We might hesitate to admit it now but with NGLA the look was certainly important to MacDonald but the validity of the actual playing of golf and the interest in the possibilities in the design for golf itself was clearly more so! So if there was, and still is some evidences of manufacturing and even "geometry" in NGLA's design, so be it, and so what?--at least it was a clear departure from what perceded it for golf and quality golf!
It should also certainly be admitted that what MacDonald found in his return to Europe at that time to study design was also still at that early stage that was rudimentary and manufactured looking in its architecture! (And isn't it interesting that when Pete Dye journeyed to Europe to study the architecture there some 50 years later the thing that apparently fascinated him as much as anything was the rudimentary architectural efforts of the early European architects! Clearly that's where the railroad tie features came from, reminiscent of early bunker "sleepers" and such.
But from NGLA (1910) with its still vaguely man-made look, the additional fascination is that a mere ten years later, (just following WW1) architecture, at least the leading edge sophisticated architecture that became the real meat of the great "Golden Age" again exploded in its desire and direction to really produce designs that came remarkably close in every single way and look to mimicing the look of nature itself!!
This to me is so fascinating, and I feel the best evidence of all is where it sort of culminated and basically stopped which was in the creation of Cypress Point--possibly the most natural looking golf course, in every single way, ever created!
This entire evolution sort of inspired here by your question goes on though after it all hit a wall at the Crash and the depression!
Before that happened the likes of particularly Alister MacKenzie, probably Thomas, Maxwell, Flynn, Tillinghast etc, but far more the futuristic thinkers like Hunter and most of all Max Behr, dreamed of the time in the future, despite the natural work they had done, when golf architecture (when the impliments and techniques would finally allow it) would go all the way into naturalism and almost entirely hide the hand of man altogether in architecture, which amazingly they believed might even include tees, fairways and greens, the necessary requirements of golf that are inherently not particularly natural, at least to some areas and sites!
These are the kinds of things that the likes of Geoff Shackelford understands so well, in my opinion--certainly along with people with the sense of this like TommyN.
And there is additional fascination in much of what has been uncovered by Tom MacWood in his articles on the "Arts and Crafts Movement" and its inspiration and effects on golf architecture! It's interesting because the "arts and crafts movement" was essentially a reaction to the building architecture of that time that departed from the look and feel of nature too!
Amazingly, the building architecture that was primarily targeted by the "arts and crafts movement" as a departure from nature and the "natural look" was the classic Greek and Roman architecture, certainly considered, then and now some of the most awesome architecture ever created! But nevertheless, particularly it too was extremely geometric, albeit beautifully balanced and artistic but still man-made looking.
Why golf's geometric designs and the vestiges of it disappeared had much to do with the foregoing but certainly maintenance practices and such contributed to it for one reason or another--certainly mowing problems and requirements.
We at GMGC are restoring our original Ross greens and many of them are basically squarish because GMGC was designed in 1916 as Ross too was himself coming out of that era of geometrics and the man-made look to a degree!
Our greens, however, were not as square as say LuLu that preceded GMGC by 3-5 years and there is evidence of "flairs" on the square corners of some of our greens (which we will restore) and that to me is evidence of Ross starting his own expression toward a form of "naturalism" and away from "geometrics"!
Why would we restore those squarish green forms at GMGC now when "Golden Age" architecture went so far beyond it in the ensuing ten years (to the depression)? In my mind, simply because it IS so fascinating in the evolution of architecture and American architecture!
Great question Pat! I look forward to much more development of the answers to this question, and the answers and reasons for the evolution of architecture--certainly from those such as GeoffShac!
And when all is said and done I think you'll have a better idea of where we were coming from last year during some tangential and oblique discussions about this basic subject in architecture and "naturalism's" part in it all!
And you will have a better idea of where we want to go with it in the future. The architects appear to be here again who understand these things, are inspired by them, and might even someday realize the dreams of those "Golden Agers" who hoped somehow to take all of this back entirely to the look of nature!
I don't know how that will happen or even if the modern golfer will understand it or put up with it but I think we could be on the threshold, finally, of at least trying it!
This is all very fascinating to me and ultimately I think it means it's interesting to look at golf architecture in its entirety and the entirety of its evolution but it's very important too to look at any particular time and era in its own time with what came before it before you look at what came after it!
Only then, I think, can you understand it better and its evolution and of course where it might take us next!