I think artist operate in different ways for different reasons. Traditionally, art might be restricted to painting and sculpture, in such cases what they create is not necessarily created for a purpose, although it may be heavy on symbolism, on personal discovery, but it does not answer to anyone like a client, or to a design program, even if it is a commissioned piece. An artist unlike an architect often times creates for no purpose other than their own need to express visually there interior self. Nothing more. Despite the modern trend to have art make political and social statements, art is not that, at its best it is without purpose.
An architect has a client, a design program, a requirement to answer to function. Their work has a purpose. Certainly there are overlaps between the disciplines, but those overlaps do not mean architects are artist, or artists are architects. There should be comfort and honor in saying you are an architect or designer, but to call a golf course architect an artist is unnecessary, sure some portion of the work is artistic, but many people participate in that portion of the work that is artistic, but they are not artists. That plays loose with a term that respectfully should be reserved for those professionals whom are artists in the traditional sense. Much of what we all do day to day has artistic moments, expressions, but we are all not artist. I think some want to claim the title to boost their self esteem, ironically when school budgets cut the arts programs first, those same people probably sigh with relief that their kids sports programs were not touched. You can not have it both ways.
I would say I am a golfer first and foremost. I am most happiest when I am playing the game. Some time back I was involved in a project on which Willard Byrd was the landscape architect. I remember him saying he did not enjoy playing the game anymore, that he was most interested in sailing. I always thought how sad that was, that clients would hire a man to design their course and he had no passion for the game. If I reach that point I hope I have the integrity to quit designing, and allow real golfers to occupy my former space.
I think you should be a passionate golfer first because that type of person will likely have the most positive impact on the game. Management companies are full of golfers but they would send the game down the river for a buck. Some developers would do the same. Incidently, I think the most positive impact on the real estate golf community will come from those magnificent developers that believe and practice the concept of traditional neighborhood development or new urbanism. Under that environement golf course residential communities will reach a very high order.
Really, the artist, architect debate is fun but not meaningful. So, all these guys can call temselves artist and it means nothing. The term is used so loosely that it has lost meaning. Real artists know who they are and they probably resent your loose manner with the word, but more than anything they just find those who call themselves artist amusing and ignorant. I think first and foremost I am a golfer, then a golf course architect. Someday I hope to be an artist. Contemporary realism is tremendously exciting and I would love to be trained in it. Golf in the morning, paint in the afternoon, spearhead a junior golf program and change the life of some little kid through this magnificent game. Is there really any need for more?