[Tom_Doak]

Grumpy:

Why so grumpy?  Do I know you?

I actually agree with Jim that the "spaces" we create in a golf course are an important part of what we do, an aspect of design that's completely underrated and ignored by Patrick's narrow-minded definition of golf architecture, above.  (Not that Patrick is especially narrow-minded compared to some others here, but that definition is.)

You can get great golf by starting with the spaces and then working on the golf part.  The other way around, you just wind up with a bunch of templates.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim E - your post #32 asks some very fine questions.  

Tom D - your post #46 was a very fine post.

This is a great thread. Thanks again gents

Peter

PS - Jim, I wish every architect thought that the profession was about more than creating fields of play -- that belief 'opens' up the world, whether or not one thinks nature the ultimate goal.

I'm convinced that the 'forms' and 'elements' of golf's fields of play are the most malleable of all things; but for some reason, they've become the most fixed and immutable.

[Adam Clayman]

For this golfer, there's no higher peaceful feeling of satisfaction than golfing in a natural setting with natures elements a bit on the extreme side.
 

[Geoffrey Childs]

Grumpy:

Why so grumpy?  Do I know you?

I actually agree with Jim that the "spaces" we create in a golf course are an important part of what we do, an aspect of design that's completely underrated and ignored by Patrick's narrow-minded definition of golf architecture, above.  (Not that Patrick is especially narrow-minded compared to some others here, but that definition is.)

You can get great golf by starting with the spaces and then working on the golf part.  The other way around, you just wind up with a bunch of templates.

Tom - I'm just grumpy until spring, a new golf season and a renewal of my unobtainable goals for my golf game.  Then winter inevitably comes and I'm grumpy again.

You make excellent points especially about Patrick's narrow mindedness. However, you have spent years on GCA talking about and educating us about strategies on your golf holes, integrating man made features with surrounds always I believed with playability in mind.

Your book on Dr Mackenzie as well as Geoff Shackelford's Cypress Point book with those wonderful old photos might be relevant as well.  His work and use of camouflage is a good example I think of "natural design" but with at least (I think) equal focus on testing the golfer.

I think these examples are different then hearing that upslopes into bunkers and heavy grass to prevent balls entering are part of a philosophy to make the golfer "feel good" (my interpretation) and a golf course as a work of art more then a playing field.

Of course unlike Patrick I could be wrong.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - one last thought

I'm also convinced that if we were but prepared to fail - and prepared to fail not through vaulting ambition but through a profound humility - we'd see that nature is offering us many more golf holes and kinds of golf holes than are dreamt of in our philosophies.

That's not a criticism, as who but one in a million of us is prepared to fail that way. I know that in my own vocation, I've never been.

Peter

[Joe Hancock]

Dr. Grumpy,

I'm sure I overreacted to a perceived tone in the line of questioning to Jim Engh. I apologize for not gleaning more information about said questions before I posted my words.

The gist of what I am trying to say is this: There are many methodologies, ideologies, etc., when it comes to the game of golf. Jim Engh, a hard working, well respected architect is taking the time to learn the ropes here at GCA.com, and my hopes are that a very civil, genuine reception would be our mantra. He has created golf courses that many love, yet many question. I hope he feels welcome enough here to share his side of the story.

I'm looking forward to that shared bottle of wine when I return out East!

 

[Peter Zarlengo]

Natural:

being in accordance with or determined by nature b: having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

Naturalism:

1: action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts

Naturalistic:

of, characterized by, or according with naturalism

Lets not confuse natural with naturalistic. For me it all comes down to the idea of sense of place, or genius loci, where design:

1. Designs for a unique point on the Earth
2. Identifies where you are
3. Manifests the sacred

All of which can be accomplished both apart from and adhering to naturalistic values.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Tom Doak

I am actually in agreement with Patrick Mucci and his post regarding playability being the primary goal of GCA.

The spaces of play are certainly of major importance but could you argue that the courses Patrick mentions, Merion East, Aronomink, Winged Foot, Quaker Ridge, Baltusrol, Plainfield, NGLA or Westhampton are not superb environments and glorious walks. I don't believe that anyone is calling for the return of geometric design for the sake of playability. However, the other end of the spectrum in its extreme woudl be Jim's quote.  I'm sure/think that he doesn't intend his quote to go to that extreme but it might be nice to hear the expansion of his idea with regard to play vs. art.

Grandpa Joe

I totally applaud Jim's posting here.  Its ALWAYS good to hear from people in the business. Hopefully he is here to contribute as do all the other distinguished fellows in the business. It certainly has to beat all the OT posts.

[Jeff Doerr]

Two courses that stand out for me in this discussion are Chambers Bay and the Castle Course. They both have a "natural" look, but there is no tie in to the true natural area around them.

[Norbert P]

. . . .  I was talking with a landscape architect recently and asked him who he thought would be a good collaborator for such a project -- not a Tour pro but a landscape architect who is way "out there" so I could serve as the golf expert for them. 

I have often considered starting a new topic of who will be the next Desmond Muirhead?

Could it be Andrew Goldsworthy?



If ever there was a documentary for the beanbag, incense and a lava lamp, Rivers and Tides is it.

[Jeremy Rivando]

I have always thought that Mother Nature was the best designer around and I would love to see more of her courses exposed in the future.  I think that is a bit along the lines of Tom Doaks comments.  I'm not sure that natural needs to be the "ultimate" goal but I wish there was a bit more scrutiny and less "business sense" put into the selection of a golf course property.  A great artist can work with many canvases and many of the worlds great golf courses are on entirely different types of properties but I think the memorable ones blend in with their surrounds and evoke a feeling of timelessness.

[Kyle Henderson]

- I noticed in a past thread, I think started by Jeff Brauer,  that the majority of you view the profession more as an artform than a technical function.( Jeff sorry if I didn't get that exactly right.) I tend to agree. In fact, I view the technical side of the profession to be more about solving problems created by the artistic process.

SOME MIGHT SUGGEST THAT SOLVING TECHNICAL OBSTACLES IS AN ART IN ITSELF. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN FORCED TO CHANGE ONE OF YOUR COURSES BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL ISSUE (E.G. DRAINAGE, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS) ONLY TO FIND THAT YOUR SOLUTIONS ACTUALLY ADDS TO THE ARTISTIC NATURE OF THE COURSE (WIN-WIN VS. COMPROMISE)?

FOSSIL TRACE COMES TO MIND, THOUGH I'VE ONLY READ ABOUT IT.

Back to your original premise: While naturalism may not be the ultimate goal, it probably should not  be wholly ignored.  ** See Trump National L.A.

[Brent Boardman]

I actually agree with Jim that the "spaces" we create in a golf course are an important part of what we do, an aspect of design that's completely underrated and ignored by Patrick's narrow-minded definition of golf architecture, above.  (Not that Patrick is especially narrow-minded compared to some others here, but that definition is.)

You can get great golf by starting with the spaces and then working on the golf part.  The other way around, you just wind up with a bunch of templates.

Since we're getting into Goldsworthy (who I agree is very evocative), consider this quote by JB Jackson: "I suspect no landscape, vernacular or otherwise, can be comprehended unless we perceive it as an organization of space."  Further, by Lucy Lippard: "Space defines landscape, where space combined with memory defines place."

I think this is why most aspiring golf architects today are first steered in the direction of landscape architecture.  Landscape architects are, IMO, first and foremost designers of "space".  A golf course would not exist, or at least could not thrive, if it were simply a menagerie of obstacles through the green with little attention made to "space".  Architects create spaces (here, holes) within the landscape (the golf course and its context) as priority, then adding obstacles and strategy to evoke lasting memory that causes one to think "I really enjoy that place."  That's what brings you back.  It truly is a symbiotic relationship.

Unfortunately, I don't foresee any "out there" landscape architects making a big impact on golf course architecture any time soon.  In fact, I've had to tell myself that.  As much as some would like to see it as a possible niche, I believe popular opinion of the golfing masses would make such an architect simply a sideshow for a brief time, which would likely fade to black.  Strantz was probably the only artist that actually began to break the mold a bit, but he was by no means "out there" as far as landscape architecture goes - and look at some of the criticism he still gets. 

Then again, I kinda hope I'm wrong.

[Norbert P]

Is natural the ultimate goal? 

Jim

Landscapes of rarer character deserve to be allowed to exist as much as possible in their original forms.

   Consider Carne Links, which I know you are very familiar with. It is land which is more important to be left as untouched as possible.
   The land should be held in priceless regard,  as a curator protects and presents irreplaceable artifacts in a museum.  The land has been designing itself for centuries, so the artistry is in restraint.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Excellent question.

Before I go and read other responses, I'm going to copy and paste something I wrote a few weeks back that I'll stand by today, esoteric as it may be.   It's my take, and I'm sticking with it. 


I either need to drink a lot more of the good stuff or dig out my college bong to get in the proper frame of mind for this thread, but since it's late at night let me just try and get to what I think is the nucleus of the argument for naturalism, or obscurantilism in as few words as possible.

At its core, golf is illusion.   It provides man with the happy fantasy that through his actions, he is in control.   We talk about the challenge...of the land, of the elements, of the vagaries of life and fortune, and it seems that our greatest golfing dreams are seemingly hitting that perfect shot or even several reasonably satisfactory ones that termporaily overcome our physical insignificance and ineptness and allows us to feel momentarily powerful in a vast, unknown universe not of our own making.

To help complete the illusion, we need to travail and prevail against a canvas that at it's most genuinely, conspiratorially authentic , is almost indistinguishable from the hostile realities of nature at her most unpredictably complex, arbitrarily emotive, and seductively alluring. 

Anything that obviously screams out the planned hand of man; whether some disdainful, unmerciful, sadistically penalizing attitude of an angry, frustrated artist towards his unfortunate patrons, or worse yet, a platitudinous, patronizing, and condescending attempt to neutralize naturally wild, random forces while ingratiatingly contriving to limit the silent, metaphysical conversation to simplistic man-made understandings...to arrogantly attempt to "tame" the earth, to limit her variables, and somehow stack the odds in our favor (i.e. the hated "containment mound"), causes some degree of inherent, reactive conflict between the primal urges we instinctively use our golf to satiate, and the fragile relevant reality of what our finite mortal limitations are contrastasted with what we hope they might be on this world.

Crossing a bridge, or driving a road, or building a shelter hold none of the same vain, valiant attempts at temporary immortality.

[TEPaul]

Jim Engh  asked:

“Suppose that if art is in fact, supposed to be natural, how would you view the
following artists? Renoir? Picasso? Warhol?”

Sean Arble responded:

“I was rolling with you, though I admit it was a bit of a bumpy ride, until I hit "Suppose that if art is in fact, supposed to be natural, how would you view the following artists? Renoir? Picasso? Warhol?". I don't see how making architecture naturalistic went to art being natural. Do you really consider yourself an artist in the same way Renoir or Picasso were artists?

Gentlemen:

Sean’s point questioning if all art should be natural is an appropriate one, and his last question asking if a golf architect should consider himself an artist in the same way as a paint artist such as Renoir or Picasso is a good one. And it’s particularly interesting that the answer involving the difference between a golf course architect as an artist and a painter as an artist is fairly central to the roll and the necessity of naturalism in the art form of golf course architecture while the paint artist‘s art form does not involve such a necessary roll for naturalism.

I hate to do this to you guys again but the reasons for this difference just could not be and has not been better explained anywhere than by Max Behr when he wrote:

“The paint artist’s “medium” is paint and he has complete freedom to fancy and is the complete master over his “medium“. The golf course architect’s “medium” is the earth and he does not have complete fancy over his medium and can never be the complete master over it. Only Nature and the forces of Nature is the master over the “medium” of earth.”

To me that fact is virtually undeniable and if anyone doesn’t think so I’d like to see them try to prove why it must not be so. For example, golf course architecture is always outside and it’s an art form that supports the human interactivity of a game with human participation upon the art form. Clearly that constantly effects the art form in the same way human beings effect any other earthen forms they actually physically use. And the forces of Nature’s wind and water also massively effects that art form constantly.

This is just not the case with a paint artist’s art. It is almost always under glass and is not exposed to the physical intervention of humans or the forces of the wind and water of Nature.

For these reasons and due to this fundamental difference golf course architect inherently needs to consider the aspect of nature and the natural aspects of its “medium”---the earth and earth-forms far more than the art form of the paint artist. If the art form of golf course architecture doesn’t consider this aspect of naturalism involved with and in its medium properly clearly the risk of what is made will be more prone to destruction.

Another thing that should probably stop on here is the constant refrain from so many that simply because all things about golf courses are not natural then nothing needs to be natural or appear to be natural.

That is not the point at all. Almost nothing in art or in life is just an “either/or” thing! It’s simply a matter of degree and the fact is the “medium” of the golf architect----earth----is a natural medium always exposed to the ravages of natural forces and that fact cannot be denied or avoided. The same cannot be said of the medium or the art form of the paint artist, at least nowhere near to the same degree.





 

[JMorgan]

I'll just add the obvious, that the limits of GCA are defined for you both by a much larger subset of the laws of nature and the rules of golf, unlike painting.  So not so with Renoir or Picasso, who were creating art under a whole separate context of ideas about perception and thought, never mind an "end-using" audience. 

[Mike_Young]

I think in any art form the ultimate goal is to have a chance at some point to do ones best.....however reality dictates that one must survive in order to eventually achieve such.  While today naturalism seems to be the thing...it may not always.....this site is so over the top idealistic that it cannot phathom reality in golf design sometimesIMHO. 

Have been in the middle of reading The Fountainhead for about the fourth time in my life.....should be required reading for this site.....

the ultimate goal for an artform is the masterpiece and with golf that takes the proper piece of land whether the course be designed as minimal or ultramodern.....JMO
Mike

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak said:

".....and I'll be the first to applaud when somebody pulls off the Picasso of golf course designs, really out there and yet fun to play."


TomD:

Someone already did that, and it became instantly infamous, and you and most of the rest of the world of golf condemned it almost completely! Of course I'm speaking of Muirhead's Stone Harbor.

The look and architectural lines of that course were probably as close to the look and artistic lines of the type of art Picasso became most famous for as anything ever done in golf architecture, at least  to my eye of Picasso and SH. It was a product and expression of about as much "symbolism" in GCA as could ever be conceived.

Was it also fun to play?

Well, that's probably a subjective thing like all other golf architecture. How did you feel about the way SH played and how many times have you ever played it?

To me it actually was fun to play even if the only reason was because I'd just never seen or played anything remotely like it. I liked the fact that there was that extreme difference from most anything else I knew. And having said that I will also say there certainly could be plenty of other experimental things with golf architecture I probably would never want to play. I probably played SH once or twice a year and I looked forward to it even if I believe I also felt it wasn't something I'd like to do on a steady diet. Always in the back of my mind playing SH was the fact that the course and its architecture probably possessed the most razor thin margins for error imaginable. Playing golf with that reality is very interesting to me and it very much effected me strategically in ways I found both interesting and also exciting.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike and Tom both allude to a masterpiece, which I think is on the right track.  Determining the style (like picking impressionism in art, for example) is but one task in creating that masterpiece, not the centerpiece, necessarily.

I also think in terms of relativity.  As Mike notes, you take a lot of jobs to survive (at least most of us gca's do)  I am still jazzed enough about golf architecture to try to take a flat site and make it the best it can be, basically a masterpiece in terms of what I was given to work with, and the role of the course (i.e., Whistling Straits bunkers ain't gonna happen ona muni) even if it falls short of being a masterpiece compared to the best courses in the world.

[TEPaul]

Mike Young said:

"The ultimate goal for an artform is the masterpiece."


That remark to me is about as appropriate as any remark on this thread, and at this point, could be. It also merges well into the underlying mentality of this website---which is to conceive of and discuss ideals and the idealistic.

And so, it would probably be appropriate to cite and discuss what those recognized masterpieces in the history of golf architecture are and certainly why so many accept them as THE masterpieces.

I submit that many of them were never planned or conceived to be golf courses that were intended to accommodate the games of everyone, and certainly not in that odd ideal that a golfer could putt a ball from one end of them to the other----the very ideal that so many on here seem to think is the ultimate goal or even ideal.

Perhaps a really good discussion along these lines will serve to get some on here to give up on some of their shop-worn cliches and limiting assumptions and mindsets!   

[Jason Topp]

Mike Young said:

I submit that many of them were never planned or conceived to be golf courses that were intended to accommodate the games of everyone, and certainly not in that odd ideal that a golfer could putt a ball from one end of them to the other----the very ideal that so many on here seem to think is the ultimate goal or even ideal.

Based on my knowledge, the only Doak 10 that does not meet this ideal is Pine Valley.  Others should correct me if my impressions are wrong.

Doak 10's


1-St. Andrews - playable for all
2-Pine Valley - not
3-Royal Melbourne (West) - playable for all
4-National Golf Links - I don't know, it seems playable
5-Sand Hills- playable for all
6-Cypress Point - don't know - seems playable
7-Royal Dornoch - don't know - seems playable
8-Shinnecock Hills - don't know - seems playable
9-Crystal Downs- don't know - seems playable
10-Ballybunion (Old) - don't know - seems playable
11-Merion (East) - don't know - seems playable
12-Muirfield - playable for all

[Jim Engh]

Richard - very interesting take on the different styles of those artists and I must agree in whole. I do however, feel that the ultimate goal of any artform is to invoke an emotional response. As I view my profession as a form of art, I personally choose to work to that goal. We have the advantage of having a captive audience for 4 hours and have 200 acres of a 3 dimensional canvas. During that time period, I feel that things can become repetative and boring very quickly. It is my ultimate goal to create a place that is interesting, unique and fun and will have variety each time. Of course this includes the fun aspect of playing the game. That is what makes this artform so special compared to others. Envisioning those spaces with  emotions before they are created is my personal definition of design. I realize that I am probably considered to be on the moon with my views, but isn't that what makes things fun. Thanks for the fun banter!

Jeff - great point!  I find myself sometimes getting well wrapped up in the experience. At the end of the day this business had better be treated as a business, because that is exactly what it is to our clients. It always takes ones mentor to bring the student back to earth. By the way, I fully agree that the method of design must be chosen very carefully to compliment the setting. Great analogy with Whistling Straits and Sand Hills.

Sean - I agree that a gca has a goal to provide a product that is functional. To me that function is to provide an emotional human experience. Whether that is derived from the spaces and the visual landforms or from the playing of the game or most likey from a combination of both, the goal is to invoke emotion. It is my belief that most artforms have a similar goal.

Phillippe - "if you become stagnant your dead"..... nicely stated.

Grumpy - as I have stated several times, my first priority is to create an art form that evokes emotion from the experience, preferably good emotion. However, when designing a space and envisioning how that space relates / feels in relationship to the previous and future spaces, I will intentionally intimidate or frustrate as a change of pace or to simply to make sure that everyone is paying attention.
       
I have also stated that the playing of the game is a vital element toward creating that desired experience. In short, do my bunkers provide tremendous visual value to the artistic landscape, yes. Are they intended to be hazards of playing the game, yes. Do they carry a predetermined value as to thier difficulty, I hope not. As you stated, they are difficut to get into and very difficult to get out of. I suppose that in itself is a strategy for thier difficulty. I suspect that some of my following remarks might further clarify my position to your questions. Thanks.

- RJ - you mention that "you believe that you must provide the field of play of the game considerations first"....... Certainly that is a common and valid point of view. Let me ask you, on the links courses of Ireland, did they choose land and locate holes in places that happen to fit into a specific or predetermined playing strategy? I would contend that they placed holes (for the most part) through terrain that allowed for the hole to be possible on the rugged ground. It was then up to the players to find thier own best way to play through the setting. That's fun!Fortunately, the exisitng setting had already dealt with the issues of artform in a 'natural' way.      From my point of view, I find this to be a very cool process and the best way to play golf. However, for a thousand reasons, that is not always practicle, so it is important to find new ways to achieve that same feeling...... I will say that my views have changed greatly with age. Instead of predetermining how a hole should be played, I am now looking toward the creation of very cool places and letting the golfers find thier way through them in very interesting ways........ Grumpy does that help to clarify my point a little more?

- Tom - as you and I have discussed many times, we are not that far apart in our goals, just the roads we take to get there.... You mention that you are always trying to attain perfection with "natural". I am always looking for perfection with interest and intrigue. For example when I find a feature or concept that is very interesting to me, I will repeat it a couple of times until I get it just how I like it. Then it's off to the next new idea....By the way tell your guys to call again for lunch, it would be fun..... and congrats on Sebonic!

- Mike - as winter set in upon us quickly this year we were scambling to get seeded. I am sad to say there are not many photos of great quality. I will try I promise.....The fact that we moved very little earth at Four Mile might predetermine that answer..... I personally do not feel that Creek Club at Reynolds looks unnatural. If you consider, as has been stated by someone in this thread, that golf courses placed upon the landsacpe designed to play a game is not natural to the landscape in concept. I would admit that Creek Club is in fact quite unique to the preconcieved notions of '"how golf should look" and be placed upon the landscape.

- Patrick - do you feel that the gca should predetermine how a golf hole should be played? If "the ultimate goal is in the play of the game", does that mean the environment within which the game is palyed has no effect upon the enjoyment of the playing, either perceived or  not perceived?"

- Peter - Very cool post! Please tell me why it takes me two pages to say what you stated in two lines? ..... I am much more afraid of  one day looking back and realizing that I did not follow my heart, but was swayed to follow the norm, than I ever am of failing..... Whether because I have a greater variety of settings today or because I am older and wiser, I am in fact seeing more golf holes in thier natural forms than previously. Four Mile ranch is the perfect example of that.
 
- Adam - totally agree.

- Joe - thanks for understanding that I am new here and cutting me some slack. I appreciate your thoughts on the free exchange of ideas. Much more can be learned from those that have a different perspective than those with the same.   

- Peter - well stated. Would those naturalistic values be reflective of nature itself or are they perceived values as they realate to the game of golf and it's history?

- Jeremy - I also would love to see more of natures coures exposed in thier natural form. If that is not possible, what is the alternative?

- Kyle - I have discovered that in many cases necessity is in fact the mother of invetion. That thought is spot on. Is does however, take a predisposition toward the creative side to see such opportunities.

- B -great quotes and thoughts. These are the types of things that increse the human experience. Mostly in an nonperceived manner.

- Slag -I agree that rare and unique character must be preserved. Funny that you mention Carne. This issue has been a point of friction with myself and the the committee people involved. It was my preference to leave holes in the natural and quirky form.   

Boys, thanks for the fun! Gotta get back to work. Hockey tournament this weekend for the kids. Also my figures are numb with my single finger typing style.  Will try to post again soon. 

[Lester George]

Good Stuff, Jim.  Now get back to work!!!

Lester

[Jim Engh]

Lester, ya ole dog! How have you been? Hope we cross paths again one day!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()