Some really great responses.
I'll start by saying that I disagree with the notions raised that sheepsfoot blade can only be seen as a reduction of function over a more tactical or violence oriented design. For example on a larger fixed blade, a sharpened upper edge leaves you with a less user friendly knife for the majority of tasks. A finger can't be pushed against the spine for stability and the ability to baton well is completely lost as the upper half of the knife will bite into the baton. The thinner point is also more liable to snap off when chopping. Ultimately, it's just a different focus on functionality. However, even if functionality was greatly reduced and a knife was created which couldn't cut anything but carrots for example, as long as the knife cut carrots as good as anything else available, then to a person who cuts carrots all day it's an amazing tool. The loss of unnecessary functionality isn't noticed as it doesn't affect the user. Many have said that Elegance in design is a product that does what it needs to and not a fraction more. I disagree, but a lot of people smarter than me believe it. I think that elegance is when you end up with a solution which has a high ratio of functional or aesthetic value to overall complexity.
Aristotle said the virtue of a knife is 'to cut well'. But I think there is more to it than that, effects beyond cutting are a good moral question to contemplate.
An aristotle quote on bladeforums? did not expect to run into that today. I feel like I'm about to go really in depth on some design theory stuff here and I really want to keep my responses approachable so we'll see how that turns out. In relation to the effects of a knife beyond cutting or to further broaden the theme, the values of an object outside of functionality, up until the 80's the only other option was aesthetics. However since that time, there's been a huge surge in the significance of semiotics or the imbedded meanings and ideas in objects. This isn't necessarily entirely separate to the aesthetic response to an object, as the aesthetic response is not purely a visual one, but an instantaneous emotional response as well. If you see a beautifully painted portrait of a man strangling a child then it may well be technically and visually beautiful, but the messages inside it and the emotions they illicit are far from beautiful. The aesthetic response taps into symbols, alludes to prior cultures and mythologies and functions as a reflection of the person who actually responds to the object.
The big change in current design thinking is essentially that function isn't actually as important when designing a knife or object compared to semiotics. Very few buying decisions are rational. When I go to the store and buy milk I buy the cheapest milk because they all taste the same to me and it saves me money. That's a rational decision. But does that ever happen with knives? Even with something like an opinel, a high value, high performance knife, the decision to purcahse one isn't rational, it isn't about getting the most bang for your buck it's an emotional decision for the most part where you are intrigued by the interesting locking collar and handle design and are reminded of the history of the knife, the town where they are from (savoie), france itself, french food and wine and culture, peasant life, carbon steel etc. You respond to all these fragments of information and it overrides the rational parts of your brain. YOu don't buy it because you need it, you buy it because you want it. If the semiotic aspect is powerful enough then you'll buy it because you love it.
Some of the boutique players in the knife world are very clued up on this. Himalayan imports bless their blades with blood before shipment. The knives function the same and look the same but you now that something special happened to them, brings up images of ghurkas and hindu culture and the himalyas and it fills you with wonder. Base Camp X use paint made from the river that runs next to the owners log cabin to paint their axe handles. You can't tell, it's all water. But it gives a connection to place to what is otherwise just an axe. That's very powerful. And it can be misused. This is constantly used to entice consumers to pay high prices when incorporated into branding, where the brain justifies the lack of material value with the wealth of emotional value. However, this increased emotional connection with an object also can do wonders for ensuring that the product isn't seen as disposable, it has emotional value, it is loved and it can't just be replaced. It means a lot to the owner and that (in theory) stops them from buying another one or a replacement which reduced consumption, leads to a more enriching user experience and saves resources and space in landfill.
This brings me to the sheepsfoot vs tanto example that is at the crux of this entire thread. Apart from easing the designer's guilt, the choice to make a sheepsfoot blade might be the result of a calculated decision to add it for semiotic reasons. The sheepsfoot has history with rescue knives, as a benign tool and with the navy.
If there's a buyer out there who sees knives as purely tools and hates their violent facets, then this will connect with their own moral systems. This leads to a happier customer who gets to use a knife that they think embodies what a knife should be, while also hitting a market that otherwise would have been left unaddressed. Everybody wins. In the same way that a sheepsfoot blade alienates tactical knife lovers and loses you marketability, making a hardcore tactical blade does the same thing (though less in today's knife culture climate).
So what do you think? Is the use of semiotics in branding and in knife design a great way to make people love their knives or is it overt manipulation? At what point does this pushing of your psychological buttons stop being beneficial to the user and start being exploitative?
