[CR]]RE: Mojo? and modernist lugs

(Example: History:Ted Ernst)

Content-return: allowed
From: "Grant McLean" <Grant.McLean@SportingLife.ca>
To: 'davebohm' <davebohm@cox.net>, "Classic Rendezvous Mail List (E-mail)" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: [CR]]RE: Mojo? and modernist lugs
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:44:22 -0400

I wrote: "I like minimal, super clean, pared down, "less is more" designs. I also wrote: "for me, the fact that the basic structure of the tube and lug joint is exposed, is key.
>To which Dave bohm wrote in part :As I see it the ultimate end to this thought is no lugs at all, which is where we have ended up today. The fact that you like lugs means that to some extent you like adornment. Otherwise you would be a big fan of Fillet brazing or TIG welding, and I don't think you are.

Hi Dave,

No, I disagree. Even in strict Bauhaus "big M" Modernism, (BTW, to which I do not adhere) there is no goal to eliminate structure. On the contrary, exposed structure celebrates the method of construction, and concealing the method of construction is an UN-modern idea.

Check out: http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Case_Study_House_21.html

Pierre Koenig designed steel frame houses. He didn't hide the fact that his houses were not wood, on the contrary, the steel frame is left exposed so you can see how it's built. Covering everything with sheetrock and painting it all white might be more 'minimal' to the interior, but that doesn't make it more modern.

I think that lugs, as a method of tube joining, are a great example of modern construction. They celebrate the form and serve a function. It's efficient, clean and aesthetically pleasing, all of which are consistent with the best of modern principles.

Grant McLean
Toronto, Canada