Aesthetics

I am curious as to where people place aesthetics in their boat ownership decisions.

I use to place aesthetics above dead last but not a high priority. After many years, aesthetics has crept up the list to a fairly high position. Mainly because I found that you can generally find what you want and have the eye appeal to go with it.

Have others gone this route as time has gone by or have you pretty much stayed the same on priority?

 

Put it that way:

I would not buy a boat just because she is beautiful, but I would not buy a boat if she is not beautiful to my eyes.

 

same theory in food... if it is nice looking with garnish then the food is already half delicious... the rest up to you mouth

French dont take dinner they dine.

Therefore most people want quality and safety but also good looking.

Cheers

WLS5554x

 

most of the time when it looks right it usually is right

 

Form follows function.

From a more objective point of view Pierre; first the vessel has to perform the mission. If the vessel is to attract harlots, then the aesthetics of a "be seen" lounging deck may be a highly weighted factor. If it is to fish pots in the North Sea, the sheerline may be a highly weighted factor that effects the aesthetics. Second is the cost; gilding the entire hull is a costly aesthetic form, but it may help the vessel attract harlots...which therefore supports the cost. And finaly there is the "has to be there and it costs no more to make it nice" stuff, such as beading on a rub rail or a good sheerline that says "well made"/"well built".

Aesthetics are not added to the design, they are intergral to it. A sailboat is designed to look "classic" or "modern", a warship is designed to look "aggressive" or "stealth", but both still have to fulfill mission requirements.

 

That raises an interesting question. Is a warship designed to look aggressive, or do we associate the way a warship looks with agrression?
I think the latter.

 

I'm with Wynand on this.

When you look for a boat you know what you want it to do and the lines of the boat will tell you how it will perform by gut instinct.

Having said that I know nothing about boat engineering and I can't draw it up on a computer programme and similate the way it will perform.

But, in the last thousand or so years that people have made boats, it's only in the last 50 that people could.

Could be Wynards saying on next years desk calander.

If it looks good, it probably is.

Poida

 

Form follows function,

but in a boat yard , if they are doing the work, the prettiest boat gets the best workers as they feel proud to be allowed on board.

FF

 

No matter how well built,safe,comfortable and able a boat is, i would not buy,
if it has an overly high freeboard and superstructure,combined with a proportionally short stick. These to me are the two most important criterion,
destroying the aesthetics of a sail boat.
As far as plan form is concerned, i think,a wide boat with the maximum beam carried well forward, and wide transoms also help destroy the general look.
The new generation charter boats from the likes of Benetau, where every effort has been made to maximise internal volume are just plain ugly i think.
Lastly, i can never warm up to a boat, if there isnt a piece of wood on sight on deck.

 

So what I am hearing from the posters is that aesthetics is not low on their priority list.

I do agree that the designed purpose for a boat drives the overall aesthetics to a high degree but I have seen some pretty ugly boats do their job well. The Krogen Manattee comes to mind.

On the other hand I can think of the Cornando 40 that was ugly and did not sail good.

Being able to just looking at the lines of a boat and knowing how she will perform I think is largely in a persons heart, rather than actuallity. I see a new thrend to sell everything as a trawler no matter what the underbody hull and engine combination would dictate. I see express cruisers touted as trawlers and fast trawlers. I can assure you they have no resemblence to a trawler out in the seaway.

When I first started into boats, I bought boats based on price and my perceived ease of fixing em up to make money. Bouy was I dumb, pun intended. Cheap boats is cheap because nobody wants them. An ugly poor quality boat sits forever. On the other hand, I see people trying to bring back old low quality boats with pretty lines all the time. Let's face it, aesthetics drive resale.

Anymore I want quality and aesthetics. I will accept a far smaller and older boat to get both. "A lot of boat for the money" rings hollow with me anymore. I guess the big change came when I finally accepted the fact that comfort in houses is different from comfort in boats. I no longer want my house to float so I will accept far less to get a good quality good performing classy boat.

Good quality to me is not terrific yacht quality fit and finish inside. Quality means a good performing hull that is well built to withstand the test of time and corrosive environment. Quality is a first rate electrical job with an accessible layout. Quality is an engine and drive system that is well suited and balanced to the boat with ease of maintenance. I could go on but most quality is not visible.

Aesthetics varies with me. If I think a marketing department drove the design and made something less safe, I always perceive it as ugly. Bubble decks without good walkways and short railings are an example of this. So is way to much cushy stuff in the cockpit area. So is aft staterooms without an easy way off the boat. My first thoughts when I see a boat like this is the boat is, this boat is one notch above section 8 housing.

On the other hand, things like sturdy cap rails, portuguese bridges, well built pilothouses, positive sheer lines and no square corners to be thrown against or collect gunk inside and out are very aesthetically pleasing to my eyes.

I am in the process of putting together the design for my next boat.

 

No, it is actually the former. During the 60's and 70's, there was a deliberate attempt to make US warships look less aggressive as opposed to the Soviet attempt to make them look more powerful. There are ways to do this, such as how you mount and expose weapon batterys, the location of the deck structure, house and mast rake, etc. Very similiar to what makes a sports car or modern speedboat look aggressive/fast. In the 80's the US reversed the trend. Compare the silhouettes of say a Iowa, a Fletcher, a Knox, a FFG 7, and a DDG 51 with a Kara or Kresta, a Kirov, a Sovremenny, and a Koni. Long foredeck, sweeping sheer, houses raked aft all add to the feeling of power and speed...i.e. look aggressive. BTW, in russian, warships are "he".

 

Pierre hi there

I'm beginning to think that there could be, in the case of boats at least, we have two meanings for the word aesthetics.

In general aesthetics means to look nice as in a car people look at the paint job and the interior finish.

In boats aesthetics can also mean how the boat looks in relation to the job for what you want it for.

For example I like the look of "work boats" ie tug boats or the lobster boats and they look aesthetic to me.

I don't think that ugly is a way to describe any boat, all boats are beautifull just depends what you want them for.

poida

 

Not all...This one is also on the Charter Market, and it is a Beneteau

 

Well,i agree,but lets admit, Beneteau has probably seen the light
and made a serious attempt to get out of the box. With such a huge
market share and disposible funds,probably bigger than anybody else
in this market,i would expect them to lead rather than follow.
A lot said about aesthetics, form,function,finishing,proportions etc.
What i would also like to add is perhaps what can be called 'culture'.
Local boats in any territory, no matter how big or small, or what their function is, tend to develop certain lines and colours and build quality
over many many years of refining, to reflect the culture and seas they came
out of, and they just look proper.
The moment you start playing around with the lines, and start injecting
ideas and forms derived from an other culture, you run the risk of immediately loosing the authenticity and aestethics which was probably subtley distilling
for centuries.
There was a lot of discussion on this forum,recently, about Maltese Falcon.
I did not know what to say, but right now, i think i do.
There is something eerily missing about her. And i think it is the so called
lack of culture about her.
You may also argue that, if she does not have a family tree, than she might as well be starting one...
But still, when i look into a boat,i want to feel something about where
their designers, builders, owners might be coming from.

 

Well, I agree. Aesthetics are part of my basic formation and there is more about it than what you say.
That story about form follows function is true, but the differences and the cultural approaches are responsible for a lot of the global shape and detail treatment and even in the same culture, aesthetics vary on a rhythmic pattern as explained by Ruth Benedict on “Patterns of Culture”.

About tradition, sailors are one of the groups that value most tradition. Many shapes on boat Design has nothing to do with function but with tradition. But you also have to remember that the most fecund periods in Art story happened with cross-cultural mixtures. For example, the Renaissance; the Cubism and Modern Art (African and Japanese influences) or with Venice and the Byzantine influence or here in what we call Manuelino, that was born from the influence of XVI century Indian Culture on the Portuguese culture.

Even on an apparently immutable thing as women beauty, what different culture found beautiful, or even the same culture at different periods, varies a lot .