News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Peter Pallotta

A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« on: November 25, 2011, 08:11:49 PM »
I came across this from an essay by GK Chesterton, circa the 1920s I suppose.  I've replaced the word "author" in the original text with the word "architect":  

“The function of criticism, if it has a legitimate function at all, can only be one function – that of dealing with the subconscious part of the architect's mind, which only the critic can express; and not with the conscious part of the architect's mind, which the architect himself can express. Either criticism is no good at all (a very defensible position) or else criticism means saying about an architect the very things that would [make] him jump out of his boots.”

I know, I know: the architects around here will jump up and deny the very existence of the subconscious, let alone its influence on their work :)  But I wonder what the critiques of the great courses and great architects would be if everyone followed Chesterton's dictates.

Peter
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 09:18:52 PM by PPallotta »

Peter Pallotta

Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2011, 08:37:50 PM »
Off the top of my head, here's what I'd guess was working away 'back there'...if, of course, there is such a thing as 'back there'....

Donald Ross: "Salvation comes not from faith alone but by WORK"

George Crump: "To capture the eternal from the ever-fleeting is THE great magic trick of human kind".

CBM: "As it was for the father, so it MUST be for the son"

Harry Vardon: "A man is judged by what he OVERCOMES".

Max Behr: "There WAS a unity, but we must negate the Fall in order to find it once again".  

HS Colt: "The MIND is a terrible thing to waste".


Hmmm. I guess I answered my own question :)

Peter  

« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 08:45:29 PM by PPallotta »

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2011, 09:26:58 PM »
Oh Peter....I was trying to respond but you blew one of my synapse fuses...Home Depot is closed till tmrw for replacement...sorry! P
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Peter Pallotta

Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2011, 09:33:48 PM »
Thanks  :)

We miss you around here, Paul.

Best
Peter

 
« Last Edit: November 26, 2011, 09:47:36 AM by PPallotta »

Melvyn Morrow

Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2011, 06:08:27 AM »

I have always thought that

“Criticism should be constructive, not destructive”

If one is to criticise then one should have the good manners to offer up a reason prior to making a suggestion to resolving the issue.   

Melvyn


Patrick_Mucci

Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2011, 07:19:26 AM »
Without criticism, progress is impossible !

Peter Pallotta

Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2011, 09:37:23 AM »
On the other hand, Pat, one might argue that a critic who does no more than provide 'insight' into what is obvious and right on the surface for everyone to see and what the architect can explain/describe better himself is actually not moving the discussion forward in the least; and in fact is doing nothing more than using fancy words to say nothing more than "I like this" or "I don't like this".  

I'm not suggesting that the method described above is the best way of 'going deeper' -- but that doesn't mean that I think traditional 'criticism' does much of anything of value/interest except reflect the tastes (and changing tastes) of the given critic.

Peter
« Last Edit: November 26, 2011, 09:56:40 AM by PPallotta »

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2011, 10:36:23 AM »
 8)  While I don't disagree that the subconscious is the key to gca and playing at top levels..

There are plenty of critic models..

Here's one with various replacements:
author with architect, read with play,  essay with golf course, writing with golf, and other small ones


General Critique Guidelines

Whenever you play a golf course, use the following questions to guide your response. First, keep in mind that, although you may not be a golfing expert, you are THE player of this golf course and your response is a valid one. I have found that almost every player, regardless of experience, can identify the primary strength and weakness in an golf course, although their method of describing those issues may be different. The architect will welcome your response and your ability to explain your reaction in a new way. Although the architect is not required to, and really shouldn’t, respond to everything you say, he or she will take your comments seriously and consider how the golf courses has enlightened or confused you. Therefore, comment freely, although respectfully. Keep in mind that it is better to begin by noting the strengths of the golf course before pointing out the areas that need improvement. I would always include a personal response to questions like the following: What about the golf course most connects with your experience? Moves you? Provokes you? Entertains you?

So that is how to respond. So how do you critique? For every golf course, regardless of the mode, consider the broad categories of content, organization, style, and correctness.

1.   Content: Consider the topic (its appropriateness and interest, as well as a clear focus suitable to golf course layout and the way the course is developed (clarity sufficiency of its argument, its scope, subcategories, amount and type of examples, anecdotes, evidence, etc.).

2.   Organization: Consider how the golf course is introduced and concluded (especially looking for a “frame” to the golf course, where the intro and conclusion refer to the same idea), whether the thesis is located in the most helpful place (direct or implied), how the golf course is structured, whether the order or extent of development is successful, as well as how individual holes are organized (clear topical content, appropriate and concrete evidence, logical organization of evidence).

3.   Style: Style can refer to the overall style of a golf course: whether the tone is appropriate (humorous, serious, reflective, satirical, etc.), whether you use sufficient and appropriate variety (factual, analytical, evaluative, reflective), whether you use sufficient creativity. Style can also refer to the style of individual shots required: whether you use a variety of types and lengths, whether objectives are clear, and whether shot choice is interesting and appropriate.

4.   Correctness: Correctness refers to construction, and form of the golf course. You do not need to know the exact feature term or design rule to know when a feature is not correct and could identify it. Feel free to suggest a specific recommendation or a general comment.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2011, 10:38:12 AM by Steve Lang »
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2011, 01:12:33 PM »
To paraphrase Jean-Luc Godard, "The best way to criticize a course is to make another course."
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

Peter Pallotta

Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2011, 01:35:37 PM »
Steve, David - thanks, those posts both in their ways are very interesting - the former because that's a nice/comprehensive 'method', the latter because, having been a critic - and a perceptive one - but then becoming a flim-maker, Godard himself seems to have come to the same conclusion that Chesterton did ( ha ha - Chesterton and Godard in the same sentence).

Peter

Chris Shaida

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2011, 09:22:10 PM »
To paraphrase Jean-Luc Godard, "The best way to criticize a course is to make another course."

Well, following Chesterton explicitly and Goddard implicitly, Harold Bloom made a career of the notion that the subject of every poem is other poems (and the 'anxiety' attendant thereto).  This has to be even more true of golf courses where the structure is much more codified (18 holes, yardage in a tight range, small variations in number of 3s,4s,5s, tees, geens, etc.)--as though ALL poems were just sonnets and elegies.  One might say that every golf course is really just a riff on toc?

And...since almost none of us gets to actually BUILD a golf course the rest of us get to TALK about them...

Chris Shaida

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #11 on: November 26, 2011, 09:25:31 PM »
Off the top of my head, here's what I'd guess was working away 'back there'...if, of course, there is such a thing as 'back there'....

Donald Ross: "Salvation comes not from faith alone but by WORK"

George Crump: "To capture the eternal from the ever-fleeting is THE great magic trick of human kind".

CBM: "As it was for the father, so it MUST be for the son"

Harry Vardon: "A man is judged by what he OVERCOMES".

Max Behr: "There WAS a unity, but we must negate the Fall in order to find it once again".  

HS Colt: "The MIND is a terrible thing to waste".


Hmmm. I guess I answered my own question :)

Peter  



fwiw, this is rather fantastic, particularly the max behr summation.  perhaps you'd like to try your hand at the moderns?

just saying...

Peter Pallotta

Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2011, 09:36:29 PM »
Chris - thanks much for both those contributions. I didn't know about Bloom's view of poetry, and I like very much how you relate it to the 'codified' structure of any given golf course.  With all our talk about templates and originality and greatness and principles and re-births, that point -- i.e. that all of golf exists within a relatively narrow bandwidth, for lack of a better term -- is not mentioned or discussed nearly enough.  On your other post, do you mean 'fantastic' as in Jules Vernes' 20 thousand leagues under the sea kind of fantastic?  EIther way, thanks for the compliment.  A former poster wrote me to provide Behr's quote that used some of exactly the same language -- but believe it or not I don't think I had ever read it before, and certainly I don't remember reading it. So, I have to admit, I was pretty proud of that one myself :)

Peter

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2011, 09:57:55 PM »
First I looked at some definitions for "subconscious":

From Wikipedia:

   This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2010)

"The term subconscious is used in many different contexts and has no single or precise definition. This greatly limits its significance as a definition-bearing concept, and in consequence the word tends to be avoided in academic and scientific settings.

In everyday speech and popular writing, however, the term is very commonly encountered as a layperson's replacement for the unconscious mind, which in Freud's opinion is a repository for socially unacceptable ideas, wishes or desires, traumatic memories, and painful emotions put out of mind by the mechanism of psychological repression. However, the contents do not necessarily have to be solely negative. In the psychoanalytic view, the unconscious is a force that can only be recognized by its effects—it expresses itself in the symptom. Unconscious thoughts are not directly accessible to ordinary introspection, but are supposed to be capable of being "tapped" and "interpreted" by special methods and techniques such as meditation, random association, dream analysis, and verbal slips (commonly known as a Freudian slip), examined and conducted during psychoanalysis. Carl Jung developed the concept further. He divided the unconscious into two parts: the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious. The personal unconscious is a reservoir of material that was once conscious but has been forgotten or suppressed."


From Merriam-Webster:

The mental activities just below the threshold of consciousness.

Finally, a fascinating NYT article of the subtleties of conscious thinking:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/health/psychology/31subl.html?pagewanted=all

Excerpt:

"Yet the new research on priming makes it clear that we are not alone in our own consciousness. We have company, an invisible partner who has strong reactions about the world that don’t always agree with our own, but whose instincts, these studies clearly show, are at least as likely to be helpful, and attentive to others, as they are to be disruptive."


I don't know how helpful these are.

How do I, or any critic, look inside the architect's mind and make a judgement about his/her subconscious?  For instance, I know Tom Doak's work better than the other architects, and I know that Tom consciously tries to build courses that are challenging for the scratch golfer, but playable to the bogey player, even to the extent that the bogey golfer can play a career round on his courses.  He has always cited his mother as an inspiration, a short hitter but clever around the greens.

Some of his courses, like Pacific Dunes, satisfy this criteria.  On the other hand, Stone Eagle is quite difficult for the bogey golfer, but the outstanding golfer overpowers it, and negates much of the greenside difficulty.  In general, I question Tom's original theory that the grand equalizer in course design is to make the short game difficult, as I believe tough greesnsites are proportionally more difficult for the average player.

But one thing I know for sure, and that is the typical scratch/single digit player around Portland, Oregon does not like sloped, tricky greens.  Most grew up on tree-lined courses with disk-shaped, back to front sloping greens with little internal contour.  They grew up playing less complicated golf than courses like Bandon Trails or Old Macdonald offer, and any do not like these courses.  As you well know, good players want a consistent risk-reward equation, with few surprises and few "bad" bounces upsetting them.

OK, so here I am, the amateur psychologist, trying to look inside the architect's mind.  Tom grew up younger than his peers in high school, a good player, but rather small for his age.  Maybe Tom's got a chip on his shoulder from an early age, and looked at the big, strong, popular "Biffs" of the world with a mixture of envy and disdain, and when he set out to build courses, he unconsciously designed them to irritate Biff.  He did all his research, framed all his thinking, and established his whole theory of architecture, because he resented that strong, popular guy who could beat him at golf, had the pretty girlfriend, and didn't have a tenth of the original ideas as he.

[See the movie "Crumb", for whom this "chip on the shoulder against popular guy" is clearly a conscious and motivating thought.  Also, perhaps this says more about me than it does Tom.]

Let's extend this.  Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player and most pro golfers are so competitive, and so focused on winning, would build courses they can beat others on.  Pete Dye...he just wants everybody to suffer, and I don't know why.  Maybe Tom Fazio builds pretty courses because he wants people to like him.

With that said, I doubt what I have written is true.  I expect that any seasoned architect has explored his motivations in exhaustive fashion, and subconscious desires have been considered.  Maybe I'm too charitable.



Finally, to Steve Lang, whose template for critique is admirable, but irrelevant for me.  I let myself (conscious or otherwise) play the course, and make judgements based on criteria I've embraced over the years.  I choose not to be very structured about it, the drawback being I may need more than one round to develop a strong judgement.

« Last Edit: November 26, 2011, 10:01:29 PM by John Kirk »

Norbert P

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2011, 11:27:26 AM »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton

  A critic explaining the subconscious mind of another through their work?     Hmmm.  Sounds like a job for a political campaign manager.



  A paraphrased dialogue from Ayn Rand's Fountainhead . . .


Ellsworth M. Toohey (The self-proclaimed genius architecture critic)   "What do you think of me, Mr. Roark?"

Howard Roark (The architect)         "I don't."





 
"Golf is only meant to be a small part of one’s life, centering around health, relaxation and having fun with friends/family." R"C"M

Patrick_Mucci

Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2011, 12:03:14 PM »
On the other hand, Pat, one might argue that a critic who does no more than provide 'insight' into what is obvious and right on the surface for everyone to see and what the architect can explain/describe better himself is actually not moving the discussion forward in the least; and in fact is doing nothing more than using fancy words to say nothing more than "I like this" or "I don't like this".  

Thar's personal preference, not necessarily "criticism"


I'm not suggesting that the method described above is the best way of 'going deeper' -- but that doesn't mean that I think traditional 'criticism' does much of anything of value/interest except reflect the tastes (and changing tastes) of the given critic.

I think you have to differentiate between the two, you have to separate personal preference from objective critical analysis

I think one of the failings of golfers is that many only point out the pros and cons of features as it relates to their particular game, whereas the architect has to forge a balanced, overall challenge, that doesn't favor or disfavor any particular game.

I have noticed a tendency toward vested (self interested) criticism, particularly with lower handicap golfers


Peter

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2011, 12:39:39 PM »
 8) if the subconscious is going to be used, perhaps the origins are important..

conscience

early 13c., from O.Fr. conscience, from L. conscientia "knowledge within oneself, a moral sense," prp. of conscire "be mutually aware," from com- "with" + scire "to know." Probably a loan-translation of Gk. syneidesis. Sometimes nativized in O.E./M.E. as inwit. Rus. also uses a loan-translation, so-vest,

"conscience," lit. "with-knowledge."

i seem to remember reading in Websters once that scire was a latin root "to know guilt".. so are architects really just trying to express their guilty pleasures in challenging players and allowing them grace, if only for a small fleeting period, when their actions are true?

p.s. John Kirk.. Not my template.. just a search and replace exercise on a public domain text.... No contest.. either play or critique.. hard to do both well at the same time.. a guilt of diffuse attention?
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 12:54:12 PM by Steve Lang »
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2011, 01:49:43 PM »
Hi Steve,

Do you really think it is hard to play well and critique architecture at the same time?  Of the four or so hours on the course, it seems only 20-30 minutes of golf thinking and strategy is required.  The rest of the time can be used for looking around.  I think it's especially important to watch other players hit shots and note the results.  Maybe I don't focus on golf enough.  I like watching birds, too.



In general, I disagree with the original premise.  I agree with Peter's own statement:  "doing nothing more than using fancy words to say nothing more than "I like this" or "I don't like this".  A golf course critic says I like this or I don't like this, and then tells why, more a function of teaching.  The subconscious argument is weak; the artist/architect has a lifetime to dredge up his subconscious, plus the critic is only speculating about another person's mind. 

Peter Pallotta

Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2011, 01:57:15 PM »
Gents, thanks for taking this in interesting directions.  John K is probably correct in his views, and they are sensible and practical and reasonable ones.  What prompted the thread was the idea of a golf course as 'text' - and so of the possibility that criticism could move beyond/below the surface, i.e. that which is clearly in the text itself, even if not all are paying enough attention to see it, and instead explore the 'sub text' (for lack of a better word), the framework of thinking/ideas/beliefs upon which and out of which the text emerges.  Of course, that involves guess-work....but it just might forge some new understandings.

Peter
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 02:02:25 PM by PPallotta »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2011, 05:34:09 PM »
Peter & John,

I think, criticism becomes more genuine/valid when it's feature specific.

I like rectangular tees, they really help me with my alignment, but, I don't find non-rectangular tees to be a negative feature on a golf course.

So, my preference is for rectangular tees, but that doesn't skew my objectivity.

That's why I think you have to seperate and understand the difference between personal preference and critical analysis.

Peter Pallotta

Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2011, 05:46:35 PM »
Patrick - thanks. But as Sully likes to say, let's 'un-pack' that a little.  You can imagine, I assume, an experienced and well-travelled and well-informed golfer who is able to separate out his personal preferences from critical analysis. At its very best then, what do you think this critical analysis would consist of? Besides a description of a range of specific features and an analysis of how those features impact on/interact with golfers, what insight into the nature and quality of the architect's work on a given site would this analysis, for you, ideally provide?

Thanks
Peter 

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2011, 06:25:23 PM »
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton

  A critic explaining the subconscious mind of another through their work?     Hmmm.  Sounds like a job for a political campaign manager.



  A paraphrased dialogue from Ayn Rand's Fountainhead . . .


Ellsworth M. Toohey (The self-proclaimed genius architecture critic)   "What do you think of me, Mr. Roark?"

Howard Roark (The architect)         "I don't."



Could Ayn Rand have been influenced by "Casablanca"?

Ugarte (Peter Lorre) to Rick (Humphrey Bogart): "You despise me, don't you?"

Rick: "If I gave you any thought, I probably would."
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #22 on: November 27, 2011, 06:40:58 PM »
Pietro

What is it about golf courses that you think is impervious to true criticism?  I am finding it difficult to disagree with you, but that could be because I don't know know enough about architecture to be a true critic as opposed to a commentator on courses.  I have long thought that gca is a mixture of science, engineering and art.  It seems quite easy to critique the science/engineering aspects (if you know enough), but not so much the art.  And it would seem, most golfers are most concerned about the artistic aspect of architecture unless the science/engineering side has badly let the side down (I am thinking mainly of drainage here, but it could be grass types and even how maintenance effects the art of the design).   

Then again, I am not sure any of this really matters because we all accept critical analysis of any other artistic endeavour whether or it can be called "true" criticism. 

Then again, then again, who ever said personal opinion cannot at least form some aspect of criticism?  Are we really only talking about trying to find the critic who best reflects our tastes or can a critic also be one who has had some part in changing one's attitude about how and why courses should be?

Ciao   
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Turnberry, Isle of Harris, Benbecula, Askernish, Traigh, St Medan, Hankley Common, Ashridge, Gog Magog Old & Cruden Bay St Olaf

Mark Buzminski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2011, 07:01:15 PM »
The type of literary criticism dealing with the "subconscious" of the author, as Chesterton puts it, would be broadly known as the Freudian approach to literary criticism.   I, for one, think it's a stretch to suggest that someone could claim they knew, or understood what was going on in the subconscious mind of someone else, when we don't even know what is going on in our own!  Freud's counterargument was the act of writing was a tap straight to the unconscious, and that similar stories across the ages proved this.  He cited, famously, that Hamlet was driven not by revenge to kill his 'uncle-father', but by an Oedipus Complex which had originally shown up in the play by Sophocles over 1000 years earlier.   Now, applying this to the study of golf courses, I find similarly lacking, but, the whole concept of a "Freudian approach" to the study of golf course architecture is humorous, to say the least...I can just image the associations  Dr. Freud would have made with various architectural features!
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 07:11:20 PM by Mark Buzminski »

Peter Pallotta

Re: A New (because old) Approach to Criticism
« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2011, 07:14:20 PM »
Rick - in fact, I'm almost sure that Ayn Rand stole that from Howard Koch and Julius & Philip Epstein.  She was an egg-head, but she knew a commercial idea when she saw it!

Sean - some random thoughts.  One of the many reasons I like your profiles so much is that you are so 'modest' in your goals (and that's a compliment).  Along with the useful photographs that are worth a thousand words, you simply but accurately and clearly describe what you are seeing and experiencing.  I don't know if it is intentional on your part, but the result of stripping bare the critique is that you 'leave room' for the audience (me) to interact with the material, and to have it resonate in a personal way -- not as you would prescribe it but as we, individually and uniquely, find most satisfying and meaningful. There are no artificial 'signifiers' or pompous pronoucements in your work, or weighty and insightful analysis (which usually is pretty facile); and in this sense, you embody the best of minimalism.  I assume that you don't see yourself as a critic, and that you don't see yourself as offering 'criticism'.  And there's the rub, eh?  Because I'd like to know what more -- in fact, not in theory -- have 8 decades worth of 'critiques' of courses past and present given us than what you have so simply and directly? To get back to that original quote from Chesterton - if criticism is not science and not art and not invention and not an emotion and not a food group, then what good does it do? What is it, exactly? Or, to put it better - if it gives me no more (and indeed, often much less) than the architect can give me himself or that I can see with my own eyes, what purpose does it serve? If it can't go 'deeper', isn't it better to do as you do and not attempt 'criticism' at all?

Peter
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 07:18:26 PM by PPallotta »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back