Classic or wooden.

[Tranona]

Naa a good shearline shows the designers ability to get the proportions right.

Sheerlines (note the spelling!) like most things visual are subjective. Well proportioned design does not necessarily require curves to be visually attractive to some.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Sheerlines (note the spelling!) like most things visual are subjective. Well proportioned design does not necessarily require curves to be visually attractive to some.

Hogarth thought that certain curves were intrinsically beautiful - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_beauty!

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Sheerlines (note the spelling!) like most things visual are subjective. Well proportioned design does not necessarily require curves to be visually attractive to some.

I'm just happy with things looking visually like they make sense :encouragement:

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Hogarth thought that certain curves were intrinsically beautiful - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_beauty!

That link dos'nt seem to be conclusive. Was'nt Hogarth the geezer who thought that fat birds were beautiful? If so I think I'd question his judgement.

It's all about being fit for purpose is'nt it?

 

[AntarcticPilot]

That link dos'nt seem to be conclusive. Was'nt Hogarth the geezer who thought that fat birds were beautiful? If so I think I'd question his judgement.

It's all about being fit for purpose is'nt it?

Nothing to do with ideas of beauty can be definitive; as you say, standards of female beauty vary widely from culture to culture; what we find attractive many people would think skinny and harsh! There is no right and wrong; but certain proportions and shapes tend to be seen as attractive by most people. For example, the there is a thing called the "Golden Ratio", which has an obscure geometric definition. However, pictures and building with proportions that match this number tend to be regarded as better looking than ones which don't, and it is a proportion that is often found in nature.

In general I'd agree with the sentiment that "form follows function" - but with exceptions; a concrete multi-story car-park planned purely along functional lines tends to be horrible, and "Brutalist" architecture, which exemplifies the "form follows function" rule to the exclusion of other considerations, is pretty uniformly hideous!

 

[Tranona]

Nothing to do with ideas of beauty can be definitive; as you say, standards of female beauty vary widely from culture to culture; what we find attractive many people would think skinny and harsh! There is no right and wrong; but certain proportions and shapes tend to be seen as attractive by most people. For example, the there is a thing called the "Golden Ratio", which has an obscure geometric definition. However, pictures and building with proportions that match this number tend to be regarded as better looking than ones which don't, and it is a proportion that is often found in nature.

In general I'd agree with the sentiment that "form follows function" - but with exceptions; a concrete multi-story car-park planned purely along functional lines tends to be horrible, and "Brutalist" architecture, which exemplifies the "form follows function" rule to the exclusion of other considerations, is pretty uniformly hideous!

Such buildings using this rule are usually full of straight lines to define the proportions - although often "decorated" with lots of curvy twiddly bits.

Not everybody agrees that functional buildings are necessarily hideous just because form follows function. Personally I think car parks like we have in Poole that have gingerbread on them to make them look like castles are hideous.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Such buildings using this rule are usually full of straight lines to define the proportions - although often "decorated" with lots of curvy twiddly bits.

Not everybody agrees that functional buildings are necessarily hideous just because form follows function. Personally I think car parks like we have in Poole that have gingerbread on them to make them look like castles are hideous.

Entirely agree. I didn't mean to say that "form follows function" was necessarily ugly; merely that in some cases it did. And I would agree about redundant gingerbread! But a well-proportioned building, which will probably follow classical rules of proportion, will have a better chance of looking good than one that doesn't. Things like the Golden Ratio have been around since the Greeks and Romans, so it isn't a new idea

 

[Shuggy]

Is it to do with the Blue Ensign Shuggy?

Lipstick on a pig! Except she's not a pig and is more frequently seen with a red ensign... I chop and change ;-)

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Nothing to do with ideas of beauty can be definitive; as you say, standards of female beauty vary widely from culture to culture; what we find attractive many people would think skinny and harsh! There is no right and wrong; but certain proportions and shapes tend to be seen as attractive by most people. For example, the there is a thing called the "Golden Ratio", which has an obscure geometric definition. However, pictures and building with proportions that match this number tend to be regarded as better looking than ones which don't, and it is a proportion that is often found in nature.

In general I'd agree with the sentiment that "form follows function" - but with exceptions; a concrete multi-story car-park planned purely along functional lines tends to be horrible, and "Brutalist" architecture, which exemplifies the "form follows function" rule to the exclusion of other considerations, is pretty uniformly hideous!

If you think that then I'm afraid we are never going to agree. Beauty = quality & fit for purpose.

 

[cliffordpope]

I think classic has to include two features:
a) the article is typical of its time
and
b) it represents something that was especially outstanding at the time - a particularly well-made specimen, or a significant design, something that would have caused it to stand out amongst its fellows.

I don't think a poorly-made mass-production item can ever be a classic, nor can an expensive one-off or a folly.
They may be interesting for other reasons, but are not classics of their time.

 

[jwilson]

I've sailed a couple of boats made of genuine treewood that were complete horrors both aesthetically and sailing-wise. Also a few older GRP boats that were both beautiful and delightful to sail. Think Contessa 32, She 36 etc. I'd be very happy to include these in definitions of "classic" whilst excluding some of the wooden abortions that abounded 50 years ago.

 

[Linseed Sable]

My Osprey (non-wood) has a makers plate with '195' stamped on it - suspicion is, the old soul is indeed fairly old, some 50 years or so. Much like meself!
And I am a classic.

 

[jerrytug]

Welcome to the forum Linseed.

 

[Linseed Sable]

Thanks Jerry.
'tis a beautiful boat you have!

 

[Justin Anslow]

I am looking for a shipwright to do some work on my 45 foot 1944 hull. The boat is in Queenborough Kent. I will pay the going rate.

Thanks

 

[DoubleEnder]

Come to Faversham. Several possibilities here

 

[KINGFISHER 8]

I'm not sure I've worked this out yet. I used to own a wooden boat that isn't a classic*:
View attachment 53674
...and currently own a classic* boat that isn't wooden:
View attachment 53675

Am I doing something wrong?

*all definitions subject to any whim of the beholder at any time. Opinions are subject to change without notice ;-)

That Nic 43 is far more a classic than 75% of old wooden boats out there floating around ... full marks to you and if you ever think of selling ........ !!!