So, you are safe to
> assume that "Dear Mr. Dalton," or even "Dear Tom," is perfectly
> acceptable.
I meant absolutely not disrespect. Just as a point of note, I never
debate for anything but to learn. You have taught me much on your
historical perspective and for this I have great respect for both you
and your thoughts.
>
> I'm trying to decipher the language of your post, and I can't quite
> figure out what "would be obvious," to me "if (I) knew the collection."
> (You really should proofread your posts before hitting the send
> button.) Reading forward, I eventually reach a point where I'm given
> the sense that, if I knew the collection, it would be obvious to me tha
t
> the MOMA staff doesn't give a hoot about function when selecting object
s
> for the collection.
Not quite. there is a certain Modernist sensibility of an reductionist attitude in the approach that the MOMA curators take towards the collection of objects. I cannot think of anything that they have in their collection that has decoration or adornment. Many of the objects function just fine, but that is not the most critical component to their
attitude in collecting. I have mentioned in the previous posting what i
believe is. Another of our list members brought up the inclusion of the bang and olufsen turntable and receiver (on backchannel) into the MOMA collection
back in the sixties, and I remember a similar outcry by the 'tubie' audiophiles that they should allow such a mediocrity of transistor based
audio components into a museum.
I have a great deal of difficulty believing that
> any such gross generalization about a design collection is accurate or
> that it holds any real value.
i am making no generalization about any collection in my post. The nature of any museum collection is the vision of the curatorial staff, and that will differ considerably with each museum. There are 2 major design depts. in major museums, MOMA and the Met, and 2 museums dedicated to a design collection, the Cooper Hewitt and the one that used to be called the American Craft Museum and now something like the Museum of art and design. All of the collections are vastly different in vision and scope, function is not a primary consideration in any. It
has far more to do with the objects influence on culture. To illustrate this, if one opened a bicycle museum, it would have a vastly different collection emphasis if the curator was a framebuilder, road racer, messenger, commuter, tourist, or someone who's only mode of transport is a bike. Putting an historian there would also have a different spin.
Frankly I think it is extremely
> presumptuous of you to assume that I'm not entirely familiar with the
> MOMA collection based on the fact that I'm criticizing some aspects of
> an object that happens to be in that collection. That's nuts.
No, I think your criticism is very interesting and informative and i also think that you would see that the formal attributes of this bike fits precisely to the aesthetics of that collection and supports the other objects that it is shown with. But i would be very interested in what you and others with the extensive
knowledge of lightweights would choose to fit a criteria of 'cutting edge' technology for the time, which bikes influence future builds and what reflects the best of a period and how you come to the conclusion. To me, it would give even another historical perspective with just as much validity as any museum collection. We get this all the time less formally on this list, that is why i enjoy it and all the luminaries that have these discussions. Interestingly, the nature of our list topic infers that many of us believe that the major innovations in this field have been achieved back
when and i would find it hard to argue comparing some of the older bikes
i ride with my newer CF off topic bike (which has similar visual
attributes of the Laser).
>
> On the other hand, I think you may be romanticizing the Laser just a
> tad. You wrote:
It is very possible Tom. I just cannot think of another bike of the era
that fits the collection as it stands so well. It combines a lot of what was considered cutting edge just a couple years ago, but you, with your knowledge may know of something of the era more appropriate. You certainly deconstructed the bike with knowledge and finesse.
It is nice to see that the discussion never devolved to what is 'best'. Museums do not contain, IMHO, what is best but rather what is their curatorial perspective on collecting. this makes visits to various museums very different adventures.
I guess you all will be relieved to know that this is my quota for the day...gabriel -- gabriel l romeu riding the best bikes in chesterfield nj usa ± http://studiofurniture.com Ø http://journalphoto.org ±