> Perfection for perfection's sake, I think that is
> what led to the potential
> for mankind's troubles in the 'Terminator' movie
> series.
Put anything into that template, "______ for ______'s
sake," argue pro or con, and see what you get, just
for fun, Dennis. Art for Art's sake? I believe that's
an argument for Art, setting a minimum of involvement
and investment, to keep Art alive and continually
growing. So, "Perfection for Perfection's sake," I'd
argue is a good thing, for allowing for achievement,
for having touchstones, (for having touchstones in
framebuilding.) If I had ordered and received
RICHARD'S NAGASAWA, I'd send it back for fixing.
Frames came back to me when I goofed, even when I
hadn't goofed.
>Is steel a
> material that visually best lends itself to
> perfection, perhaps for bridges,
> but not necessarilly for art or craft.
There's plenty of steel sculpture out there, it
usually doesn't move me, but it works for many,
including the artists or craftspeople who made it, of
course. Steel sculpturists can do lots to steel, they
can put swirls and textures and all the scratches they
want into it, but what they do usually has an
intellectual or emotional message. The message on
RICHARD'S NAGASAWA, with all those scratches, is "What
a shame." The history of automobile styling combining
technology, art and craft has been steel's domain,
producing some quite perfect visuals. If you summed up
the scratches on RICHARD'S NAGASAWA, (the scratches on
the seatstay plug bug me the most) and applied a
proprtional amount to a new automobile, visible under
the paint, that would be a whole lotta imperfections
displeasing to anyone who didn't get a heavy discount
on that new car.
>Is texture
> in the surface in
> disharmony with the material, and is perfectly
> smooth, like plastic coated
> carbon, more visually intrinsic and interesting? In
> your definition,
> perfection is symonymous with your better.
When Kestrel debuted their seat-tube-less frame I thought it was stunning, not because it was smooth but because, given the challenge of the missing tube, they came through, with great lines throughout the whole frame. It was a great conception.
Most ceilings in basic homes and apartments are
textured to contrast with the walls for basic
interior-design criteria. Elaborate building exteriors
can have various kinds of interesting textures for
visual appeal. I don't know design lingo so I'll leave
it at that. But whether the design requires
economizing or not, the pursuit of perfection results
in the most perfect solution, textured or not: from a
conceptual plan. The scratches on RICHARD'S NAGASAWA
were not part of a conceptual plan.
>If you
> claim that history offers
> you sustenance for your argument about the human
> need for perfection, your
> study maybe starts today, but stops somewhere during
> the the beginning of
> the industrial revolution, when handmade items
> became mass produced and
> necessitated a regularity, or you have been watching
> too many Miss America
> pageants.
Although it certainly could be, perfection isn't
necessarily about "regularity" or "mass production."
The pusuit of, and accomplishment of, perfection, did
not begin with the "industrial revolution." That's
like saying ideals began in the 18th century. Miss
America? I appreciately greatly fashion, it being one
of the greatest art forms in history, but awareness of
fashion isn't best gleaned from "watching too many
Miss America pageants." That show's for drinking beer.
I have been watching the evolution of the custom
bicycle frame though, and all the scratches on
RICHARD'S NAGASAWA are far removed from the frame's
timeline.
>Your picture doesn't take in the work of
> ceramacists, glass
> blowers, woodturners, the paintings of the
> Impressionists, some of which is
> considered to be the most beautiful art ever
> created.
My "picture" takes in all of the above and more. I've
seen "glass blowers" on da TV ya know, bub. If I had a
conception of a certain number of colors of a certain
number and types of shapes, all arranged or blown in a
certain way, inside and outside of a certain shape of
sphere and it seemed impossible to make it, and I
tried and thunked and tried and thunked over and over
and everybody said it couldn't be done, and then
finally, I did it, I'd say, "Voila! I call it, 'Big
Bang: Genesis of a Broken Symmetry.'" I also might,
Dennis, if I was happy with the work, call it
"perfect." Is Nagasawa happy with RICHARD'S NAGASAWA?
>The ancient Greeks,
> no slouches when it came to an appreciation of
> aesthetics, deliberetly
> introduced less than perfect in their stone
> sulpture, though they were
> capable of more. Clearly some parts were
> intentionally rendered less
> perfect or authentic than others. Why were they
> holding back? One theory
> is that they found perfection boring, along with
> their considering it less
> pleasing to their dieties, for whom most of the
> forms were created.
I'd say the Greeks marbles resulted from a pusuit of
perfection. In any sculpture, the artist deliberately
stylizes to communicate that which they feel cannot be
better communicated otherwise. If, as you say, parts
are "rendered less perfect or authentic than others,"
I'm not sure if this results from variation in
craftsmen's skill or from the vision of the
artist/overseer. If the "rendering" is intentional,
then one would still have to do the "rendering" well,
one would still have to pursue perfection in outcome.
Dennis, can't you imagine the master correcting his
craftsmen, "No, no, that nose is hideous, it needn't
be that bad, just a tweak, sorta like my sister's." I
don't think the scratches in RICHARD'S NAGASAWA
resulted from intentional rendering.
>Taking
> your perspective today, why would one want to visit
> an exhibition of Rodin
> scuplture when you have wax museums offering more
> authentic reproductions of
> the human form?
Wax museums are cheesy. And painting or drawing are
better mediums for capturing the essence of an
individual. Rodin? My reply would be the same as my
comments above about Greek sculpture. And I'll add
that I think the scratches in RICHARD'S NAGASAWA are
cheesy.
>Science you say, in medical science
> they once thought of
> antibiotics as the perfect solution, they awarded a
> nobel price for it a
> couple of times, for work pertaining to the study of
> penicillin, but now too
> much of it can be hazardous for your health, and in
> some places they are
> going back to using leeches to aid in the healing of
> wounds.
And how many lives have been saved, Dennis, using
antibiotics and penicillin? As for "too much of it,"
new science replaces old science: the pursuit of
perfection goes on. If what ails one calls for a shot,
some pills and two cups of leeches, so be it. What
ails RICHARD'S NAGASAWA calls for a return to the
maker for some delicate Nobel Prize-winning fixing.
>Computer
> science fits into your analogy? Granulized images
> are often preferred over
> more perfect realistic images that now can be made.
> It is easier on the
> eyes, and offers a better sense of perspective.
If the goal is "easier on the eyes," and "granulized
images" are easier on the eyes, then the pursuit of
perfection is the pursuit of what is easier on the
eyes, in this case, in "computer science," you cite
granulized images. Perfect solution, apparently. The
scratches on RICHARD'S NAGASAWA are not easy on my
eyes.
> Quantum physics? Einstein
> observed that space was not an absolute, but
> depended on the observer's
> movement in space, and that time was not an
> absolute, but varied according
> with the observer's movement in time.
Well, my absolutes in framebuilding vary too, part
from my observations over time, and part from maker's
claims over time. I've observed Nagasawa's reputation
and the scratches in RICHARD'S NAGASAWA don't support
it.
>Religion? In
> mythological models,
> the most fundamental common feature characterizing
> our universe is the fact
> that it is out of balance, that we are children of a
> broken symmetry. We
> exist because something went awry at the moment of
> creation, the original
> sin that is responsible for our existence.
"Children of a broken symmetry" is an instructive
metaphor for religious speculation, one could even
create some lugwork representing this metaphor, not
just with asymmetry, but something more, but
definitely not with scratches like on RICHARD'S
NAGASAWA.
> Like it or not, people enjoy lack of perfection.
> Stamp and coin collectors
> prowl the earth looking for it, few folks are
> complaining about the mole on
> the face of super model, Cindy Crawford.
I could argue for comparing an imperfect stamp or coin to a lug unintentionally curled off to one side, but not to scratches like on RICHARD'S NAGASAWA. With Crawford, it's not a "mole;" it's a beaty mark; it's supposed to be sexy, unlike a big ol' wart, unlike the scratches on RICHARD'S NAGASAWA.
> No one is talking about sloppy, but if you are
> saying that you like your
> perfection because of the challenge of it, the
> sincerity, the way the lines
> flow cleanly into each other without obtrusion, the
> prettyness of it and
> sense of quality, I am in your corner all the way.
Yeah, I like all of the above, in pursuit and
hopefully, result, but certainly not only in frames
I've worked on, but in other's frames, and in
everything around me, where apt. And so, I'm in the
corner with RICHARD'S NAGASAWA almost all the way.
> If you are saying that
> you appreciate it becaise it gives you a feeling of
> self importance, as your
> post generally reads, then I have to go see a man
> about a mutt.
Why didn't a certain Japanese self, who had numerous
opportunities to look at his work, spend a few more
minutes on RICHARD'S NAGASAWA?, ergo, on Richard's
self? Who's putting who ahead of who?
> Again, the point of the initial thread, as Richard
> mentioned, was not that
> one way is either right or wrong, better or worse,
> but that there can be
> different ways of looking at things, and being open
> to a different order is
> not in anyone's disfavor, or at least to let that
> person decide for himself.
The genesis of this thread was file marks in 30-year-old Masis, and then, SURPRISE at seeing so many scratches in RICHARD'S brand new NAGASAWA.
Joe Starck, masidon, wi
> It's just my opinion...
> Dennis Young
> "Swimming in the clouds" in Hotaka, Japan
>
>
> snip from Joe Starck's post:
>
> > And here's the original pomposity from Dennis
> Young
> > that Cooper and you, Robbins, agreed with:
> >
> >
> > "...You are talking about a different era of
> bicycle
> > making when those Masis had the remnants of file
> work
> > on them. People had a different mind about what
> they
> > were doing then, and the expectations of the
> customers
> > were different as well. Not that I would suggest
> it,
> > but thinking otherwise suggests a lack of
> > understanding of bicycle history, and aesthetics
> > evolution."
> >
> >
> > Young and Cooper, with their stock phrasings, are
> > swimming in the clouds. Looky here, for how long
> have
> > people, from all cultures and continents, for the
> past
> > hundreds and thousands of years, been makin'
> things?
> > Some old stuff is in museum buildings, some old
> stuff
> > is in homes; some old stuff is the buildings and
> the
> > homes. The stuff's everywhere, inside and out. How
> > 'bout just the last century or half-century, in
> Europe
> > and the U.S.? A sense of quality and checkin' for
> > flaws is instinctual. Let's take a very, very
> brief
> > tour of things made: If we all went into a shop
> and I
> > saw a box, a thing to hold things, and I liked it
> > because of the material or the design or whatever,
> I'd
> > say "I like this, and you see this, this and this,
> > some may consider them flaws but they don't bother
> me,
> > and besides, they're away from the good parts."
> (It's
> > a $50 box.) But if the lid came down uneven, it'd
> be a
> > problem, and I'd have to decide if I could fix it
> or
> > not. My sister made a little clay rocker chair
> many
> > years ago. In one sense it looks hand-made by a
> child,
> > flaws and all, but in another sense, because it
> has a
> > sort of haunting character about it, it looks as
> if it
> > coulda been make intentionally that way, like by
> > Georgia O'Keefe maybe. I made a decorative box
> with
> > two drawers 30 years ago that hangs on my parent's
> > wall; it's not perfect(it's pretty good though!),
> but
> > it's very charming. The Brookly Bridge is very
> > charming too, but it's also a perfect work of art.
> If
> > my tailor makes me a suit with a too-tight
> armhole, or
> > even just a noticeably crooked seam elsewhere: not
> > charming. A panel on an automobile a bit off?: not
> > charming. Dentists are craftspeople.
> >
> > "Hey Doc, it's been a few weeks and that filling
> feels
> > a bit rough against my tongue."
> >
> > "Joe, let me show you my rug with the knot that
> looks
> > like a flaw."
> >
> > "Huh?"
> >
> > "OK, let me try this Joe, this is a story about
> > Wabi-Sabi..."
> >
> > "Huh? My tooth..."
> >
> > The dental assistant whispers, "Now Joe, who are
> you
> > to judge the Doctor? Tsk. Tsk. Tsk."
> >
> > "Now Joe, You don't know it yet, but I've given
> you
> > the gift of contemplation. Live and love. Life is
> > short. That's a good man. Sayonara and Ta Ta..."
> >
> >
> > OK now, let's go back to an awareness of things
> made,
> > throughout history, throughout the last century,
> > throughout the last half-century, a historical
> > awareness of the transactions between buyers and
> > sellers of things made, transactions guided by an
> eye
> > for quality by the buyer, and hopefully, by the
> > seller. Against this whole backdrop of the history
> of
> > industrial arts, especially the last half-century,
> > somehow makers of bicycle frames in the 60s, 70s,
> even
> > the 80s, had been kept in the dark about the way
> > things ought to be made? During the three decades
> in
> > the century in which we listees have lived shoddy
> > workmanship on relatively expensive bicycle frames
> is
> > to be excused? There is no excuse. I'm not at all
> > applying perfectionist custom-framebuider
> standards to
> > these frames. All of these frames I'm thinking of,
> > certainly those mentioned in this thread and many
> > other makes, could have been made so much better
> with
> > just a little extra effort. The maker's chose not
> to.
> > These maker's claims only weakly carried through
> to
> > the frames made. They rapped "Old-World
> craftsmanship
> > and tradition" and "Made as perfect as possible
> under
> > the exacting eye of the Maestro" and other pompous
> > "Maestro" crap like that and yet on too many of
> these
> > frames there's little evidence of a "Maestro";
> there's
> > little evidence of mastery of metalwork. THE ERA
> OF
> > FLIM-FLAMMERY. There's your historical context. I
> > speak from solid ground, from experience, not from
> > castles in the clouds, not from speculation. Is
> THE
> > ERA over? Probably not. You can always glom onto
> the
> > culture of a frame's origin of manufacture, slice
> it
> > and dice it, subvert it and pervert it, and these
> > days, sneak a nice eastern philosophy or two in,
> work
> > yer blather up to a lather.
> >
> >
> >> ...In my opinion, Joe Starck's work is sterile
> >> and soul-less
> >
> >
> > In a sense, there really isn't anything completely
> > called "Joe Starck's work." But I'll touch on it a
> > bit; I'll say a few words about was is my "work."
> >
> > I did 20 years total of framebuilding work for
> > Trek('79-'82), Masi('84-'90), Dave Moulton(at two
> > different periods in the mid-eighties totaling
> about a
> > year or so), Bill Holland('91-'98), and my last
> four
> > years as a framebuilder making
> Rivendells('98-'02), as
> > well as some Hollands during these last four
> years.
> > And then there's all the repairs and modifications
> > over these two decades. So Bruce, are you dissing
> me
> > or the companies I worked for? I made some very
> nice
> > lugged and fillet-brazed frames for Holland, as
> well
> > as fillet-brazed tandems with fully internal brake
> and
> > cable guides, guides that were well planned and
> > executed with nary a rattle and smooth as silk.
> And
> > I'm proud of the Rivendells I made. For Rivendell
> and
> > Holland, I wasn't at liberty to put the hours into
> a
> > frame necessary to do some of the lug carvings
> listees
> > have seen from some of the fancier builders. I
> wasn't
> > giving my time away and neither were my employers.
> The
> > one ulta-refined Nervex-lugged 753 frame I built
> for
> > Holland; I'm sure he lost money on it. I did some
> > fancy stuff for Rivendell, but often it was, "Put
> an
> > extra $100 or $200 worth into this one." And so
> the
> > frame got what I got, but 9 out of 10 got more
> than I
> > got. I couple I'd like to do over. But with a lug
> that
> > already begins ultra-fancy, it's a challenge in
> itself
> > to add to it. Some of the extras on Rivendells I
> did,
> > for the money, were the best solution; I added
> bits of
> > me to Riv's that resulted in some mighty fine
> > gestalts. Fanciness aside, my work is evident of
> > perfectionism, and I'm proud of it. Of course,
> I've
> > had my fair share of screw-ups, and I've had
> problems
> > that weren't my fault. I often think it'd be a
> kick to
> > swap screw-up stories with some framebuilders that
> I
> > might be in harmony with. Somethimes a
> framebuilder is
> > judged unfairly by some who've only seen the
> "oops!"
> > Methods I've used in the past I no longer use. I
> > evolved by association and wit and Holland and
> > Rivendell sure as hell got my best. I think my
> whole
> > body of work, the depth and breadth of it, is
> > impressive. I don't feel my work is "sterile and
> > soul-less;" it's alive and as soul-full as can be.
> > This is why: When a perfectionist makes a custom
> > frame, he has to be at full attention; a
> > mis-measurement here or there and he's screwed. Do
> you
> > know how painful and expensive it is to realize
> you've
> > made just one error? And so the builder has to be
> "on"
> > frame after frame after frame. At any stage in the
> > process, especially double and triple-checking the
> > plans, cutting tubes, brazing, inspecting and
> > finishing, my whole being is in a moment without
> time.
> > Brazing can be a kick sometimes. I've done so much
> of
> > it that often I can begin a lug, get deep into
> thought
> > about something, and finish the lug without
> seemingly
> > having to have used one brain cell during the
> brazing
> > process. Did I just braze that lug? On to the next
> > lug/thought. When I'm finishing a frame, I'm both
> > working on it and admiring it. I've made frames to
> the
> > best of my ability, and you know, I didn't do it
> for
> > myself; I did it for the frames. Where is my work
> now?
> >
> >
> > And when I inspect another builder's work from all
> > angles, preferably in bare metal, when I take it
> all
> > in, if that frame hits a certain mark of
> perfection,
> > I'm moved -- A chill goes up my spine -- That's
> sorta
> > like one soul saluting another.
> >
> > Joe Starck,
> > masidon
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>
http://www.bikelist.org/
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/