> Well said. I've spent quite a few hours discussing the definition of art,
>
> both as an art student and later as a teacher... simplisic distinctions betw
> een
> art and craft as "decorative" and "functional" respectively are seldom
> satisfying and frankly I don't recall the matter ever being settled in a
> satisfactory manner in any of our discussions. Most can agree however, wit
> h your
> statement above... that art is somehow transcendant and is much more in the
> eye of
> the beholder than those who created it (many objects now considered art were
>
> produced by people who had no purpose other than to get to the end of day wi
> th
> enough saleable goods to feed their families).
>
> If that is true, then you and your fellow listmembers (as "beholders") are
> perhaps the ones responsible for elevating the perception of the handmade
> lightweight bicycle to a form of art, years or even decades after these obje
> cts were
> built. To me, that's a good thing... as long as we don't forget to ride
> them.
>
>
> Bob Hovey
> Columbus, GA
>
I was wondering when Hovey would weigh in. A couple of thoughts. First off, we CR folks occupy a very remote aesthetic outpost in the big world of bicycles, and always will: the number of people who care what a frame looks like under the paint will always be tiny. My local bike club pre-ride gab will never revolve around file marks. I think there is a distinction to be made between self-consciously arty bikes, which Brian B. writes critically about, and the art of bicycles. Once art becomes self conscious in the way Brian critiques, the genie is out of the bottle. I doubt there were many days when Rembrandt sat down and said, "today, I will create art." Heaven help us if some overt concept of "art bike" ever enters the market in a big way - and if it does, the microbrew bike concept will quickly be co-opted by the folks with the research and marketing saavy anyway, and guys like Bruce will still be swamped (or his name will wind up on someone else's product for a price - the "Bruce Gordon" line of Colnagos - not that he would let that happen). Things that are well made in turn create positive experiences for those who use them, experiences that would not be possible otherwise. Bikes can do this in a number of ways. The distinction between the aesthetic and the everyday realms of experience is, ultimately, as falacious as the more often discussed one of art vs. craft. Earlier cultures didn't make this distinction, which is why so many of their objects of everyday use wind up being described by us as "decorative." When anthropologists first visited the Navaho, they concluded that the Navaho had no religion, missing the point that their spirituality was so woven into the everday that it was unrecognizable as such to those used to a world of Aristotelian distinctions and weekend church-going. Most people just want a bike that fits well the category to which they have pre-assigned it (weight loss, scenic enjoyment). Other folks, like many of us CR types, enjoy bikes on as many levels as possible, because our experiences are richer for it. I'll depart with what I hope is a pertinent a quote from one of my favorite books, "Art As Experience," by John Dewey: "The intelligent mechanic engaged in his job, interested in doing well and finding satisfaction in his handiwork, caring for his materials and tools with geniune affection, is artistically engaged. The difference between such a worker and the inept and careless bungler is as great in the shop as it is in the studio. Often-times the product may not appeal to the esthetic sense of those who use the product. The fault, however, is oftentimes not so much with the worker as with the conditions of the market for which his product is designed. Were conditions and opportunities different, things as significant to the eye as those produced by earlier craftsmen would be made."
Ed Granger Lancaster, PA, USA We don't just "behold" with our eyes and brains - our whole bodies are engaged: The body is in the mind.