If art is the practice of intentionally producing an effect on the senses of the perceiver, I would say some bicycles are art.
Shall we take a stab at establishing some criteria? The bicycle is a tool for traveling. If you get from point A to B, the bike is a successful tool. But certain bikes are further infused with aesthetic elements pleasing to the eye and functional elements pleasing to the sense of touch. (And a bit to the sense of hearing such as wind whistling, spokes whirling, and chains snicking into gear, but not to the degree of visual and tactile sensations.) The issue then is how well the bike succeeds in being a tool while pleasing the eye and feeling good to the body, and then how much success in which area creates a "work of art"?
My Diamondback tig welded beater is definitely a tool, and has a dead ride, not as nice as my "good" bikes. Classification: only a working tool, with minimal sensual pleasure and no eye appeal. Not art. But I don't mind if it gets wet and dirty.
My PX 10 is very challenged cosmetically, but rides very nicely. Even when new it wasn't any great visual treat. The finish work is definitely "utilitarian", and the innumerable paint scuffs mean no one will consider it a aesthetic triumph. But it gives me pleasure to ride it. So it's a successful tool, visually poor but tactually pleasing. Classification: Tool with functional artistic elements. But not a "work of art".
My most eye catching bike is the Raleigh International thanks to the snazzy new paint job and chromed nervex lugs, but no one would call it a masterpiece, as close inspection reveals file marks, braze blobs and general "industrial" finish standards. But it rides fine, and only educated nitpickers (all of us on this list) recognize the demerits. Classification: it's a successful tool with good functional art elements and some aesthetic merit, in an unrefined way. Maybe a work of art, low grade.
The highest quality bike I own is a Marinnoni. Lug work is better than factory bikes, but not especially fancy. Guiseppi was making bikes for racers and riders when I bought it, and wasn't hung up on cosmetics. But I have ridden it for thousands of miles, and it's a comfortable reliable mount that gives me great pleasure to ride. Successful tool, high level of functional art, and decent looking. Average "work of art", perhaps?
Then we get into frames such as Baylises, Bohemians, Moons, Columbines, Hetchins and the like that attempt to establish a high level of visual refinement along with superb function. They of course are excellent tools, should be a joy to ride, and have nearly unlimited aesthetic details to appreciate, such as chisel edged drop out attachments, beautiful lug radii, perfectly executed seat lug attachments, etc. etc. that bring pleasure to those who care about such things. They produce a powerful effect on the senses and emotions of the cognoscenti. Therefore I would define them as a "work of art".
The interesting point is the facet of the bicycle that engages the sense of touch. The builder can create something that stimulates two different senses: visual pleasure from looking at feathery lug edges and tactile pleasure from hammering the same bike into a twisting downhill turn. A builder can "crankem out" with the idea of making the best functioning tool (gets from A to B and doesn't break) but without concern for sense gratification, in which case it's a pure tool regardless of cost, because the builder hasn't focused on gratifying the senses of the rider. I would go so far as to say that his soul hasn't entered into the product. Trek Carbon bikes would seem to fit here, as well as most aluminum bikes, even though they can be super tools. Or the artistic builder can attempt to create a pleasing to ride frame with high degrees of visual refinement, to fully engage the senses of the consumer. Then I think it becomes art. And if the frame rides like a garbage scow or breaks down because the rear wheel folded from 10 cogs or the derailers wouldn't index, it's bad art, regardless of it's visual appeal.
Tom Adams, long winded in Kansas City.
> Remember too that (at least in the opinion of some) functional art is a
> pleasure to USE as well as look at.
>
> Along with Snap on tools, certain nice cameras, and other cool stuff that
we
> on the list may collect, the bikes we love, those that epitomize the craft
> and the sport, are dynamic sculpture, functional icons that are a tribute
to
> the skills of the people that created them.
>
> And herein lies the difference not only between production bikes and true
> vintage lightweights, but also the difference in PERSPECTIVE of this list
> vs. the BoB list or wreck dot bicycles dot whatever.
>
> markp
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard M Sachs" <richardsachs@juno.com>
> To: <feldmanbike@home.com>
> Cc: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [CR]Is it art or engineering?
>
>
> > there is sound.
> > and there is music.
> > in relevent terms, mario confente,
> > oops, i mean Mario Confente, made
> > music. for my eyes.
> > e-RICHIE
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:10:05 -0800 "Diane Feldman"
<feldmanbike@home.com>
> > writes:
> > > And then there was Duke Ellington, "If it sounds good, it is good!"
> > > David Feldman
> > > artist