I'm not setting foot back in that "Fav Neck Knife" thread, but I don't want this topic to die. Here are some thoughts:
Sometimes I feel as though "looks" or "style" are a taboo topic on these forums. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and this is a very subjective area. But that's not the reason why I feel the topic is avoided. Rather, I feel if you should even (gasp!) hint at considering a knife's looks, you will be branded as "not a serious user" or even "not tactical." What kind of narcissisistic creampuff cares what a knife looks like?
Why do we ignore form? I feel that all good designs (of anything, not just knives) take form into account as a necessary part of good function. Even something as raw and functional as a Bridgeport mill shows attention to form in its curves and details. A good designer puts beauty into their work around and through the demands of form. Yet some folks here treat considering form as if it were heresy. Can you imagine looking at a car in that way? Attacking a Porsche 911 for its "functionless" hood profile? Or a Corvette for its "small" and "inefficient" tail-lights?
There has been a movement over the last decade to divorce form and function, and to sell the lie that ugly=functional. Some makers would have you believe that before the advent of the "tactical" knife, knives weren't "made to be used" and that they compromised their function with fancy embellishments and useless features. Knives were mere playthings until the arrival of 1/4" thick, chisel-ground, tanto-pointed, serrated-handled, bead-blasted knives made for "real use."
I cannot stress too much what sheer hogwash this is. ALL knives are "made to be used" (except perhaps some pure art pieces - but are they knives?). Many of the "fancy" features of traditional knives actually increase function: mirror polishes resist corrosion better than any other finish, light filework promotes grip without digging into the hand, tapered tangs improve balance, and fitted guards are more effective and durable than those formed by just the tang or handle.
I concede that not all "fancy" features improve function. Engraving, while rarely compromising function, rarely improves it. And surely that cocobolo handle is a shameless fashion statement when G-10 is available. Is this so terrible? Even "Wild" Bill Hickok carried ivory-handled Colts - was he any less of a "serious" lawman for it?
If any further proof is needed that "functional" and "tactical" are two separate worlds, compare the knives of Ed Fowler to those of your favorite "tactical" maker. Which do you feel shows a better understanding of what makes a strong, tough, comfortable using knife?
Form and function combine in all good designs. Examine, if you will, Lynn Griffith's work. Though some may not see it, I feel Lynn has an excellent eye for form. His shapes are curvy yet simple. Lines are clean and compelling, never broken or jarring. The full flat grinds are as attractive as they are efficient for cutting. The shape and construction may be simple, but is a lean and powerful simplicity - the mark of "exactly enough", not "too little effort." He has even been straightforward in admitting that his finish is applied mainly for cost reasons and a higher finish is available for a price, rather than hiding behind "low reflection" nonsense. It is comical to me that Lynn somehow ended up as the target for those who would attack the ugly, blunt, "pure function" aspect of the "tactical" movement - when his work teaches a lesson in form that many "tactical" makers (some of whom have their own forums here) could learn from.
To sum up:
If you think that "tactical" knives have a monopoly on function, wake up! Neither "beautiful" nor "fancy" means a knife is any less of a worker.
If you feel that form and function are opposing forces, think again. They are two strands in a weave.
If you feel that Lynn Griffith is the embodiment of the stark and ugly functionality of the "tactical" movement, look around. His knives area a lesson in form and simple beauty that other "tactical" makers (and all of us) should pay close attention to.
These are my opinion. Thanks for reading. Curious to hear what you think (don't hurt me too bad
).
------------------
-Corduroy
"Why else would a bear want a pocket?"
Little Bear Knives
Drew Gleason:
adg@student.umass.edu
Sometimes I feel as though "looks" or "style" are a taboo topic on these forums. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and this is a very subjective area. But that's not the reason why I feel the topic is avoided. Rather, I feel if you should even (gasp!) hint at considering a knife's looks, you will be branded as "not a serious user" or even "not tactical." What kind of narcissisistic creampuff cares what a knife looks like?
Why do we ignore form? I feel that all good designs (of anything, not just knives) take form into account as a necessary part of good function. Even something as raw and functional as a Bridgeport mill shows attention to form in its curves and details. A good designer puts beauty into their work around and through the demands of form. Yet some folks here treat considering form as if it were heresy. Can you imagine looking at a car in that way? Attacking a Porsche 911 for its "functionless" hood profile? Or a Corvette for its "small" and "inefficient" tail-lights?
There has been a movement over the last decade to divorce form and function, and to sell the lie that ugly=functional. Some makers would have you believe that before the advent of the "tactical" knife, knives weren't "made to be used" and that they compromised their function with fancy embellishments and useless features. Knives were mere playthings until the arrival of 1/4" thick, chisel-ground, tanto-pointed, serrated-handled, bead-blasted knives made for "real use."
I cannot stress too much what sheer hogwash this is. ALL knives are "made to be used" (except perhaps some pure art pieces - but are they knives?). Many of the "fancy" features of traditional knives actually increase function: mirror polishes resist corrosion better than any other finish, light filework promotes grip without digging into the hand, tapered tangs improve balance, and fitted guards are more effective and durable than those formed by just the tang or handle.
I concede that not all "fancy" features improve function. Engraving, while rarely compromising function, rarely improves it. And surely that cocobolo handle is a shameless fashion statement when G-10 is available. Is this so terrible? Even "Wild" Bill Hickok carried ivory-handled Colts - was he any less of a "serious" lawman for it?
If any further proof is needed that "functional" and "tactical" are two separate worlds, compare the knives of Ed Fowler to those of your favorite "tactical" maker. Which do you feel shows a better understanding of what makes a strong, tough, comfortable using knife?
Form and function combine in all good designs. Examine, if you will, Lynn Griffith's work. Though some may not see it, I feel Lynn has an excellent eye for form. His shapes are curvy yet simple. Lines are clean and compelling, never broken or jarring. The full flat grinds are as attractive as they are efficient for cutting. The shape and construction may be simple, but is a lean and powerful simplicity - the mark of "exactly enough", not "too little effort." He has even been straightforward in admitting that his finish is applied mainly for cost reasons and a higher finish is available for a price, rather than hiding behind "low reflection" nonsense. It is comical to me that Lynn somehow ended up as the target for those who would attack the ugly, blunt, "pure function" aspect of the "tactical" movement - when his work teaches a lesson in form that many "tactical" makers (some of whom have their own forums here) could learn from.
To sum up:
If you think that "tactical" knives have a monopoly on function, wake up! Neither "beautiful" nor "fancy" means a knife is any less of a worker.
If you feel that form and function are opposing forces, think again. They are two strands in a weave.
If you feel that Lynn Griffith is the embodiment of the stark and ugly functionality of the "tactical" movement, look around. His knives area a lesson in form and simple beauty that other "tactical" makers (and all of us) should pay close attention to.
These are my opinion. Thanks for reading. Curious to hear what you think (don't hurt me too bad
------------------
-Corduroy
"Why else would a bear want a pocket?"
Little Bear Knives
Drew Gleason:
adg@student.umass.edu
