From: Guillemot@aol.com
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 20:16:29 -0500
Message-Id: <950303201503_38579594@aol.com>
To: baidarka@imagelan.com
Subject: Re: Traditional Kayak Designs
prl@hopper.unh.edu (paul labrie) writes:
> I think that design decisions, except in the special case of
> certain ceremonial craft, were mostly practical. The real question,
> perhaps, is "can practicality be stylish?" While looking in Zimmerley,
> take a peek at the first kayak in the book ("the Koryak"?? I don't have
> Zimmerley's book in front of me as I type this..). ... <snip>
> I find it difficult to see any "style" in
> this surely less-than-seaworthy boat. Regardless of what *I* think though,
> I expect this design had a very practical purpose & that it's builders were
> justified in their time and troubles in building it. "Form follows
> function" however is not enough to constitute good style IF the
> functionality originally desired is SO limited that one can "slap out" a
> quick and poorly thought out solution to a given problem. Read on....
The style of the Koryak is the same as that of the VW Bug...so ugly its cute.
I will refrain from speculating in the purpose of the Koryak kayak, however,
the relatively crude construction suggests a relatively smaller significance
of the kayak to the life of the Koryak people. As a smaller part of the
user's life it would also be less of an object of self-expression.
> Study the 5.8m Aleut design in Zimmerley's book. <snip>
> ... The carved otter was hidden from anyone's view so it
> couldn't have been the equivalent of a 'tail-fin". (Instead of an otter, I
> epoxied a shiny 1994 Lincoln penny on the equivalent stanchion, if only to
> date my boat's construction -- it was a fun thing to do). Looking at the
> lines of the 5.8M or at other Aleut designs, it is difficult to imagine
> anything but that this boat is strictly and totally performance oriented; a
> design which evolved over long periods of time by craftspeople who were
> intelligent and highly observant. <snip>
> ... I'm convinced that it is the *wholeness* of the design &
> how everything flows together that really appeals to me. <snip
> Like any good art, there is
> an underlying complexity going on here, but its outward manifestation is
> simple and elegant. This is good design.
The Koryak kayak and the 5.8 are obviously intended for different purposes. I
do not want to suggest that the differences are solely a matter of personal
style. The 5.8 is definitely a highly evolved design and stripped of most
excess decoration.
At the risk of raising some hackles I will attack the bifed bow... I will not
argue the potential of the shape for performance improvements. I do question
the implementation. It is obviously an excellent seaweed gatherer. A twig
lashed across the gap is not a very elegant solution. Couldn't the
performance benefits be realized in an implementation that did not catch
weeds? I'm sure it could, but it may lack the style of that gap.
The upswept bifed bows of Kodiak kayaks in Zimmerly show much less potential
for performance benefit. The "hollow" created in the bows these kayaks is
pretty minor. It does not create the bow bulb effect like those now used on a
tanker or the 5.8. These bifed bows were definitely difficult to produce. The
same basic bow shape could be acheived much more easily but may lose some
style.
I will also suggest that many design decisions are dependent on construction
techniques. Given different materials and methods, would/should the same
design characteristics be continued for reasons other than style.
An archeologist in 2995 will appreciate your precise dating of your boat. He
will also point out that a penny was a common talisman of luck and prosperity
in the dark ages of the 20th century (very similar to an otter?). He will
probably fail to realize that it is also fun to have a hidden detail that
only the builder knows about.
Can anyone comment on the use of the 5.8? Was it a common style in its day?
Is it a boat for "every day" use? A Grand Prix race car has much less room
for art (except in paint) than a Trans Am.
> Have you ever looked at some of the papers of the Baidarka
> historical Society? <snip>
> ... If it can be said that "form follows
> function" , then I submit to you that "art follows form, which follows
> well-thought and well-executed solutions to a problem". Ornamentation was
> just the icing on the cake. Thoughts??
I have not seen any of the papers from the Baidarka Historical Society. How
do I get them?
I design my own kayaks and not having any naval archecture training I depend
on the idea that, "If it looks good to my eye, it will probably look good to
the water." In my designs I exaggerate some of the form beyond what
experience shows is required for the function, to enhance the art. The
separation between purely functional, and ornamentation is fine. With the
separation of history how do we seperate artistic liscense from performance
enhancement. Experiment.
Nick Schade