[Ally Mcintosh]

Patrick,

I probably should have used a different term other than eye-candy.

For I am talking about all visual features that are specifically created or utilised by the architect, not only those that are solely out-of play. However, I agree that good visuals tend to affect play and rarely seem superfluous. But that is not always the case. Backdrops are eye-candy that don't affect play but can be very skilfully used in a course routing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I probably should have used a different term other than eye-candy.

For I am talking about all visual features that are specifically created or utilised by the architect, not only those that are solely out-of play. However, I agree that good visuals tend to affect play and rarely seem superfluous. But that is not always the case.

Backdrops are eye-candy that don't affect play but can be very skilfully used in a course routing.

Could you give me some examples ?

Thanks

[jeffwarne]

From the Medinah No.1 thread:

Now, that bunker over the lake - that is eye candy. I have no idea whether it's Tom Doak or Bendelow who originally put it there and I'm not passing judgement on whether it's good or bad.

Increasingly we see many of our favourite architects putting carry-bunkers right in to the eye of play. In general, I like this a lot and it is a return to classic principles in my view where penal mixed with strategic in perfect harmony. It was always something near the top of my "to do" list when the right opportunity came along.

It is happening a lot though and Jeffrey's example of Burnham and Berrow above hammers it home even more... Said Jeffrey "How many architects could resist the temptation to scratch a few bunkers in to that hill".

It is undoubtedly eye candy as opposed to subtlety. Just so happens it's eye-candy of the type I'm a fan of...

Ally,
wasn't Doak
Camel bunker was around for years

[Ally Mcintosh]

I've reinvigorated this as an appendix to Mark B's "Memorability" thread, because I think his premise is essentially what I was getting at here. He just described it far more intellectually.

But I do think that now - more than ever - "overdesign" of golf holes is prevalent in order to prioritise wow / memorability / first play impact (call it what you will - it amounts to the same thing)....Even our best loved architects are guilty of this, I think sometimes because they are so skilled, they can effectively design for fun, adding features at will.

One thing I will say, given that it is topical at present, is that I think the Renaissance Club absolutely does not fit in to this category, being admirably restrained...

Again, I will reiterate that built-in "wow" can absolutely go hand in hand with the greatest design... Just not all the time... And on occasion, "simple" might have provided a better solution...

[Niall C]

I'm going to see Castle Stuart next year for the first time but remember looking at the photos and thinking a) how beautiful it looked but b) how it was bursting with deliberate features (including horizon green after horizon green). If the shots and playability and fun are generated by these features and as long as they feel "right" then that is perfect of course.

Ally

I've selected a quote from you from last year. Now that you've seen CS what do you think ?

Niall

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ally,

Thanks for bumping this. Yes, "eye candy," "memorability," and let's add "definition:" it all grows tiresome, playing courses where the architecture must be "plus plus" and spoon fed to the golfer.

Let me ask: this type of architecture, is it less flexible? Does it offer less variety? Not in terms of the number of hole locations and such but rather in the actual playing?

[Ally Mcintosh]

I'm going to see Castle Stuart next year for the first time but remember looking at the photos and thinking a) how beautiful it looked but b) how it was bursting with deliberate features (including horizon green after horizon green). If the shots and playability and fun are generated by these features and as long as they feel "right" then that is perfect of course.

Ally

I've selected a quote from you from last year. Now that you've seen CS what do you think ?

Niall

I feel exactly as I expected when I wrote that...

I think Castle Stuart is absolutely top-notch design and an example of a team working excellently together... There is no denying that the site is bursting with deliberate features but I think it works perfectly and given that it was constructed rather than found, that is absolutely fine with me...

In this case...

But not always...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()