[Forrest Richardson]

I believe I'm in my right mind. And I already have argued this point. There IS a substitute and we do it all the time. That's my point. There are two phrases that are suspect (among others): "Let me be honest with you..." and "Who in their right mind..." While I do not detest either, I have learned to appreciate their meaning.

[Matt_Ward]

mdugger:

For what it's worth -- there's a difference between a secondary experience (observations by aerial photos, reading about a particular place) and a primary one (actually being there). I place a greater weight on primary observations, but that doesn't mean that all primary observations are more accurate and meaningful.

[TEPaul]

MDugger:

Please don't be too fearful of that day when we can all experience and analyze golf architecture VIRTUALLY! As we speak, Dan King is working very hard on it and he may have it for us any day now. I'm almost completely confident that even Matt Ward wouldn't be more than .1 of a point off in rating a golf course VIRTUALLY!

And when Dan nails VIRTUALITY, his strong recommendation is the entire PGA Tour go to VIRTUAL competition! That way even the players themselves can stay home and enjoy watching themselves compete and maybe they can discuss the architecture with us at the same time.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
Your Ballyowen melt down has to be one of the biggest overreactions in GCA history. I suggest you go back and read my comments so you might understand the context of the photo and caption. “Wasted opportunity”, I don’t recall ever saying that or even implying that. If you don’t think that particular photo looks similar to an airstrip, I give your vision a 3 on the Doak scale. I have no idea how good Ballyowen is and to be honest don’t really care. I doubt the golf world is dying to hear about it (especially on this thread/theme), but I could be dead wrong and soon Ran will give it a fine write up in the near future. Or better yet why don’t you start a new Ballyowen thread? Perhaps you can go back and “review your notes.”

No need to defend your reading list. I’m not aware of anyone lecturing you on your lack of study or accusing you (or 99% of all golfers in the world) of being clueless. There are very few on this site who have that much hutzpah. By the way I’ve seen both Crystal Downs and Sand Hills, ironically neither course was ranked when I played them. And I didn’t need the auspices of a golf magazine ranking to get me on or to either golf course. I wasn’t there to ‘rate’ the courses or to give either course a number -- just seeking out interesting golf architecture.

By the way you seem to be typing just fine.  

Not only don't I type well, I can't spell either.

[Michael Dugger]

TEPaul
Oh good golly by no means am I afraid of the techonological revolution.  Virtual reality is great, freaking crazy but great

Matt Ward
My comment was not necessarily directed at you.  I agree, nothing will ever replace going there, smelling the salt and whacking divots.  You do not get the whole picture, as you have pointed out numerous times, but on certain 'points', certain 'issues', we need no more than pictures to justify out positions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think one of the two best ways to analyze a golf course is to dream about it.

You can experience the dream in the form of a deep sleep dream or a more casual day dream.

I find both are highly effective, much more so than actually seeing and playing the golf course.

And, probing questions relative to the strategic merits of the golf course are answered in the context of hallucination  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Hey, like, you know, like, whatever!

[Slag Bandoon]

 I should have been taking notes going through this thread but it turned from an interesting sashay into a gauntlet run.  

  Society is more visual in every aspect of our lives.  Convenience has also become a highly regarded feature of the masses.      "Paradise softens"  Frank Herbert

  Think how many people in our society could muster up the effort to read Bernard Darwin's 'Golf Courses of the British Isles' in its entirety.    It's almost pure description.  The method and style of writing back then is far removed from what we have now.   H.V. Morton is a blessed genius of description in his books of In Search of Ireland/Scotland; pure magic.  But reading it is arduous by today's limited attention spans.  Magazines have pictures.  Great, but there is something lost with that convenience.  There is rarely deep involvement with understanding the wholeness of a natural golf course.  Our brains have learned to process more with sight than thru a balance of the senses.  
   There is Robert Price who, through a lifetime of studying geology and golf courses gives us an important connection of the everpresent forces of nature and mankinds everlasting need to control everything on Earth.  I really wish I could have met and thanked the venerable Eddie Hackett.
   If we look at a snowcapped mountain, we can say that it is beautiful but isn't it more charming and enlightening to understand what that mountain is and how it was created and how the surrounding landscape interacts with it?  Waterfalls are inspiring when eons of erosion and uplift and glaciation caused them but manufactured waterfalls on a golf course are an audacious bourgeois lie, to ourselves, and are a nullifier of the greatness of the world and the spirit of the game of golf.  They are insulting.  

  There is a niche market for Revolution but, as wisely stated earlier, Evolution is more important.  Revolution is a sort of coup for change but "When the Right becomes the wrong, the Left becomes the Right".   Evolution implies more of a permanance of change.  An education to a higher level of understanding.  There is in me an ambivalent hope of the yin yang of evo/devo.   Destroy to create.  Create and destroy.

  It is, as mentioned earlier, all dependant on the education of golfers, golf archies and owners!!!/investors.  

  If I may go into a small tangent about the Italian Renaissance.  It was a glorious time for art but, the paintings and sculptures were almost completely commissioned by the powerful church or a few royal families.  That's a sad state of artistic freedom when one is told what to paint or chisel.  

  

  
  

  

[TEPaul]

Slag:

Terrific post! I was sort of hoping you'd keep going---! So why don't you?

It's very interesting to discuss golf and its architecture and the details of it, but now and then it's more interesting to try to look underneath it all, underneatth all the details--all its parts and imagine what the more basic motivations really are!

Like nature and man--man in nature-- even if, in the grand scheme of things, in an area as small as golf, and how he carries on and evolves with it, or always seemingly away from it (nature). But there must be a strong subliminal tie there somewhere--but probably the ultimate dichotomy!

It's sad really that probably the vast majority of golfers have no real idea what even the representations of nature are in golf and its architecture anymore. Just like too many people don't even know what things like Christmas are anymore--except a holiday and a time to get presents!

I don't think golf and its architecture, as man perceives it, will ever actually get away from its true roots in nature though--its too strong--even if subliminally--its just too strong! Because of that it will always revert back, or at least look back, from time to time, even if in little ways, and try to do something about it.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Mark,

I agree there is no substitute for being there, and playing the course. I won't speak for you but I can tell you that I am not the brightest bulb so I have to really spend a lot of time with something to fully appreciate it.  And I know from experience that I have dismissed lots of things that upon becoming more familiar with them I now have greater respect for them.  One local course I actually walked during a tournament and thought it a bad course.  After playing it a couple of times I like the course very much.  I know from my own experiences that I have to spend a lot of time on a site from planning all the way through opening and beyond, playing it as well, to fully appreciate it.  So it may not be an absolute truth for everyone that they have to be there to know it, but I know I have to be there face to face with it to know it.  I think Emerson quoted someone as saying that if you really want to know about a pine tree then go outdoors and find one.  Of course, he was a bit of a dim bulb too.

Also, one other example, I went to the van Gogh show in Philly a couple of years ago.  I bought the book, and just could not believe how diminished the pictures of the art work in the book were as compared to what I saw face to face.  I can imagine an art studnet in some remote part of the world who was devoted to van Gogh, and finally after years of studying books and prints and then actually seeing the paintings in person, I bet it would bring them to their knees, that they would feel all that time wasted trying to know van Gogh through books and prints.  Recently I have read of two artists that upon seeing Velaquez's work in person they knew they would never match his talent.  One artist gave up painting after this experience and became a famous sculptor, I believe it ws Serra.  The other changed direction in his art and founded modern art, Manet.  Regardless, the personal experience has no substitutte, but certainly those that study from afar should not be discounted, their interpretations can be very insightful, possibly yielding some insight that might not occur to us lesser beings who beome too intoxicated by the personal experience.

[TEPaul]

Kelly:

What a really good analogy yours is with the mention of seeing Van Gogh's work in person vs books and pictures of it! Certainly it's a great analogy in that people looking at photos and particularly aerials can never really sense the topography of a course and its architecture and all that means!

I went to the same exhibit you did a few years ago and I'm also sort of a dim bulb and certainly no real student of art.

But Van Gogh's art, as you said, sure can floor you when you get close to it. Wasn't that area of about 5-10 feet fascinating where his art transforms back and forth from the parts to the whole like magic? Not to mention the extreme physicality of it and its application!

I would think the only thing that could be neater than seeing it in person and at those two ranges would be to have actually watched him do it!

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Tom,

I am sure no else looking in cares to wade through our conversation, but yes I would have loved to be there.  However, as I alluded to in an earlier posts, great things can happen in obscurity, and as much as we would like to rub shoulders with greatness, if you and I were there having a martini watching over his shoulder no know would ever have heard of him!  After listening to us experts tell him how to do it he probably would have cut off both ears, no.  That small seed, that obscure person toiling away, more concerned with creation rather than recognition, can someday grow into something so great, yet so under appreciated or even known at the time of its creation.

There was a portrait he did which was on exhibit that was so magnificent in its color and technique, and the book washed it out.  I would give anything to see it in person everyday, just walk by and see it.  You are right, that range of viewing distance is so much fun to experience and see how it changes things.  

Anyway, we should probably continue this on the 11th and not take up such valuable space here.  Thanks.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Kelly
As far as I can tell no one on this thread judged the merits of Ballyowen, or any other course, without seeing it. Commenting on a photo is not an assessment of an entire design. Your view that it is useful to experience art and golf in person is obvious, no one is questioning that idea. On the other hand I have no problem if someone looking at your website, concludes they want to seek out your work or concludes they don’t want to seek out your work. Everyone makes these judgements daily.  Obviously you would have never gone to the van Gogh exhibition if you had not seen his work in a book or a magazine and been effected in someway.

I think the point that some are trying to make is there are numerous ways to study golf architecture – playing is important, but it is not the only way. For example how do you study courses that are gone – like Lido or courses that have been significantly altered – like Pebble Beach? You have to study old photos, written accounts, old plans, old eye-witnesses, etc. The same is true in studying the works old masters that are long gone. The other arts understand this.

There is a ton of information for individuals to absorb. If I were interested in seeking out information on Indian Creek, the first person I’d turn to is TomPaul. I don’t believe he has even played the course, but I feel confident that a Flynn scholar would have more insight than most GD panelists who had played the course. Perhaps he studied the original plans, seen old photos of the course, understood how it evolved, was intimately familiar with Flynn’s other work, spoken to many respected individuals who knew the course over the years. Likewise I would turn to van Gogh scholar before I’d ask a one-time visitor to a museum for his insight. The obvious reason is the scholar has gone much farther than just looking at his work on a wall. Usually the people who complain the most about these comments on posted photos or comments about the evolution of courses based on old photos and/or old plans, are those who really have no desire to delve deeply into the subject.

It still looks like a runway to me.

[Mike_Cirba]

Kelly/Tom;

Please do continue your discussion here.  

I saw the same exhibit and so much of what you are both discussing is very analagous to the art and appreciative study of golf course creation that you're hardly wasting space.

What struck me about Van Gogh's work is that his technique often led to a density of contour which almost make his paintings three-dimensional, which is something that is very difficult if not impossible to ascertain from photographs.  In person, one can almost feel the passion he put into such bold and sometimes angered brushstrokes.  It is impossible to view his works in person and not feel moved in some way, even if one knew absolutely nothing about the artist.

It makes me wonder how often golf courses give us that same emotional response, versus how often they just seem blank canvasses, even if they are filled with "features".

[Dan Kelly]

Tom,

I am sure no else looking in cares to wade through our conversation ....

Wrong.

Anyway, we should probably continue this on the 11th and not take up such valuable space here.

Wrong again!

I'm with Mike Cirba. Bring 'er on!

[Matt_Ward]

Mike C:

You hit on an important aspect -- when you analyze something from afar (i.e. pictures, second hand accounts) you are "removed" from the type of interaction and "feel" you get from the personal experience. I would just like to see those who post comments keep the context of their remarks in mind.

Yes, you may be able to "outline" some tendencies or outcomes when "removed," but feeling and breathing the land -- the holes -- the actual sights can only come from a direct involvement. I do concede that simply because someone experiences something firsthand does not always mean that person will be able to provide a cogent degree of analysis that one would like to see. On the flip side is the tendency by some to simply "fire" a base generality based on limited evidence and then going further to expound some broader conclusion. To me -- that's stretching it a good bit and really lacking in one's homework.

[Ronan_Branigan]

Kelly

I think that, as we say at home, you hit the nail on the head! The past masters did what they did by in large because they felt a need to express themselves. Did Van Gogh after finishing the sunflowers sit back, crack open a Bud and with a wry smile on his face think about the millions that it would earn him? There is some correlation with that analogy and present day architecture. In his Interview with GCA Gil Hanse was asked how he felt that golf architecture between 1985-1999 would be remembered and he replied “With all of the activity in the business during this period, one would hope that it could have been another Golden Age. Unfortunately, this did not occur, instead a production line mentality seems to have taken hold, with the ‘top’ designers cranking out course after course…considering their bank account above their legacy. I think that the focus on quantity rather than quality will ultimately cast this as an era of missed opportunities. There have certainly been some great sites to build golf courses on during this period. However, with a few notable exceptions (Sand Hills and High Pointe) the architect was not on site enough to take advantage of these great opportunities”. Maybe its time to take a leaf out of van Gogh's book and begin to express ourselves rather than trying to earn a paycheck so we can upgrade from an E class to an S class Mercedes! By the way I drive neither.

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt/Ronan;

Those are two really good posts and if I can borrow from each of them, I'd say that there is no question that there is nothing quite like the "Feel" of being onsite on a special course, although that doesn't mean one can't get some of the taste from well-done photographs.  Still, that visceral feeling is often somewhat diminished by less than a first-person experience.

Turning that over to the other side, however, one can also get some emotional and logical feedback from a picture of a poorly done course, as well, although those feelings and thoughts are rightfully from a negative standpoint.  For instance, Ronan brings up a good point in quoting Gil Hanse and "missed opportunities" in the modern age by so many big name architects just designing "pro forma" courses that are forced over sites.  It's clear that commerce triumphs over art in many of these courses.

If one is familiar with an architect's work, it isn't brain science to glean from pictures whether that architect has attempted to passionately utilize the natural, unique features of a site in a "CREATIVE" endeavor or whether they just created "Hole #247" on yet another site, as so many seem wont to do.    

[TEPaul]

MikeC;

Kelly's analogy to some of Van Gogh's art is a very good one for golf architecture in some ways but certainly we can't take it too far.

There's no question that Van Gogh was an extremely physical painter and certainly with the unusual amount of paint he applied to canvas for an artist of that time. But it wasn't so much that he applied paint uniformly, he actually did it in a way that anyone would have to say was three dimensional. If someone could run their hand across one of his paintings they would feel more peaks and valleys and sort of more artistic topography of paint than anyone from his time or before, I think.

But the fascinating thing about his application is if you get close enough to it that topography of paint--very perceptible ridges and valleys of paint are ONLY observable parts and pieces--the whole becomes almost completely unobservable in such a fascinating way.

However, at that fascinating distance of maybe 5-10 feet and beyond even the three dimensionality of his massive paint application magically transforms into some unbelievable whole that may not appear remotely like a single one of the parts! And also at that point the actual three dimensionality of his paint application becomes another sort of visual dimensionality!

Somewhat like Rhorshach forms, I guess, but far more fascinating because of the foregoing as well as the power of his whole subjects and the moods of his subjects and the sensations they can create with people!

But even the analogy of Van Gogh's painting to golf architecture should logically stop at the point that he too was working only on blank canvases!

Maybe, in this way, all golf architects who are about to work on bland and flat sites (blank canvases) should study closely Vincent Van Gogh and his unusual techniques!

I can't remember who said it, but it's so true--that to the paint artist, the paint is his medium, but to the golf architect the land is his medium, or at least it should be!

Think about that! To the golf architect, the land is his MEDIUM, and not only his canvas! And I also don't think the canvas or the medium for the golf architect should only be the site he's given--it should be everything as far as the eye might ever see! I think this alone is most of what some of us call staying "site natural" with all of a course's golf architecture!

It may sound trite to say but I also don't believe that golf course architecture as a visual subject should ever be put in a frame, figuratively or literally! I don't think it should even be remotely attempted!

I think the only "frame" golf architecture should ever have is whatever any golfer's ability to take things in and comprehend them visually is! I think whatever visual "frame" there may be should only be any golfer's potential visual "frame" and not necessarily the architects!

On that particular point, I've never found a single living architect who agrees with me, apparently even including Bill Coore! And there may not even have been a single one of the great old guys who saw it that way either.

But it interests me very much! I suppose the only reason it does, would be the question; "Does nature itself offer any observer of it some architectural "visual frame" or does it ONLY break down into whatever any observer's visual reference is alone?"

I can't even imagine how the dream of some of the best of the old guys to take golf and its architecture somehow all the way back to nature, or the perception of it, while at the same time fully understanding those necessary but limiting factors and features of golf--tees, fairways and greens (and in some cases the odd vestige of the bunker feature) could ever come to be fully realized in their minds! But that's what a few of the ones I find most interesting thought to try to do somehow, someday.

Perhaps some of this might be a start!

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Tom M.

I do not understand your first three paragraphs.  As to the rest of your post, I trust the personal experience to tell me more than some expert.  I like Thomas Friedman in the NY Times.  He compiled his articles post 9/11 in a tremendous book.  But, my point about him is that he writes much about the middle east, islam, etc.  He doesn't just consult foreign policy experts at Harvard, the State Department or the White House, he goes to the middle east or India, or Pakistan.  He goes there, he gets on the ground in the middle of the action, He doesn't call up experts from his home in Washington.  And I think his writing, his understanding is heads and shoulders above any foreign policy expert, or Islam expert.  The best way to know van Gogh is to go see the paintings, the best way to know Indian Creek is to go there, not call up some expert.  I learned more from walking Pine Valley than I ever did from reading the experts, infinately more.  Now, if someone would invite me to play it I know I would know that much more.  Who can I call that could tell me more?  Yes, maybe the history, but to really know the course you have to play it.  This is a game, and it is all about playing, strategy.

Ronan,

Thanks for the quote from Gil.  If anyone knows about hands-on craftsmanship he is the person.  There are a handful of real architects and he is one.  You make some excellent points about how money corrupts design.

TE and Mike,

I just read about art and go see it for enjoyment but you guys seem to really know something.  I enjoyed this little thread and your take on it.  There are some questions you posed that will require some thinking.

[Ronan_Branigan]

TE Paul

You have definitely given me alot of food for thought and it excites me that there are people out there who view the art of GCA in such a light. To be passionate about your choosen path in life is to attain self-actualization and I believe that it is only when we reach that point that we can be true to ourselves and hopefully create our best work. With people like you and the majority of the contributors to this sight GCA has a bright future. Whether we need a revolution or simply an evolution is in our hands. The only way to make something happen is to go after it yourself!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Kelly
Mark Fine said that to truly understand a golf course you have to play it. I agree. It doesn't mean you can't have an opinion based on what you have read or seen in photos or seen on TV. Just like the art lover draws an opinion of the French coutryside or an opinion of the artist's psyche by looking at van Gogh's paintings. I am convinced that Royal Melbourne is a magnificent golf course - I've read about it, I've studied new & old photos, I've seen it on TV, I've spoken to many who have played it, I've played other courses by the same architect. Do you agree that my opinion on Royal Melbourne is worthless? It might not be the same as someone who has played the course, but it is not worthless.

Mark also says that even after playing a course your opinion may be worthless, which ties into his theory that 99% of all golfers a clueless. I don't agree that the majority are clueless, but I guess I do agree playing a golf course is no guarantee that you will gain an extraordinary insight. For example you may be a moron or you may be a very poor/inexperienced golfer unable to appreciate the design or you may be a very good golfer fixated on your own game. Do you agree with Mark that 99% of all golfers are clueless? And based this is it possible that my opinion of Royal Melbourne could be more insightful than someone who has actually played it?

You seem to think that experiencing is the only true way and you give van Gogh and art as an example. Although I agree expereince is very important, I believe art actually illustrates why other factors are also worthy. I too am an admirer of art. My appreciation of art began when I was young and was due to a combination of experiences --- drawing and painting as a kid, observing paintings/prints on the walls at home and at my friend's homes. Being taken to art museums by my parents. Reading books and looking at pictures. You develop likes and dislikes and you are obviously drawn to your likes. I didn't have to see the works of van Gogh, Manet, Picasso, Calder, Turner, Homer, Whistler and Hiroshige in person to know I liked their art. Likewise I didn't need to see Rembrandt or Boticelli in person to conclude they didn't do much for me. I agree seeing these works in person enhances the experience, but the intitial appreciation was not a worthless. Who is not moved by photos of Cypress Point or Banff?

You say you trust personal experiences more than experts. I don't think it is an either or proposition, most experts have some degree of personal experience. Thomas Freidman is a well respected and influencial writer on Middle East politics -one of many. Do you think Freidman relies solely on personal experience? I'm sure his travels are useful, but that is only one of many factors that gives him insight. Obviously he is well read and relies on the opinions of numerous Mid-Eastern, religious, history, social experts/scholars. You have visited PVGC - are you an expert on the golf course?

I frankly think this has been blown way out of proportion and has been based a faulty premise - that people are renderring conclusive judgements on the merits of golf courses that they haven't seen. I have no problem with someone looking at that one photo of Ballyowen and concluding that the fairway looks like a runway. Does that mean the course is a bad one? No. Does that mean that the architect wasted the site and opportunity? No not necssarily. It means that fairway looks like a runway, I've seen enough runways and fairways to feel comfortable with that consclusion.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
I have been reading the posts here and finally have something to offer.
No art major here, but in the off season I build stretcher frames for an artist friend who paints in an abstract vein. He tacks big, and I mean big, blank canvas to the wall and paints on it this way for two reasons. The first is he doesn't like the brush to "bounce" off a sprung canvas but the second and more important reason relates to what you were saying about framing.
The method to this madness, used by others also, is to never get trapped by the edge of the canvas. Even though he has a definitive theme for the work he feels that having to work within the "borders" doesn't let him travel around the whole canvas as needed and can stifle what may appear.  
One thing that occurs is that several of these large works reveal more than one painting and we sometimes create a diptych or triptych, which are two or three related panels shown together, from the same canvas.

Sounds like the above could all translate well into GCA so maybe some of those Architects should be listening!  

[Charles Blair MacDonald]

mdugger,

I do.

I wanted to emphasize the significance of first hand experience being the only truely valid method for analyzing a golf course and its architecture, and made that statement for all the world to see, on page 295 in my book, Scotland's Gift.

If you don't have my book, perhaps some of your esteemed comrades on GCA can quote the passage for you.

[TEPaul]

Ronan:

When you say; "I believe that it's only at that point when we can be true to ourselves that we can.......our best work"; I would think certainly so!

I've been doing a lot of reading lately, about MacKenzie, Tillinghast, Thomas, Crump, H Wilson, Fownes, Leeds, Behr, Hunter, McDonald and it would certainly seem almost every one of them had something in common--and that would be that they seemed to have a very strong belief in their thoughts and ideas, certainly about golf architecture! It seems that most, if not all of them, were almost incapable of doubt or totally unable to not believe in themselves in their vision with architecture.

Maybe it was arrogance--I don't know--but I see it more as just a very strong and clear vision of things. They may not have even been professionals, and it's ironic that a good half or more of those named never took a cent for what they did!

They probably had no real idea, at least in the beginning, how to do the technical things professional architects do but they at least knew where to find those that could help them put into effect their obviously clear, strong and probably very detailed vision of things! That would certainly classify as being true to yourself.

Golf architecture is a business and possibly the fact that it really wasn't to some of them must have given them tremendous freedom of expression to do what they wanted to and probably to believe so strongly in it too. Even Bernard Darwin mentioned most of those mentioned here as capable of very strong unfettered beliefs--for whatever reason!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()