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. That all said, I think John is wrong when he implies that aesthetics may have been as important as function in determining the shape of an Eskimo kayak. Where does ones aesthetic sense come from anyhow? A lot of Eskimos went out hunting in kayaks and never came back (to reproduce--or feed the children they already had). Function was very important to their survival. Even if it was their aesthetic sense that helped determine the kayaks shape, those who came back and raised children would have passed their aesthetics on to their children either by folklore or through their genes. In other words even an Eskimo's aesthetic sense had probably been shaped by the grim trim (an early death for the unfittest) either through cultural evolution (memes) or physical evolution (genes). The closer an Eskimos aesthetic sense met what was needed for the seaworthiness and hunting functions of his kayak the more likely that same aesthetic sense would spread widely through the Eskimo population. I once thought the high "dog's head" shaped bow of a Haida Canoe was ornamental (like, I assumed, a figurehead on an old wooden ship). (Great old picture of a real one in the--I believe--Aug. 99 edition of Canoe and Kayak). I assumed that the bowsprit was ornamental or spiritual in nature until one day I was watching a TV show that had some old footage of a tribe surfing their cedar canoe into the beach (not the Curtis film). It was amazing to watch a large canoe with many paddlers aboard come surfing into the beach with its "dog's head" laying just on top of the green water in front of the breaker while the dog's neck split the water into two graceful sheets of water that arced away from the canoe and fell completely outside its gunnels leaving the inside of the canoe dry. This had a profound effect on my thoughts on the matter of aesthetics vs. function (and my admiration for the ingenuity of native peoples in general). Maybe the carved figures on the wooden ships also had a function that was lost in antiquity (or no one was willing to talk about). Anyone know about this? I once even tried out a Haida style bow on a kayak prototype but redesigned the final prototype with a much different bow. The Haida style bow on the prototype threw way too much spray into the air as it parted one foot high wave tops. It might have worked well to keep the bow up in the surf, but due to the major disadvantage in the much more common condition of short steep waves I had eliminated it long before I ever got to surf the prototype in breakers. A bow like that would need to be well out of the water to avoid making spray in smaller waves (and a high enough bow would have added too much windage and offered a strong gust too long a lever arm with which to help torque a small craft over into a capsize). Disclaimer: I design kayaks that usually have overhanging ends (and would do so even if Eskimo's kayaks had more vertical ends like John appears to favor for his designs). Even if my aesthetic sense said no to overhangs and a curved shearline I would still use them for many strictly functional reasons (none of which are to run up on a sheet of ice--which, however, may have been important to an Eskimo). Appealing to the shared aesthetic sense of the majority of paddlers will certainly help one sell more kayaks. However, if most paddler's idea of what's visually appealing gets in the way of functions that are important to me (as an advanced recreational paddler rather than a kayak hunter) those features wouldn't be on a kayak I designed for myself (no matter how pretty it looked). Fortunately for me, I don't have a conflict here with my aesthetic sense. Matt Broze http://www.marinerkayaks.com *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Matt wrote; > That all said, I think John is wrong when he implies that aesthetics may have >been as important as function in determining the shape of an Eskimo kayak." I said " 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." This is a far cry from "...that aesthetics may have been as important as function in determining the shape of an Eskimo kayak." I "implied" nothing (imply - "To involve by logical necessity") and did not and have not at any time said that aesthetics "...may have been as important as function". In fact, I rarely use the verb "to be" at all any more. I do not know to what degree aesthetics, function, experimentation, tradition, or superstition played in the Inuit builder's design of a specific boat and I rather doubt that Matt knows either. Ship designers have, for centuries melded their aesthetic values with functionality to varying degrees and I speculated that the Inuit did the same. I made no reference to the degree to which they applied either aspect. To emphasize the speculative nature of my comments I used the words "seems" and "might". Looking up the words "Seem" and "May" in a dictionary may help clarify this further. I find it amusing that Matt has managed to segue this discussion about Inuit boats into a commentary on his boats and his designs. One has to give credit when appropriate. Matt rarely misses an opportunity to promote his boats. What a persistent salesman! I would dearly love to participate further in this delightful discussion but regrettably duty calls. I leave on a week long trip this morning and will not have access to a computer. If you carry on without me please try to read the lines carefully, stay on topic and try to leave the self promotion to your e-mail signature and your web sites. ;-) Cheers, John Winters Redwing Designs Web site address, http://home.ican.net/~735769 *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
The idea that the Sci.Am "Kayak" article (Apr.2000) left me with was that flixibility was the preference. Robert > From: Matt Broze <mkayaks_at_oz.net> > Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 03:14:11 -0700 > To: Paddlewise <PaddleWise_at_lists.intelenet.net> > Subject: [Paddlewise] : RE: Skinboats of Greenland > > or to allow the frame to flex even more (as some have > speculated), but more likely were there to prevent squeaking). *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
But what we really need to know is: Which came first, the peahen or the egg? ;) Shawn Nick wrote: >>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.>> -- Shawn W. Baker 0 46°53'N © 2000 ____©/______ 114°06'W ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^\ ,/ /~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ baker_at_montana.com 0 http://www.missoulaconcrete.com/shawn/ *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:12 PDT