arnie or Jack etc.  If you had 35 -40 lots to a hole and his fee was 2 mill they would make his fee on half a hole.  So they could care less about cost for construction or design fees.  They were more interested in telling guys how they "bird hunted with Jack".  And then they sigs demanded only specific construction firms build their projects and this added even more.  Now I'm not saying he quality was not there but the efficiency and cost were often ridiculous; not to add the future maintenance cost.  It was a sloppy time for golf design....and it's still happening to the unknowing around the world.  The "financing" weight given to Nicklaus deals was due to increased home values but that may have changed by now.  
And what's really unfair about this type of system is that some sigs had some good designers working for them that people have not really heard of and those guys were often shafted in this economy.

[Tom_Doak]

If I was a developer, and for reasons I won't go into, I wanted Jack Nicklaus to design my golf course, and I approached him or sent him an RFP, and I received a preliminary four tiered fee structure from him, based upon his level of involvement, I would have returned the four tiered offer sheet and stated.  

"I didn't request a design from anyone other than yourself.  
I'm not interested in having anyone, other than yourself, as the architect, point man and general project supervisor.
If you want the project, at $ X, please confirm, if not, also please confirm.  Thanks"

One of the four architects interviewed for Stonewall made such a presentation ... in fact he sent the B-level associate to make his presentation.  Mr. May, the founder, was instantly turned off, so he decided to have some fun with the associate, and asked him why anyone would hire a team to do less than their best product?  He said it was fun to watch the associate squirm a bit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I can see why he'd be "turned off", I'd be insulted.

Not that the associate wasn't a capable individual, but, if the lead architect wanted to make a favorable impression, sending an associate hardly seems like the appropriate protocol for the first interview.

I know that if I needed brain surgery, and many suggest that I do, and I made an appointment with a preeminent brain surgeon, and an intern showed up, I'd be more than turned off.

Mike Young,

Unfortunately, I think golf courses suffered as the red headed step child during the housing development boom.
And that the "model" got skewed.

[Jaeger Kovich]

I know that if I needed brain surgery, and many suggest that I do, and I made an appointment with a preeminent brain surgeon, and an intern showed up, I'd be more than turned off.

What if the same kid (who has the proper certifications) walked in, but instead of calling him "Intern" it was "Partner"?... I guess what I am saying, is: What if the marketing was rebranded to fit the current scenario in golf, and sell the design/build teams instead of an individual?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I know that if I needed brain surgery, and many suggest that I do, and I made an appointment with a preeminent brain surgeon, and an intern showed up, I'd be more than turned off.

What if the same kid (who has the proper certifications) walked in, but instead of calling him "Intern" it was "Partner"?...

Jaeger,

You can rest assured that I'd done my due diligence and know the lay of the land.
If I have an appointment to see Dr Jones for brain surgery, other than for obtaining administrative information, I'm not interested in talking to anyone other than Dr Jones.
Partner or no partner, I know who I want as my surgeon, and it has to do with his expertise and the number of procedures he's done

I guess what I am saying, is: What if the marketing was rebranded to fit the current scenario in golf, and sell the design/build teams instead of an individual?

Jaeger,

You can't be that naive.
Have you ever heard of "ego" ?
What talented architect, or any talented artist, is willing to dilute his talents by assigning them to others ?

[Jaeger Kovich]

I know that if I needed brain surgery, and many suggest that I do, and I made an appointment with a preeminent brain surgeon, and an intern showed up, I'd be more than turned off.

What if the same kid (who has the proper certifications) walked in, but instead of calling him "Intern" it was "Partner"?...

Jaeger,

You can rest assured that I'd done my due diligence and know the lay of the land.
If I have an appointment to see Dr Jones for brain surgery, other than for obtaining administrative information, I'm not interested in talking to anyone other than Dr Jones.
Partner or no partner, I know who I want as my surgeon, and it has to do with his expertise and the number of procedures he's done

I guess what I am saying, is: What if the marketing was rebranded to fit the current scenario in golf, and sell the design/build teams instead of an individual?

Jaeger,

You can't be that naive.
Have you ever heard of "ego" ?
What talented architect, or any talented artist, is willing to dilute his talents by assigning them to others ?

The ones that don't name the company after themselves. ... Unless you are full 1-man show, building everything yourself, you are diluting it anyways. I'm saying you sell the 2-3 egos that combined have total control.

... maybe you should really be googling your anesthesiologist pre-surgery. Its not like they aren't sending you a nice looking bill as well when the thing is over.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jaeger,

You're confusing the creative process with an assembly line process.

Ask Tom Doak what he thinks about pooling designers when it comes to the creative process
Have Nicklaus and Doak collaborated subsequent to Sebonack

Design by committee isn't a good idea

The surgeon and the anesthesiologist perform two radically distinct functions.

[Tom_Doak]

Jaeger,

You're confusing the creative process with an assembly line process.

Ask Tom Doak what he thinks about pooling designers when it comes to the creative process
Have Nicklaus and Doak collaborated subsequent to Sebonack

Design by committee isn't a good idea

Patrick:

Collaboration can work just great, as long as everyone is comfortable with their own role in the process.  You should know this; you're fond of pointing out that we all have to collaborate with our clients.

I have designed 33 golf courses, and I have never done one of them all by myself, before or after Sebonack.  I know a lot of smart and talented people, and I am not afraid to listen to their input and to utilize a good idea when someone suggests it.  In fact, the guys who work for me will tell you that I'm particularly good at taking their ideas and improving on them.  It's just seldom written up that way, because the publicists want to keep the story simple, and every other course is marketed by the lead architect's name.

Most of the routings are mine, though certainly others have contributed a hole or two here or there.  I guess that's why my name is out front ... even though firms where the principal does NOT really do the routing are not unknown.

[Mike_Young]

even though firms where the principal does NOT really do the routing are not unknown.

Really???

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()