From: Guillemot@aol.com
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 18:30:26 -0500
Message-Id: <950305182950_40131995@aol.com>
To: baidarka@imagelan.com
Subject: Re: Traditional Kayak Design
hazel.2@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul W Hazel) writes:
> Having taken just enough college anthropology to become _really_ ignorant,
> how about these notions:
< a whole bunch of good stuff deleted >
> ...Likewise, a ceremonial kayak is just as practical as a hunting craft,
given
> the functional envelope within which it is designed to serve.
<snip>
> ....My long-winded point here is that we CAN'T know the significance, nor
judge
> the practicality of another culture's trappings unless we can actually
> communicate with them and ask individuals what they mean. <snip>
>
> To make matters worse, even if an accurate interpretation of some artifact
> is stumbled upon, which segment of the culture does it apply to? <snip>
>
> So are the carvings and decorations on kayaks the result of deeply held
> religious beliefs, or the result of the hunting age males sitting around
and
> literally whittling away the time during long Arctic nights? Are these
> artifacts less practical if their impact was emotional or psychological
> rather than physical? In who's world are they less practical?
<snip>
We could cause a conflagration in an art oriented newsgroup with the
question, "Is art practical?" I don't think anyone would dispute that the
nature of the "usefullness" of the "Mona Lisa" and a stapler is somehow
different. I'll leave it to the Andy Warhols of the world to define the
difference.
What makes the issue of kayak design different from the typical
anthropology/archeology is we are trying to revive an almost lost technology
so that we may directly use it. We are trying to determine what elements of
the original kayak builder's design are useful for our applications. Paul
Labrie's epoxy embedded penny served a useful purpose for him (entertainment
and dating). Is it a design innovation we should all adopt?
The question is not so much, why did the kayak builders do something, as,
what design decisions are practical for our purposes. Do the bifed bow of
Alaska or long overhangs of Greenland have "Mona Lisa" usefullness or
"stapler" usefullness? Since the right answer is likely "both", can we
identify the transition between the two kinds of useful?
Bill Cirino points out "...the less severe the conditions the more stylized
the boat." Yet, WW slolom kayaks have strange wings and long bow and stern
spikes. If you didn't know that these were to appease the rules god by
meeting dimensions requirements, you might think they are required for good
on-the-water performance.
The kayaks found in museums today are not the final product of the kayak
builders. They only show where the designers were interupted. By trying to
understand thoughts behind the older design decisions todays designers can
continue the tradition of evolution.
Nick Schade