Originally Posted by
Robert Foster
I don’t see how taking decals off strikes against consumerism because a good bike is a good bike and a bad one is a bad bike no matter what paint is on it. Buy a Trek and strip the pain off of it and sand down the name on the cranks and the corporation has still made the money and someone has still paid the price. If you do a good job or removing and repainting sooner or later someone is going to ask what kind of bike you have and unless you lie the corporation will have it reputation added to. So I say again the bike will not be enjoyed by a cyclist any more with or without decals. And if you get the rack someone might ask what kind it is and once again Surley scores.
I'm not trying to defend the OP. The OP is... strange. He posted a thread in the Commuting forum wherein he asked for encouragement to keep riding after a crash, not because of fear of crashing again or of personal injury, but because his pretty new bike had gotten scuffed. Then he came here and posted this thread, asking whether or not he should remove his decals. The best responses, in my opinion, were those that went along the lines of: it's your bike, do what you want with it.
And yes, removing brands does nothing to strike against consumerism. It is, at most, a visual rejection of consumerism while still enjoying to positive effects of consumerism: the commercial product. I wasn't attempting to defend the anti-brand mentality, just to explore and explain it. I do believe that the heart of the anti-consumerism movement is a rejection, not of branding, but of the selling of shoddy product, of planned obsolescence, and of the creation of the illusion of need where no need exists. And since the brand is a common tool used in the worst excesses of consumerist culture, anti-consumerists are inclined to reject branding as part of a larger rejection of the junk-producing, throwaway culture that we live in today. This means that brands aren't evil, just tools that can be misused (much like cars).
Like I said earlier, I don't personally consider myself anti-brand, just anti-ugly. I have nothing against Surly, and it's my understanding that they produce a quality product. If I purchase one of their (very nice) racks, and then remove the decals, it isn't an attack against Surly. It's because I find their logo to be ugly, and because their decals are easy to remove. If someone wishes to discuss my bike, then I will happily do so, and honestly mention the manufacturers and their products, those that have worked, as well as those that haven't. Heck, you can still see most of the brands on my bike; the only one that I've removed is the frame manufacturer. I think that the bike looks better for it, and so I take a little more pride in owning my bike than before I stripped the paint. It still rides the same, but now I enjoy its visual presence in my living room more.
The only thing that I'm trying to convince you of is that, regardless of motivation, some cyclists might enjoy their bicycles more after some alteration. And that "defacing" a bicycle is in the eye of the beholder.