[A Clay Man]

I am quite surprised by the criticism Tommy has taken on the case study thread.
His attempt to constructively begin a discussion is a selfless act which should be heralded in this forum. After all, how many ranking posts can one read in ones life-time? This type of excersise  doesn't preclude anyone because of thier lack of access to a majority of the courses emulated here. It allows novices like me to speak up and learn.
Those that were critical should be posting pictures from thier chosen angles on bunkers (or features)they think might draw interest.
Keep the discussions from deteriorating to a who's who with the Manufactuers or IMG. Please?

[RJ_Daley]

Adam, I agree.  However, I am thinking that the intimidation factor is also in play.  Perhaps there are readers that don't wish to make a wrong guess, or fix their opinions of a picture and get stuck with the potential to make the wrong call based on just a single picture.  I can understand that too...  

I think I get Tommy's intention though.  It is not to embarrass or expose someone who might hazard a wrong guess or impression of the singular bunker picture.  There should be no "wrong" answers in a drill like this.    It should be to stimulate our imagination and force us to ask ourselves what we like in a feature on the golf course as a matter of gut level tastes. I think it is quite interesting to see in a micro sense what aspects of a bunker or mound, or any particular feature of a golf course might capture various individuals' attention, and why.

I must make an effort to get my own webpage this year so I can actually post some pics I'd like to share.  I hope Ran has reserved enough memory space from the webpage builders  

[A Clay Man]

Dick- I guess thats the art of the DG. By asking questions that have no answer, nobody can be wrong. I do find it frustrating not knowing what others who post regularly think. They must not have participated for the reasons you sited. Now, if Tommy were really on a bashing binge I think he would've been called on it by now.
Also
I sent you an email asking if youhad sent me a 880kb file. I never heard a yes or no so I still have not opened it. Did U?

[Craig Van Egmond]

Adam,

        That was Dick's family Christmas cards, it was safe on mine, I still ran it through virus scan though.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Adam,
Fear not. I'm pretty good at tuning out the naysayers of educating the masses. Just ask my boss! Everything just seems to go in one ear and right out the other!

But I can admit that!

the whole idea behind the Bunker education thing is to get away from the constant nitpicking on my part and get into some real architectural discussion. Unfortunately, it doesn't appease at least one, who just so happens to be a member at a Fazio course!:)

Yes, that was a cheap shot!

In closing, I would like to address what I think art is.

It is a creative expression in any form that utilizes any certain function***.

(***In explaining, DiVinci was not only an artist, but a creator and inventor. He utilized his vision for not only creating paaintings, but he had an uncanny eye always looking at the future. We see great architects as Artist's because of their abilities to look deep inside and either create or emulate nature at its fullest.)

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

It is a simple exercize, flash a photo of a bunker and breakdown what you see. Of course its difficult to judge its role in the strategy of a hole which is intregal, but that's not the point. Analyzing the characteristics of a given bunker is not easy and no one wants to be made a fool - some could care less about the look of a bunker and realy don't get into this sort of thing. But for those who enjoy a well constructed interesting bunker it tests are powers of observation.

[Neal_Meagher]

Tommy,

To address what art is is to know a certain way of living life.  Many among us are true artists at heart while often not knowing or understanding it's principles.  Who among us would knowingly place a paisley tie upon a cotton stripe shirt paired with a plaid jacket? Perhaps some misguided souls though not too many.

And in a very obtuse sort of a way it is the same with golf.  The beauty and art of seeing in one's mind's eye a curling 12 footer sliding a good foot and a half to the left, slowly, then almost seductively curling at the very last moment toward the extreme edge of the cup to secure the moment.

Yes, the most important thing to understand is that golf is most unlike all other pursuits of sportsmanship in that it takes place in a theater of art.  Not the baseball diamond or tennis court which are all mostly the same.  To really know golf I believe one must understand this relationship to the artful surroundings with which the game unfolds.

Not all can survive on artful pursuits or even know which end of a pencil or paintbrush to hold.  Yet to understand this aspect of golf, one must understand it's overbearing sense of being toward one's way of living life.  It is the life of the aesthete.  The life of the individual that would rather indulge of an 18 year old single malt scotch rather than a last Tuesday vintage blend.  The life of the individual that would rather pace off from a singular barber pole at 150 than to be assaulted with a barrage of kirby markers and three different yardages on a sprinkler head.

In short, golf is the one sport that transcends art.  It is the one sport that takes place in a place of art.  Even very bad art is better than no art.  For to truly know art is to actually live art, and in that realm life itself is richer.

[Jeff_Stettner]

Neal:
I agree with most of what you say. I do not, however, think that golf can be singled out as the only sport set within artistic settings.

How many men have taken their sons to Fenway Park, waxing poetically about the magical green monster? Who will forget the thunderous noise of Soldier Field as the Chicago Bears rolled through a nearly perfect season in 1985? How much harder is it to play at wimbledon than at the local court?

I think we make these distinctions and seperate golf because we see the subtle details that non-golfers do not. Ask my mother, whose never picked up a golf club, if golf transcends art and she would scoff (especially when you consider how much fluff she's heard me preach).

I feel just as passionately about the perfect break of a curveball that buckles the knees of a cleanup hitter as I do about the sharp break of a 12-footer finding the bottom of the cup. Golf transcends art to US, and that is a wonderful thing. It's great that we can all take such appreciation of the grand settings in which we play this game.

[TEPaul]

I like NealM's post there a lot, it says a good deal about this recent discussion going on on about five threads about whether or not golf architecture is art.

Some are using very broad definitions of art and some are using very narrow ones and claiming golf architecture is not art because it doesn't fit into that narrow definition.

Personally, I subscribe to the notion of some of the earlier architects that art in golf architecture is an attempt to create something that best mimics the beauty of nature (whether in the mind of any particular person nature constitutes beauty or not).

I'm not so concerned about what the definition of art is but I am interested in what seems beautiful in nature and golf architecture. Incidently, one rather uncluttered and not particularly narrow definition of art is that which is beautiful and significant.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'd like to add my voice to those who appreciate and enjoy Tommy's efforts to elicit reactions and analysis on various bunkers.  

In a way, it really forces us all to get away from personalities, biases, and he simply asks us to explain what we see, what we like and don't like, and why.

I think some here originally felt that this might be an exercise in criticizing the artistic styles of certain architects, with a negative bent.  Many of the well-thought out comments, as well as Tommy's insistence on keeping the bunkers "anonymous", have since belied that fear.

Great job, Tommy!  I'm looking forward to seeing more.

[Brian Phillips]

I think Tommy has created a new angle to this DG.  We have now gone from discussing and arguing on the site to actually studying and learning.

It really is a way for people to be put on the spot about what they think what architecture really is.  

It doesn't matter what angle the picture is taken at use your bloody imagination!!!!  That is what half of architecture picturing what is in front of you....!

I love it!!

[A_Clay_Man]

As some may already know I have moved, Again. I live behind the San Juan river and my cat Shamus and I have been taking walks in this pristine forrest primeval. The sandy soil, the natural serpentine contuers of the ancient river is sending me to find other natural golf holes with each step.
Since the city owns the land and a minamilist hand is whats needed to make a course on this site, would it bother the asthetics if you just built the holes and didn't care if there was a pumphouse in ones view (not in play) or other non-golf related visuals? Would this detract from the art of the course or can it live in a vaccum and be appreciated for the design and not the decision to waste funds trying to hide these relative eye-sores?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Aclayman,

If the purpose of the posts were to study a bunker, or the art of a bunker, wouldn't that study be better served by having photos from every angle ?

From my old drafting days, I believe there was a preference to have at least three views to give one a better idea of what they were examining.

If the evaluation is to have substance, and not preference for style, one needs to know about the water table, annual or seasnonal high rainfall, subsurface rock and many other pertinent facts.

If the study is about evaluating ONE PICTURE, then that's all you need.....
 but, does that give you insight with respect to the totality of the design, and construction, including all of the elements which affected its final form ?

Perhaps it's like looking at a photo of a club head in contact with a golf ball and being asked to evaluate the swing.

[Tim_Weiman]

Adam,

Perhaps you shouldn’t make too much of this issue.  Tommy has introduced a very good topic with the bunker case studies. I simply disagree with the approach he has taken for reasons I’ve already expressed.   Rather than debate one issue endlessly, at some point you have to move on.  I doubt anyone is enthusiastic about every thread, no matter how well intentioned the originator might have been.

Just in case you have any interest in the issue of “context” as it relates to the art of bunkers, here are twenty examples that collectively just might change your view:

Geoff Shackelford
Alister Mackenzie’s Cypress Point Club
P. 102 (CP #6)

David Scaletti
The Sandbelt
Cover (Kingston Heath #3)

George Peper
500 Greatest Golf Holes
P. 29 (Bethpage Black #5)

Mike Klemme
A View From The Rough
P. 5 (Colleton River #15)

Peter Allen
Play The Best Courses
P. 143 (Sunningdale Old #7)

Warner Shelly
Pine Valley Golf Club
P. 67 (PV #17)

Robert Trent Jones
Golf’s Magnificent Challenge
P. 152 (Valderrma #15)

William Davis
100 Greatest Golf Courses
P. 130-131 (Seminole #6)

Micheal Fay
Golf As Is Was Meant to Be Played
P. 138-139 (Essex #11)

Harry McCaw
Royal Country Down Golf Club
P. v-vi (RCD #4)

Robert Trebus
Baltusrol 100 Years
P. 89 (Baltusrol Lower #3)

Ron Whitten
The Golf Course
Cover (Wild Dunes #18)

Paul Hornung
Muirfield Village Golf Club
P. 130 (MV #18)

George Thomas
Golf Architecture in America
P. 5 (Ojai #3)

Robert Hunter
The Links
P. 15 (Alwoodley #1)

Tom Simpson
The Architectural Side of Golf
Plate xxxi (Chantilly #15)

Joseph Johnson
Royal Melbourne Golf club
P. 198 (RM West #5)

Fred Hawtree
Colt & Co.
P. 126 (Prestbury Golf Club #5)

Brian Morgan
A World Portrait of Golf
P. 94-95 (RMGC West #5 & #6)

Tom Doak
Life and Work Dr. Alister Mackenzie
P. 121 (Valley Club #15)


In case you would prefer twenty examples from one source, check out “The Art of Golf Design” with paintings by Mike Miller and essays by Goff Shackelford.  It is hard to pick a favorite among Miller’s work, though if pressed I’d probably go for Page 104 where Miller presents the 13th hole at Merion.  (You also find this painting on the cover of Geoff Shackelford’s “The Golden Age of Golf Design”.)    

Geoff’s Golden Age is also filled with examples of putting the art of bunkers in context.  You also find a more limited number of examples in his book “The Captain” (about George Thomas) and his “Masters of the Links, Essays on the Art of Golf and Course Design”.

Support for the idea of putting things in context comes from both golf artists and golf photographers.  Indeed, the evidence becomes overwhelming when you survey the literature on golf architecture.  I mentioned Mike Miller’s paintings.  They are stunning.  But, you might also want to check out Linda Hartough’s work in “Hallowed Ground, Golf’s Greatest Places”.

As for photographers, John Henebry’s work in “Shadow Creek, From Barren Desert to Desert Oasis” is hard to beat, especially if you are looking for brilliant documentation of bunker work that isn’t anything special.   If, by contrast, you are looking for brilliant documentation of bunker work that IS special, stick with David Scalletti’s “The Sandbelt”.  It won’t be easy to find anything better.

Finally, I can’t leave this topic without mentioning the work of Joann Dost, a photographer from Pebble Beach, California.  Joann’s picture of the 11th hole at Pacific Dunes might be the single best golf picture I’ve ever seen.  If you want to see what “context” for a bunker looks like, you’ll have to look up Joann sometime.  Even John Henebry, a leading competitor, had to admit Joann did something really special.

Adam, I don’t mean to be presumptuous, but when you survey the good work done documenting the art of bunkers, I’m guessing you will also come away disappointed with how Tommy approached his subject.  Being hung up on concealing the identity of the architect undermined the integrity of the exercise in my judgment. Let’s just hope Dick Daley was wrong in suspecting Case Study #1 was about a Fazio bunker.


Tommy:

I should have probably gone for your “don’t participate” option rather than being like the school kid that disrupts class.  Sorry.  You might want to comfort Adam by letting him know we are of like my mind when it comes to the art of bunkers.

Have no worries about appeasement or “cheap shots”.   At the end of the day, you going to come around and agree with me on the issue of “context” when studying the art of bunkers.  I’m sure of that!

Pat Mucci:

It continues to amaze me that anyone would think the use of a single, close angle picture is the way to study to art of bunkers.

When I read someone suggest "using imagination", I have to wonder why in the world anyone would go for such an approach.  People like Brian Morgan, John Henebry, Geoff Shackelford and countless others have provided us with substantial documentation.  

It escapes me why anyone would want to put all that aside.

Tommy knows better!

[Brian Phillips]

Tim,

Let's assume that Tommy doesn't have 5 pictures of the bunkers he wants us to look at,
let's also assume Tommy has another job to (he is an electrician) and doesn't have time to create the perfect study thread,

let's assume that it's just a bit of fun where some good discussion can be developed,

Then hey, why not?

Don't get so serious, just join in.

If it's good enough for Jeff Brauer (ex-president of ASGCA) to give comment or TEPaul (the god of threads) then it is good enough for me.  

I build golf courses and I study architecture, in fact my first design gets built in June next year, but I still find it fun, especially when Tommy posts a good bunker like #3 at the moment.

People like Brian Morgan and Shackleford do it for a living Tommy doesn't....do you?  I don't see Tommy being paid to put in the effort....

He just loves architecture.  

A bit of positive thinking and imagination goes along way in life.  

If you think that one photo is too little post some of your own.

But get off his back...

[TEPaul]

Yeah, I probably said take a shot of the bunker from the ideal angle of play but it's not that big a deal if you're studying the design of a bunker, period. Some of the guys thought the bunker looked well placed for strategy even if that might be getting off the point (not sure about that) and Tommy says actually he doesn't think it is well placed strategically although that's hard to tell from the perspective of this photo.

I'm sure not as good a photographer as Tommy but one of the reasons I said take it from the ideal angle is I was out shooting a bunch of photos (of Hidden Creek) and when I got them back I was real disappointed I didn't think to analyze the postion where I was taking them from. Sometimes, even if you were just there you get sort of confused as to what's what and where in the photos if you're way out of position, but you definitely don't get confused if you set the proper perspect up photographically on the hole.

[Tim_Weiman]

Brian Phillips:

Regarding your "get off his back" comment, you must know Tommy well enough to know he doesn't need others to fight his battles.

Moreover, were it not for Adam's thread I would have moved on all together.  If people want to participate in the exercise Tommy has put together, that's fine.  After three or four posts it was not my intention to go on harping about what I thought was wrong about Tommy's approach.

Surely, there will be other threads where it is quite likely Tommy and I will take the same point of view.

I don't make a living in the golf industry, but following Adam's post I thought it worthwhile to review some of the literature on the subject of the "art of bunkers".  What struck me was how consistently professionals in this field documented the subject, including classic era architects (e.g., Mackenzie), students of classic era architecture (e.g., Shackelford), artists (e.g., Miller), photographers (e.g., Scaletti, Henebry, Morgan), golf magazine editors (e.g., Peper), club historians (e.g., Shelly), golf architecture historians (e.g., Whitten), modern architects (e.g., RT Jones, Doak), and so on.

Almost everywhere you look, you will find people understand the importance of "context" when displaying or discussing the art of bunkers.

We certainly don't have to agree, but pointing out what "serious" students of golf architecture have done seems quite reasonable to me and hardly inconsistent with the objectives of this site.

P.S.  My documentation is not in electronic form, otherwise I'd be quite happy to post some examples.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()