In a message dated 3/9/06 7:18:07 AM, Lou writes:
>
> I guess you have to define art. To me, if something is pleasing to the
eye,
> that makes me look at it from different angles and perspectives, then it
> classifies as art. It might be a building, a bicycle, a masterpiece por
trait,
> or a beautiful woman. I do believe bike frames are more than functional
. If
> I wanted something that was only functional, why in the world would I pay
> more dollars to get fancy lugs, done just right, or superb paint? Just
my three
> cents. Lou Deeter, Orlando FL
>
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