[CR]Perfection

(Example: Books)

Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 09:48:16 +0900
From: "Dennis Young" <mail@woodworkingboy.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
In-Reply-To: <MONKEYFOODCxpAOAkK500000154@monkeyfood.nt.phred.org>
Subject: [CR]Perfection

Perfection for perfection's sake, I think that is what led to the potential for mankind's troubles in the 'Terminator' movie series. Is steel a material that visually best lends itself to perfection, perhaps for bridges, but not necessarilly for art or craft. Is texture in the surface in disharmony with the material, and is perfectly smooth, like plastic coated carbon, more visually intrinsic and interesting? In your definition, perfection is symonymous with your better. If you claim that history offers you sustenance for your argument about the human need for perfection, your study maybe starts today, but stops somewhere during the the beginning of the industrial revolution, when handmade items became mass produced and necessitated a regularity, or you have been watching too many Miss America pageants. Your picture doesn't take in the work of ceramacists, glass blowers, woodturners, the paintings of the Impressionists, some of which is considered to be the most beautiful art ever created. The ancient Greeks, no slouches when it came to an appreciation of aesthetics, deliberetly introduced less than perfect in their stone sulpture, though they were capable of more. Clearly some parts were intentionally rendered less perfect or authentic than others. Why were they holding back? One theory is that they found perfection boring, along with their considering it less pleasing to their dieties, for whom most of the forms were created. Taking your perspective today, why would one want to visit an exhibition of Rodin scuplture when you have wax museums offering more authentic reproductions of the human form? Science you say, in medical science they once thought of antibiotics as the perfect solution, they awarded a nobel price for it a couple of times, for work pertaining to the study of penicillin, but now too much of it can be hazardous for your health, and in some places they are going back to using leeches to aid in the healing of wounds. Computer science fits into your analogy? Granulized images are often preferred over more perfect realistic images that now can be made. It is easier on the eyes, and offers a better sense of perspective. Quantum physics? Einstein observed that space was not an absolute, but depended on the observer's movement in space, and that time was not an absolute, but varied according with the observer's movement in time. Religion? In mythological models, the most fundamental common feature characterizing our universe is the fact that it is out of balance, that we are children of a broken symmetry. We exist because something went awry at the moment of creation, the original sin that is responsible for our existence.

Like it or not, people enjoy lack of perfection. Stamp and coin collectors prowl the earth looking for it, few folks are complaining about the mole on the face of super model, Cindy Crawford.

No one is talking about sloppy, but if you are saying that you like your perfection because of the challenge of it, the sincerity, the way the lines flow cleanly into each other without obtrusion, the prettyness of it and sense of quality, I am in your corner all the way. If you are saying that you appreciate it becaise it gives you a feeling of self importance, as your post generally reads, then I have to go see a man about a mutt.

Again, the point of the initial thread, as Richard mentioned, was not that one way is either right or wrong, better or worse, but that there can be different ways of looking at things, and being open to a different order is not in anyone's disfavor, or at least to let that person decide for himself.

It's just my opinion...

Dennis Young "Swimming in the clouds" in Hotaka, Japan

snip from Joe Starck's post:
> And here's the original pomposity from Dennis Young
> that Cooper and you, Robbins, agreed with:
>
>
> "...You are talking about a different era of bicycle
> making when those Masis had the remnants of file work
> on them. People had a different mind about what they
> were doing then, and the expectations of the customers
> were different as well. Not that I would suggest it,
> but thinking otherwise suggests a lack of
> understanding of bicycle history, and aesthetics
> evolution."
>
>
> Young and Cooper, with their stock phrasings, are
> swimming in the clouds. Looky here, for how long have
> people, from all cultures and continents, for the past
> hundreds and thousands of years, been makin' things?
> Some old stuff is in museum buildings, some old stuff
> is in homes; some old stuff is the buildings and the
> homes. The stuff's everywhere, inside and out. How
> 'bout just the last century or half-century, in Europe
> and the U.S.? A sense of quality and checkin' for
> flaws is instinctual. Let's take a very, very brief
> tour of things made: If we all went into a shop and I
> saw a box, a thing to hold things, and I liked it
> because of the material or the design or whatever, I'd
> say "I like this, and you see this, this and this,
> some may consider them flaws but they don't bother me,
> and besides, they're away from the good parts." (It's
> a $50 box.) But if the lid came down uneven, it'd be a
> problem, and I'd have to decide if I could fix it or
> not. My sister made a little clay rocker chair many
> years ago. In one sense it looks hand-made by a child,
> flaws and all, but in another sense, because it has a
> sort of haunting character about it, it looks as if it
> coulda been make intentionally that way, like by
> Georgia O'Keefe maybe. I made a decorative box with
> two drawers 30 years ago that hangs on my parent's
> wall; it's not perfect(it's pretty good though!), but
> it's very charming. The Brookly Bridge is very
> charming too, but it's also a perfect work of art. If
> my tailor makes me a suit with a too-tight armhole, or
> even just a noticeably crooked seam elsewhere: not
> charming. A panel on an automobile a bit off?: not
> charming. Dentists are craftspeople.
>
> "Hey Doc, it's been a few weeks and that filling feels
> a bit rough against my tongue."
>
> "Joe, let me show you my rug with the knot that looks
> like a flaw."
>
> "Huh?"
>
> "OK, let me try this Joe, this is a story about
> Wabi-Sabi..."
>
> "Huh? My tooth..."
>
> The dental assistant whispers, "Now Joe, who are you
> to judge the Doctor? Tsk. Tsk. Tsk."
>
> "Now Joe, You don't know it yet, but I've given you
> the gift of contemplation. Live and love. Life is
> short. That's a good man. Sayonara and Ta Ta..."
>
>
> OK now, let's go back to an awareness of things made,
> throughout history, throughout the last century,
> throughout the last half-century, a historical
> awareness of the transactions between buyers and
> sellers of things made, transactions guided by an eye
> for quality by the buyer, and hopefully, by the
> seller. Against this whole backdrop of the history of
> industrial arts, especially the last half-century,
> somehow makers of bicycle frames in the 60s, 70s, even
> the 80s, had been kept in the dark about the way
> things ought to be made? During the three decades in
> the century in which we listees have lived shoddy
> workmanship on relatively expensive bicycle frames is
> to be excused? There is no excuse. I'm not at all
> applying perfectionist custom-framebuider standards to
> these frames. All of these frames I'm thinking of,
> certainly those mentioned in this thread and many
> other makes, could have been made so much better with
> just a little extra effort. The maker's chose not to.
> These maker's claims only weakly carried through to
> the frames made. They rapped "Old-World craftsmanship
> and tradition" and "Made as perfect as possible under
> the exacting eye of the Maestro" and other pompous
> "Maestro" crap like that and yet on too many of these
> frames there's little evidence of a "Maestro"; there's
> little evidence of mastery of metalwork. THE ERA OF
> FLIM-FLAMMERY. There's your historical context. I
> speak from solid ground, from experience, not from
> castles in the clouds, not from speculation. Is THE
> ERA over? Probably not. You can always glom onto the
> culture of a frame's origin of manufacture, slice it
> and dice it, subvert it and pervert it, and these
> days, sneak a nice eastern philosophy or two in, work
> yer blather up to a lather.
>
>
>> ...In my opinion, Joe Starck's work is sterile
>> and soul-less
>
>
> In a sense, there really isn't anything completely
> called "Joe Starck's work." But I'll touch on it a
> bit; I'll say a few words about was is my "work."
>
> I did 20 years total of framebuilding work for
> Trek('79-'82), Masi('84-'90), Dave Moulton(at two
> different periods in the mid-eighties totaling about a
> year or so), Bill Holland('91-'98), and my last four
> years as a framebuilder making Rivendells('98-'02), as
> well as some Hollands during these last four years.
> And then there's all the repairs and modifications
> over these two decades. So Bruce, are you dissing me
> or the companies I worked for? I made some very nice
> lugged and fillet-brazed frames for Holland, as well
> as fillet-brazed tandems with fully internal brake and
> cable guides, guides that were well planned and
> executed with nary a rattle and smooth as silk. And
> I'm proud of the Rivendells I made. For Rivendell and
> Holland, I wasn't at liberty to put the hours into a
> frame necessary to do some of the lug carvings listees
> have seen from some of the fancier builders. I wasn't
> giving my time away and neither were my employers. The
> one ulta-refined Nervex-lugged 753 frame I built for
> Holland; I'm sure he lost money on it. I did some
> fancy stuff for Rivendell, but often it was, "Put an
> extra $100 or $200 worth into this one." And so the
> frame got what I got, but 9 out of 10 got more than I
> got. I couple I'd like to do over. But with a lug that
> already begins ultra-fancy, it's a challenge in itself
> to add to it. Some of the extras on Rivendells I did,
> for the money, were the best solution; I added bits of
> me to Riv's that resulted in some mighty fine
> gestalts. Fanciness aside, my work is evident of
> perfectionism, and I'm proud of it. Of course, I've
> had my fair share of screw-ups, and I've had problems
> that weren't my fault. I often think it'd be a kick to
> swap screw-up stories with some framebuilders that I
> might be in harmony with. Somethimes a framebuilder is
> judged unfairly by some who've only seen the "oops!"
> Methods I've used in the past I no longer use. I
> evolved by association and wit and Holland and
> Rivendell sure as hell got my best. I think my whole
> body of work, the depth and breadth of it, is
> impressive. I don't feel my work is "sterile and
> soul-less;" it's alive and as soul-full as can be.
> This is why: When a perfectionist makes a custom
> frame, he has to be at full attention; a
> mis-measurement here or there and he's screwed. Do you
> know how painful and expensive it is to realize you've
> made just one error? And so the builder has to be "on"
> frame after frame after frame. At any stage in the
> process, especially double and triple-checking the
> plans, cutting tubes, brazing, inspecting and
> finishing, my whole being is in a moment without time.
> Brazing can be a kick sometimes. I've done so much of
> it that often I can begin a lug, get deep into thought
> about something, and finish the lug without seemingly
> having to have used one brain cell during the brazing
> process. Did I just braze that lug? On to the next
> lug/thought. When I'm finishing a frame, I'm both
> working on it and admiring it. I've made frames to the
> best of my ability, and you know, I didn't do it for
> myself; I did it for the frames. Where is my work now?
>
>
> And when I inspect another builder's work from all
> angles, preferably in bare metal, when I take it all
> in, if that frame hits a certain mark of perfection,
> I'm moved -- A chill goes up my spine -- That's sorta
> like one soul saluting another.

>

> Joe Starck,

> masidon