I happen to own a Baylis, Richard Sachs, Bruce Gordon and Peter Weigle, among others. All are not only a joy to ride, but they are also nice to the eye. If they were only a joy to ride and not pleasing to the eye, they would be in someone else's garage. If they were pleasing to the eye and not fun to ride, then likewise, they'd not be in my collection. So, I want both. Whether you call it art or eye candy or something else makes no difference to me. But, it must look good as well as function the way it was designed to pass my sniff test. Lou Deeter, Orlando FL
"Cluster bombing from B-52s are very, very accurate. The bombs are guaranteed to always hit the ground." - USAF
-----Original Message----- From: brianbaylis@juno.com <brianbaylis@juno.com> To: loudeeter@aol.com Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Sent: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 16:00:32 GMT Subject: Re: [CR]Art & Bicycles
Lou,
The art vs. bicycle debate has been raging since the beginning of time almost. I'm sure most people would classify me as one of the "Art" framebuilders. I would consider that wrong; and it's not quite an insult to me, but only because I allow people to have their own opinions, and they don't know any better. Sometimes it is difficult to seperate the two. Here's how I see it. It's a bicycle no matter how beautifully you rendered the piece if there isn't anything on the bike that does not perform a neccessary and logical function. In lugged frame construction the luggs are neccessary. Lugs need a profile on the edges to eliminate the stress riser that would be at thejunction. To put a shoreling on a lug is neccessary. Some may have a better eye for curves and perportions which could be art, but still it has a purpose for being done. I'm sure most framebuilders have lost sight of this long ago. Read VBQ for the longer explaination.
When the shape of the lug takes a shape that is decorative and opens the door for frame failier, it's not art it's foolishness. I saw a couple of "artsy" frames at the show that qualify for this. The bicycle and EVERY aspect of it's design and construction should be aimed DIRECTLY at function first. If you can clecerly make it pleasing to look at, for some that is a plus. For others it is wasted money and time. Both are true. Psychologically one generally feels better if the object is pretty. Certainly one feels better if you are wearing a nice pair of shoes that also function well for the surroundings as opposed to a comfy pair that are beaten and tattered and are out of place, in a bad way.
A bike becomes an art bike as soon as stainless steel shows up on the frame anywhere beyond the dropout faces in my opinion. Also any piece that is not performing a neccessary function on the frame becomes art; and for what purpose? Just to make a frame into "art"? I think it is not only silly in most cases it's also compromising the potential lifespan of the bike. There are a bizillion ways to put a lable on the down tube of a bike. Brazing a stailness billboard on the DT is the last thing on earth I'd do to a bike. Most of these things are not cut by hand either. The money they cost should come out of the "advertizing and promotions" budget. Fancy bits on a seat tube or head tube like Roberson has been doing for years is not really an issue; but anything in the top tube, down tube, or forks and stays is bogus in my book. An example, with all due respect to the builder and he gets points for "thinking out of the box" to some degree, would be the clever? idea of brazing a stainless collar to the top tube of a fancy track bike to prevent the bar from denting the tt or scratching the paint. Only problem is that it's back aways from the butting of the thinwall tube, the design is a straight line going directly around the circumfrance of the tube. Knowing what I know about such things; I would expect a few good wacks with the bar or just the torsional forces of the frame will cause a failier there whereas any traditional method of solving that problem will never cause a failier. A case of a "problem being solved" by making it worse. The collar isn't a totally bad idea, but it needs a shoreline, one without any points on the edge and the metal should not be more than about .020" think when completed. This is the difference between a builder trying to "reinvent the wheel" and set the world on fire (it's what all of us did when we were young and full of piss and vinegar) and trying to make his mark amongst the older traditional framebuilders. I'm sure in time he will settle into a more practical approach, like all of the rest of us; or maybe not.
When a bike is made for art's sake, say with a LOT of stainless, lot's of carving, trinkets and castings brazed on, etc., my opinion is they should do what they probably did befor taking up framebuilding. As a jeweler that kind of talent will make you real money and is totally in it's place. My opinion, as much as I respect and appreciate the skill involved, I feel strongly that this stuff is very out of place ona bicycle. Look at bicycles designed to function that take the traditional methods and render them in a practical balance of function first. The paint or finish can reflect the owners and builders style and character without going to extreme lengths to get attention and stand out. The "art" there is in blending the style and preferences of both parties into a harmonious and attractive piece without pimping it out or shooting yourself in the foot by adding things to the bike that do nothing other than deceorate it and compromise the integrity of the frame and shorten it's lifespan.
Others my have differing opinions. I don't make art bikes. It annoys the crap out of me when people say that. I firmly believe in the bicycle as a practical piece, not a canvas for the budding artist. Look at what I make and hopefully you will remove me from the art builders catagory in your mind. I DO NOT want to be there. I prefer to do a bang up job of the "traditional" bike, but that's just me.
Brian Baylis
La Mesa, CA
I guess you have to define art. To me, if something is pleasing to the eye, that makes me look at it from different angles and perspectives, then it classifies as art. It might be a building, a bicycle, a masterpiece portrait, or a beautiful woman. I do believe bike frames are more than functional. If I wanted something that was only functional, why in the world would I pay more dollars to get fancy lugs, done just right, or superb paint? Just my three cents. Lou Deeter, Orlando FL
Policeman: "Just how big were those two beers?"
-----Original Message----- From: Wspokes <wspokes@penn.com> To: 'CR List' <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Sent: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 23:50:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [CR]Art & Bicycles
Actually Robert...you have a good point there...delta brakes in their lovely appearance are quite better at art than function...my friend affectionately called them speed adjusters. But seriously...
Art or bicycle...we are back to the debate that has erupted before on several lists, is a bicycle art or function. It appears to always come down to personal opinion with each individual. I serve up my plate as function and fun. When I cross that line of function and fun combined into something that looks good but "will I really use it" or is it really something I just want to keep around...I usually sell it knowing it is worth more to me that way than just sitting...but this is all personal opinion and probably not always the best but I can live with my decisions for the most part. Which is why many of my bicycles are probably off topic or classic hotrods so to speak...I don't stick to a theme of consistency where the back dates to the perfect year...or adheres to the perfect rebuild of an exact replica. I find a frameset that is classic...something that is appealing to me...and I set it up for myself and ride.
Walter Skrzypek Falls Creek, Pa http://www.fixedgearhooligans.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert D. Dayton,Jr." <rdayton@carolina.rr.com>
To: <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>; "'CR List'" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 10:21 PM
Subject: RE: [CR]Art & Bicycles
> Campagnolo C-Record was art.
> Especially the Cobalto brake with the bedazzling blue jewel.
> I still like to look at Delta brakes.
> OK maybe not art.
> But major style points.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org
> [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Schmidt
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 10:16 PM
> To: CR List
> Subject: Re: [CR]Art & Bicycles
>
> Nick Zatezalo wrote:
>>
>> When/Why did you begin to look upon a bicycle as art?
>>
>> What am I missing, I have yet to see them as art?
>>
>> Nick Zatezalo
>> Atlanta,Ga
>
>
> I think art is too strong a word Nick, although I have seen bicycles
> viewed as fine art over the years... Antonio Columbo (owns Cinelli, 3ttt
> etc) has commissioned many fine artists to interpret the bike (hint,
> most were unrideable.)
>
> But bicycles could certainly be viewed as industrial art and if you are
> aware of some of the different art movements... Art Nouveau, Art Deco,
> Bauhaus, Streamline/Moderne, Post-Modern, Dada etc. you can see some of
> those influences in the design of the lugwork, parts and graphics of the
> bicycle.
>
> Anyone else...
>
> Chuck Schmidt
> South Pasadena, Southern California
> http://www.velo-retro.com
>
> "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms
> of
> transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in
> heart."
> --Iris Murdoch
>
> .