Can a bike be considered art?

biondino

Something can be art to person a and not to person b. They are both correct. It's not a paradox.

soundninjauk

lost_in_thought wrote:

soundninjauk wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Is this Art?

Is it in a gallery?

Yep.

Well then I guess that it's art. Or at least, enough people (or the right people) are willing to see it as art for it to be collectively deemed 'art'. Maybe once it's in a gallery the question stops being 'is it art?' and turns into 'is it good art?'

Personally, I think it's crap art.

I still think that your average bike (excluding TdF custom paint jobs and whatnot) comes under 'design' rather than 'art'.

baloo_the_bear

Hmmmm. Art is a small word with a complicated meaning.

is art

1) Something created to effect emotion and thought
2) Something created that is considered beautiful
3) Something created that is well crafted
4) Something that makes you think
5) An expression of style
6) An expression of something else


7) Any combination of the above depending on who you are and what mood you are in.

Personally, I can appreciate the craftsmanship and beauty of a great bike but I wouldnt consider it art.

I think the connotations arround with the word Art make this debate even harder.

Monkeypump

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think the notion that something is only art if it has been created only for the purpose of being art utter pretentious nonesense to give 'art' more exclusivity than it should.

The question again would be, what is art for something to be art?

"Art is something that is gawked at by some" is not a good enough answer.

In my mind anything can be art, over and above the purpose of the object. No one is able to answer why the human mind naturally forms shapes out of shapeless forms. Our minds naturally try to find shapes, patterns and forms images (look up at the clouds and wonder why it suddenly looks like something you recognise). I don't think art is or should be intentional, it is open to interpretation. Therefore we shouldn't dictate what is and what isn't art.

If my mind can look at wall and suddenly make a pattern out of the cracks or lines in the paintwork, then In my mind anything can be art if.

From Oxford Dictionaries (not necessarily OED - I don't subscribe):

art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power

You claim that "the notion that something is only art if it has been created only for the purpose of being art utter pretentious nonesense to give 'art' more exclusivity than it should". I might agree if this definition was used in an elitist, exlusive way. However, to try and explain WHAT ART IS, it's quite appropriate.

You may see patterns in clouds, or on brick walls, but that simply means that those things are aesthetically pleasing or attractive to you. They are not 'art'. For something to be art, there must be some intention and some creative process in making a 'thing' (picture, sculpture, etc.) which has a primary purpose of being no more or less than a piece of art. The result may be, and often is, nonsensical to many viewers. Bad art is still art. Great engineering is just that, not art.

Consider the concept of form following function, or vice versa...

notsoblue

salsarider79

I went to ICE bike show and saw the Ferrari Colnago. That was art, porn and beauty all rolled into one.
And what about the American Handbuilt show where last year we saw the Black Sheep 36er? I think that a number of those bikes are art as far as I'm concerned.

And what about the Ducati 916? Ok, so its a motorbike, but what a beautiful sculpture! The perfect halfway between the race track and the Tate.

lost_in_thought

@notsoblue - love it! Funny 'cause it's true... And also art.

wgwarburton

Hi,

When a bicycle becomes a work of art, it ceases to be a mode of transport, for its primary purpose is now aesthetic, not practical. If its purpose is not transport, is it really a bicycle any more?

I think not, but it depends almost as much on how you define “bicycle” as it does on how you define “art”.

Cheers,
W.

Hrun

Since my new road bike hangs on the wall in the kitchen and is beautiful, yes it is art.

And for anyone thinking it shouldn't be functional, I ride like a girl, so it isn't :d

supersonic

PedalPedant wrote:

"Art" is such a vague term it's almost impossible to determine what is or isn't a work of art. I have seen the definition used that a work of art can have no other purpose beyond simply being art, which I rather liked.

So on that basis I'd say no, a bike can't be art. Although you could argue that the paint job is.


PP

OI agree, is very vague. And I can't stand art ponces. To me anything can be art - it is what the individual sees.