Warning FOR SALE message (was Boring philosophical musings (Was (Re: [CR]Is it art or engineering?))

engineering?)

> 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.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Petry <mpetry@bainbridgeisland.net>
> To: <feldmanbike@home.com>; Richard M Sachs <richardsachs@juno.com>
> Cc: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [CR]Is it art or engineering?
>
>
> > 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