It seems that more and more I read topics on different forum sites but temper my responses since they seem so far out of the norm. Often I reply a little and then come back her and scream what I really want say and let off a bit of steam. Better on my new marriage and perhaps saves a ruckus on the forums I like to keep up with.
Recently the thing that really frustrates me is the lack of beauty as an important criteria for sailboats. The typical idea is "to each their own". And in principal I can understand this idea. But I think that each one of us gets to contribute or distract from the beauty on the water and we each get to own the consequences of our choices. Too often I see what appears to be "relative beauty". That is comparing one choice to some hideous lessor choice. As if a bunch of not so bad choices equates to beauty.
When I look at the classic older sailboats I can't help but wonder what boats in our generation will hold the position these boats hold now. What is the current Concordia Yawl?
Or the modern Rozinante?
Today's racing boats seem all about speed and technology and modern cruising boats are all about interior volume. Beauty seems to be about paint color and striping.
It seems that each design and fit-out choice pits beauty against convenience and convenience always wins. Roller furling, mast steps, hard and soft dodgers, radar and wind turbine masts, dinghy davits, stern rail BBQs... The list is endless. Combined with abundant freeboard and high coach roofs to get standing headroom in every boat and there just isn't much beauty potential left.
As I mentioned this my own personal rant. And so far beauty still barely exists in my sailing area. Everyday I get to sail past Alice, a Herreshoff Prudence. On really good days I run into the Six Metre, Oslo.
Or an Aphrodite 101 or the Schooner Adventerous.
What I do know for sure is that I don't find beauty in the fact that maybe the average Hunter is not as ugly as a MacGreogor 26. And granted we all get to make our own choices and maybe there aren't any rights are wrongs. But somewhere during this evolution of free choice beauty lost.
+Luders.jpg)
Posts
6 comments:
You are so right!
There aren't any modern classics aren't based on "old" boats above the waterline.
There are some boats that are certainly pleasant enough to look at....and some that you just have to wonder about....but none that people will actually want to restore in 50 years.
I think the final era of attractive design ended in the CCA era.
Ric
We own the same (basic) boat, so I definitely share your aesthetic taste in boats, in fact the classic looks of the Shields is what got me into racing, as it reminded me of the (very) old schooner I grew up daysailing on.
But. All the classic designs that appeal to us now were cutting edge in their day, and were designed to take advantage of the best knowledge of the day. Todays plumb bow and open transoms represent the same things as yesterdays long overhangs and full keels.
I do think that 50 years from now, someone with fond memories of the Farr 40 they used to see in the harbor will be restoring one (or something like it) with the same joy and care that we get from our classics today.
Again, I share your taste in boats, but I also like the purposefulness of a modern design, and certainly enjoy the speed that comes with it.
Do you think that 75 years ago people were lamenting the fading of the bluff bow? And who knows, maybe the looks we like will come around again. After all, I did just price out a set of rope stays with _deadeyes_ for a carbon hulled trimaran. My 1910 built schooner had that!
-Kristian
Kristian,
I agree with much of what you say. I also enjoy the advances that have come with some modern sailboats. But... By its nature "purposefulness" and speed doesn't contribute to the beauty of modern sailing craft. Are boats faster and better sailing? Some. Roomier? Yep. Better and more convenient systems? Sure. But I guess I just don't see the beauty aspect of modern designs. I think there is a distinct difference between utility and beauty.
Surely it could just be my taste in boats. Who knows 40 years from now maybe people will be lovingly restoring Hunters, Catalinas, Beneteaus and MacGregors as beautiful classics. I just don't see it.
The other thing I run into is that many people will debate this idea but I don't get a response to which boats they think will be the classic beauties that will carry on the tradition of boats like the Concordia Yawl. Also, I don't see people going out of their way to motor by a Hunter to ask what type of boat that is. Are these modern boats "sleepers"? Will the public wake up one day and be stunned that all this beauty that was all around them and they didn't notice?
Cheers, Bill
ps.. What are you trying to show in you post with your new and old mainsails? I didn't see any text just the photos.
Some of the modern day fast designs remind me of large Thistles or International 14s, which I think are quite attractive. Just not in a long overhang, splinter design way.
On another subject, can anyone identify the boat they used in the film "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"? It is hard to make out, but seems to be a very attractive wooden knockabout sloop, and one I have not seen before.
Rob
I'm enjoying reading your blog, even though I don't believe for a second that you would "eat crow"! ;-)
I share your appreciation for lovely and sleek old wooden boats. The boats on your site are really, really beautiful.
But (and this is the key place we differ)...I think sailing itself is more beautiful than sailboats (a false choice, I know). It might be a subtle difference, but what I mean is that for many just getting on the water and sailing is a beautiful thing. If all they can afford is a old, butt-ugly MacGregor 26 then so be it. They're sailing!
For the most part, it's only because of the advent of the fiberglass boat that the middle class was able to start sailing at all. When I was a kid my career Coast Guard dad--no wealthy man--bought an old Sailstar Explorer, a humble little daysailer (self-bailing cockpit...horrors!). We fixed it up and sailed it for years.
That, my friend, was beautiful!
I lament the loss of classic lines in boats, too, and lemme tell ya, my '95 Catalina 320 is far from sleek. She's got a big, wide ass and standing headroom for me at 6'2". The only exterior wood are the hatch boards and cockpit table (God, you must hate those!).
But even though I drool over these classics, and over what I consider to be a modern classic--the Morris M42--I could afford that 13 year-old 320 when I bought her last year. My girlfriend enjoys it with me, and those creature comforts go a long way with that).
We're sailing! And it's a beautiful thing.
So there's no way I'll debate you on what makes a truly beautiful boat...because we agree. But I could never buy or keep up a boat like that, and even if I could few of those close to me are sailing purists. The lack of those beauty-killing comforts would mean I'd have a tougher time getting a crew.
So instead I've got a pedestrian Catalina 320. She ain't no beauty, but she's mine.
And that makes her gorgeous. :-)
I still love your site, though. There's always a place for a diehard romantic. Keep up the good work.
"But. All the classic designs that appeal to us now were cutting edge in their day, and were designed to take advantage of the best knowledge of the day."
While this is certainly true, it's also true that appearance, that is the harmony of line, etc, was very important to the designers of the classics mentioned. The idea that the Farr 40 will replace the Mobjack or Joann seems as unlikely as the possibility that the new mustang will oust its '60s precursor from its status as classic. The change in design, all design, is that materials and techniques have made aesthetics as fleeting as fashion in the apparel industry.
Sure, random rating rules have fooled the ignorant into thinking the fastest boat is the best boat (Ah, but faster within a pointless set of rating rule restrictions) so the fastest looking boats have prevailed, even if they utterly suck as cruisers. I've owned a few of them and i can't bring myself to defend them except to say that they certainly were affordable. That was the point of all those mass-production techniques (and shortcuts)... to get more people to buy boats.
However, there is - absolutely - an aesthetic component to the kind of sailing we do. To some, kevlar and carbon fiber mean sailing, to others the smell of oiled wood and the glint of bronze do the trick.
But to say that we can't all agree on SOME standards of beauty is nonsense. We all agree that movie star "A" is attractive and we agree that the guy in the IT dept where we work is a dweeb (or just plug in your stereotypes here). Studies have been done evaluating people's reactions to different facial characteristics and we prefer symmetry, smoothness and vitality of color.
I would like to do a test some day and have people at a boat show evaluate two boats, say an Araminta and a Hunter of about the same displacement, and ask them which they think is prettier, which one they would rather own and which one they think would be more affordable. I suspect that the person who could produce an Araminta priced like the Hunter would sell a lot of boats.
Then again I'm always stunned at the boating public's propensity for being suckered. I remember when they were selling "cruising" boats based on IOR design criteria because that was the rating rule of the period. Stupid. That produced some world-class crappy (and hideously ugly) boats and helped push on us the deck-snubbing, reserve buoyancy-reducing, storage-space-removing reverse transom. Of course we did get nice swim platforms, so it wasn't totally without merit.
Still, I think the days of pretty boats might return. The market is so utterly saturated with ugly ones and people do like to be different.
Sorry bout the rant.
Post a Comment