GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture
C.B. Macdonald said (in his autobiography) he thought his NGLA.....
Jim_Kennedy:
...by the way Tom, I'm leaving this thread as I see you are changing the nature of your posts as you go.
Another cowardly tactic.
TEPaul:
"You still haven't given a reason why I would be 'protecting' C. B. Macdonald from any discussion of his legend."
I haven't? I thought I just did. Reread the last paragraph in my last post then. That is why I feel you're trying to protect Macdonald from any discussion of him, his architecture or his legend. If that is not what you're doing on here then why have you been telling me I'm bashing Charles Blair Macdonald every time I try to discuss him, his architecture, and the subject of what others of his contemporaries thought about him or his architecture, its model or philosophy, at any particular point in time?
It is and has been my thought that if you weren't trying to protect against all that then why is it you keep telling me I'm bashing him which I do not believe I am doing at all. CBM to me, is one of the most interesting figures in American architecture and both he and his ideas were definitely not without a pretty good dose of controversy. That is what I want to analyze on here because I think it is truly significant to the history of this stuff over here.
So if that's not what you're doing on here then just let me see you stop posting on here that I'm bashing him and I'll drop the entire idea that you are trying to protect him from something.
Agreed?
"...by the way Tom, I'm leaving this thread as I see you are changing the nature of your posts as you go.
Another cowardly tactic."
Very good; that would seem to be the wisest thing for you to do at this point.
Dónal Ó Ceallaigh:
--- Quote from: Tom MacWood on November 30, 2009, 06:35:56 AM ---TEP
That is not exactly what he said. He said he did not think the term 'golf architecture' can be found in the records prior to 1901 when he developed the idea of copying or emulating certain aspects of famous holes. He goes on to compare golf architecture to art and architecture, and says his idea of emulating well known examples (which is common other creative disciplines and the formalized studies of other creative disciplines) was the birth of golf architecture. He equates the study of famous holes and features of holes with the birth of golf architecture as discipline on par with the other well established creative disciplines.
I would take exception with his timeline (among other things) because I know Willie Park borrowed heavily from Musselburgh when he designed Huntercombe.
--- End quote ---
Tom:
So, did CBM equate the study of famous holes and replication of them as the birth of GCA? Is CBM belittling the efforts of those that were designing courses before him?
Dónal.
JC Jones:
--- Quote from: TEPaul on December 01, 2009, 09:49:23 AM ---
Eventually, the most important subject of all should also be discussed-----why did some of the more significant architects in America beginning in the teens decide to vocally, philosophically and actually move away from Macdonald's template or classical GB architecture model and philosophy and even begin to criticize the very idea of it?
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure this is as monumental as one would think.
Firstly, eventually all artistic and architectural styles/philosophies get segmented and criticized. This is largely because there is no single correct style/philosophy. I don't see it as an indictment against renaissance period art that it eventually fell out of favor and that the impressionists did something completely different and probably denounced other styles/philosophies that they weren't on board with. Similarly, the post CBM crowd had a different style/philosophy and they, obviously, felt it more valid.
Why did they feel that way? Well, at least in part, to justify their philosophy. It isn't enough to rest simply on why you are right, but also show why others are wrong. It is human nature. In addition, iconoclasm is typical among those who are differing from what they perceive to be the norm. Building on that, you also have arrogance that can fuel pioneerism because they want to be different and known for being different.
So, without getting too deep, I'm not sure what the post-CBM crowd said regarding CBM or his style has any bearing on the merits of CBM and what he did because their behavior is natural and expected.
Mac Plumart:
JC...that was really good. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will be pondering this for a little while and hopefully remembering it for quite some time.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version