I have been following this thread and was tempted to enter the fray on a couple of occasions but resisted because I wanted to try and convey my thoughts succinctly but have a tendency to ramble/wander which on a bike can be fun but in this context I wanted to try and avoid. I think that we can all agree that the KOF builders are consummate craftsmen and deserve our support. First and foremost I believe their intent is to create machines which represent their interpretation of how to build a frame that will offer the best riding characteristics, and offer optimum efficiency and performance as well as riding pleasure for the owner. The old adage "form follows function" definitely comes to mind. However, at least with the finest examples these frames reflect a great deal of personalization, certainly from the builder, and in many cases preferences of the buyer as well. We can all point to refinements which represent elegant solutions and/or are special embellishments. Some are subtle while others are more over the top so opinions vary about the different approaches. That's part of the fun and to my mind makes this all the more interesting as opposed to mass produced frames which may be competently made but lack the personal touches that thankfully some craftsmen still take the time to produce and at least some buyers appreciate. Yes, first and foremost I want a great handling machine and an enjoyable riding experience but I also appreciate the differences of design and execution that make each builder, and sometimes in subtle ways, each frame unique. An artist can attempt to make something that will be regarded as art just as a craftsman can attempt to create something that will be regarded as well crafted. In the final analysis however the public (rightly or wrongly) determines what is "Art" as well as what is perceived to be well made. Not that everyone will always agree nor should they. Brian Bayliss recently stated that he is not an artist. While I appreciate his statement and why he said this I know that I and many others would tend not to agree. The nice thing about what Brian is doing is that his whole approach is synergistic. The embellishments are not simply decorative. They have a purpose that compliments the riding experience and principles of good design. There is little or no eye candy that doesn't also serve a practical goal (I'm not sure the extensive windows he cut out of the Nervex lugs on the frame he brought to the last Cirque saved appreciable weight but that was one gorgeous frame!) and the personal flourishes are in keeping with good engineering practices which is not always the case with some builders who perhaps want to personalize their creations but either don't think through whether these elements improve or detract from the main purpose of the frame, or just don't know enough about the effects of stress risers, overheated tubes, tube types and lengths, angles, etc. From what I have seen from other builders such as Bruce Gordon, Richard Sachs, Columbine, and a surprising number of other KOF craftsmen, they are also to be commended and demonstrate very convincingly the knowledge and dedication it takes to create something which stands out from the crowd. Their frames are not only a real treat to ride, but are aesthetically pleasing. Others will certainly disagree but I personally enjoy frames which have added details which while they may not directly, or appreciably enhance the riding experience are beautiful design elements which clearly show the builders creativity, ability and dedication to put in the extra time and effort to create something special. For those of you who have ever picked up torch and file I suspect you know what I'm getting at. I applaud these types of efforts and not only the expertise but the dedication and ego that prompt some builders to go to this extra work and make a frame that does reflect the personal touches and stands out from the thousands of other frames out there. In closing, yes I have rambled but if you are still with me- my opinion for whatever it is worth- when someone builds a frame and it is not only competently made but strikes me as a thing of beauty that's artistic. When something transcends the utilitarian and affects you visually and perhaps even emotionally does that qualify as Art? Webster's defines art as follows- "1A: skill in performance acquired by experience, study or observation. B: human ingenuity in adapting natural things to man's use. 3A: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill: Trade. C: systematic application of knowledge or skill in effecting a desired result. 4A: the conscious use of skill, taste, and creative imagination in the production of aesthetic objects; also: works so produced." That's the primary definition of Art. Point made?
Edward Robert Brooks Managing Director Edward Roberts International Auctioneers of the Fine and Rare 1262 West Winwood Drive Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 Phone- 847.295.8696 Facsimile- 847.295.8697 Email- ebrooks@eriwine.com Website- http://www.eriwine.com
-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of Dennis Young Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 9:12 AM To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: [CR]Roman art
Roman,
A creative endeaver where one is trying to be as sensitive as possible to what is going on, attempting to take the given materials to the highest order of assemblage per a certain design initiative, being original, assembling all the parts, pieces, and colors with the thought to make something aesthetically tireless for the allowable ages; then why not call it art, if the word speaks of some kind of further contribution beyond being solely a copy cat technician (with all due respect). What's the hangup? Probably sticking my neck out here, but I venture to say that it may take some mental maturity to understand that what you are doing is art, or maybe what you can be doing is art.
Dennis Young Hotaka, Japan
> What comes to mind here is that we're getting to a point in this
> discussion
> where any thing anyone likes is "art" - even if the creator of the
> object
> didn't even think of it that way.
>
> The more examples of this I see, the more bogus the whole notion
> seems. At
> what point does every nicely designed thing become art?
>
> It seems that one could compile an endless list or finely designed and
> crafted objects that serve a primarily functional purpose in life. The
> creators of these objects are typically fine designers/craftsmen
> and may
> have been influenced by many stylistic and/or artistic movements in
> the
> development of their own personal styles. Most of them don't consider
> themselves as artists and most don't think they make art. What do
> we know
> that they don't that we need to label these things as art?
>
> I just don't get it. The art of .......... take your pick. I don't
> see it.
>
> "What's art got to do with it?"
>
> Roman Stankus
> Atlanta, Ga.