A slant off the thread, but if bikes are art, you can't find fault with a maker who wants to try something new, especially within a context that shows restraint, like new parts within an old theme. Artists generally have to try something new once-in-awhile, or they become less artist than technician. It is paradoxical that Americans would complain about artists coping to change. Compared to other cultures, Americans are generally far less adept at doing high quality repetitive hand work. They get bored quickly when not expressing their personality.
Dennis Young Hotaka, Japan
> I definitely agree that bikes are art, but I think the similarity between=20
> "Fountain" and our bikes is tenuous...
> Duchamp's work was significant not so much because it was an unaltered=20
> functional object... what was significant was that he turned it on it's side=
> . Even=20
> without the title, it thus became another object as we viewed it. This is=20
> different from hanging a track bike on the wall... unless you turn it upside=
> down and invite the viewer to see it in a new way (twin ferris wheels? Micke=
> Mouse ears?).
> Often considered similar to "Fountain", and very nearly on-topic, was=20
> Picasso's "Head of a Bull", constructed by combining two found objects...
> bicycle seat and a pair of handlebars. Though the two works initially seem=
> related, they are really miles apart because Picasso combined two familiar=20
> objects in an interesting way to form a new construct, while Duchamp's
> was an=20
> unaltered object that had merely been reoriented. Thus it was seen as a ve=
> significant commentary on the nature of art and perception.
> Personally, I like the "Head of a Bull" a whole lot better.
> Anyone care to guess at the make and model of saddle he used?
> Bob Hovey
> Columbus, GA