Re: [Paddlewise] : RE: Skinboats of Greenland

I sent this reply only to Matt by mistake. Here it is so everyone can
benefit from my enlightened wisdom or see what a fool I am, as they see fit.
>>>

I am a strong proponent of aesthetics as one of many design criteria in
traditional kayaks. However, what we see as purely aesthetic may be highly
functional and what we believe to be purely functional, may be aestheticly
inspired.

In a very basic sense beauty itself can also be seen as functional. The
Inuit kayaker's life depended on his boat. As a matter of survival, he had
to respect his boat. What better way of showing respect for his boat and
what he does in it than to attempt to make it beautiful. The effort
required in producing a beautiful object usually results directly in a
better constructed object. Typical standards of beauty require tight
joints, fine handiwork and smooth lines - all functional characteristics in
a kayak. You could probably make the arguement that human's sense of
aesthetics evolved in part as a survival instinct to find and create better
quality tools.

Form follows function, but I think form is often the inspiration which
creates new function. I often find that good innovations come from ideas
which I think would "look nice". However, there are maybe some
ornamentations which are are incorporated, just to "show-off". Peacocks big
fancy tail helps attract the peahen by the sheer flagrant wastefullness of
it all. If the cock is healthy enough to be able to produce such dazzling
display, he must have a lot of other things going for him as well. If he
put his energy into things other than growing a stupid tail, his life would
probably be much easier. But then he wouldn't get the chicks. So is his
"show-off" tail there for aesthetic reasons or functional? Function is not
always immediately obvious. As birds go, peacocks are slow, don't fly all
that well, and are obvious targets for preditors, yet their continued
survival suggests that their highly aesthetic design functions very well.

I think trying to determine whether some aspect of a Inuit kayak is
"functional" or "aesthetic" is doomed. We have no idea what the Inuit
hunter thought was most important in pure "performance" or what aesthetic
style priorities he needed to conform to. While a given design feature
might be very good at producing some performance characteristic, that in no
way signifies that is why it is there. The long tail of a peacock is
probably very effective for slowing him down when landing on a branch, but
he is probably more concerned about whether it turns on the peahen.

>John Winters wrote (and I think Chuck may have snipped some):
>>>
>One of the things that puzzles me throughout much of what I have read and
>heard about traditional boats has to do with the insistence that the Inuit
>usually had a practical reason (performance related) for any
>characteristic.
>I would suggest something different.  It seems reasonable that the Inuit
>had
>aesthetic values that they expressed in the objects they made.  It would
>seem likely that they might have shaped their end profiles etc. with an eye
>towards what "looked attractive" just like  boat builders around the world
>have done for centuries.
>>>
>Chuck Holst replied:
>>
>I think there is no doubt that the Inuit had an esthetic sense. That they
>may have applied that esthetic sense to their kayaks would not be
>surprising. I'm as yet only a short way into the book, yet is is clear that
>the Inuit tinkered a lot with the construction and design of their boats.
>Petersen shows five or six ways just to fasten the bow pieces together,
>some of which involve notching the pieces so they fit jigsaw fashion.
><SNIP>
>One thing Petersen does stress over and over again is making a kayak that
>does not creak or a paddle that does not drip and warn the seals away.
><
>
>The attitude I often come across in kayak certain kayak circles, "the Eskimo
>way is the right way"  sometimes seems to approach the fanaticism of a
>religious cult. Before I try to defend functionality (vs. the aesthetics) of
>Eskimo kayaks, I want to make it clear that I'm not in that cult and I don't
>believe that if the Eskimos did it, it is necessarily the right way for the
>rest of us.
>Chucks last sentence helps illustrate how important the hunting function of
>the kayak was to the Eskimo and to what lengths they would go to achieve
>that. This also leads me to speculate that the bone joints (at points of
>frame contact in some Eskimo kayaks) were not primarily to prevent wear (as
>I once guessed), or to allow the frame to flex even more (as some have
>speculated), but more likely were there to prevent squeaking). Some things
>of benefit to a hunter would probably be seen as a disadvantage by a
>recreational paddler. For instance, hunters would most likely want a kayak
>to weatherhelm strongly so they could sneak up on a prey from downwind
>(where they are unlikely to be smelled and are less likely to be heard)
>without having to do much to control their kayak's direction. A strong
>weatherhelm would drive most modern paddlers to mount a (decidedly
>non-Eskimo) rudder on their kayaks.
<snip>



Nick Schade
Guillemot Kayaks
824 Thompson St, Suite I
Glastonbury, CT 06033
(860) 659-8847

Schade_at_guillemot-kayaks.com
http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/

>>>>"It's not just Art, It's a Craft!"<<<<


***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not
to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************