Technofitting, Part 2

The best part of the debate between restoration and technofitting is the approach. No matter how you feel about the quality of either type of work, both are attempts at an artform. Course design is art.

Restoration of paintings and pieces of art are not regarded as garbage work in the art world. Rather, it is seen as bringing the original brilliance back to a work of art that was lost by the natural passage of time. When the works of van Gogh have their colors refreshed as part of meticulous restoration, art observers do not complain. They are thankful for the effort. Course designers that are into restoration of the classics have a job tougher than simply fixing colors, but they are on the same mission. They are bringing brillance back to a classic. Aesthetics are rejuvenated and, unlike art, function is improved. (It's hard to improve the function of art short of moving art from papyrus to canvas, right? I don't know for sure.)

Can you imagine, though, the uproar in the art world of an artist painting over Starry Night in an attempt to present that view of the world in the 21st century? It would have to include smog, light pollution at night, and probably a different skyline. It'd ruin the work and its value. That's the perspective of the restorationist at the thought of technofitting - it's pretty easy to figure.

It makes understanding the perspective of the technofitter more difficult. It raises a lot of questions from my perspective:
1. How does the technofitter view a golf course? The restorer sees a classic as something never to be changed, like art. Is it seen by the technofitter more like how the television has evolved - as technology changes, so too should the concept of the course?
2. How much is the "original intent" of the first designer considered in the changes as opposed to modern technology and equipment? In essence, it is the question asked of Supreme Court justices. Are you a strict constructionist, or do you apply modern realities to dated precedent?

Finally, a question related to the restoration efforts at Oakmont and Southern Hills in preparation for their 2007 major championships. The restoration to several original features at Oakmont were met with some resistance across the board. The restoration over recent years in many places at Southern Hills were largely praised. What is the difference between the two? Is it the quality of work, or who authorized the work (the USGA with Oakmont's permission vs. Southern Hills on their own)?