Originally Posted by
Picchio Special
Not so fast.
What's interesting (to me, anyway) is that this distinction, while useful, suggests a dichotomy that isn't easily maintained once certain cultural assumptions are called into question. It's easy to assign objects to convenient categories - even necessary. But the "divide" between art and craft hasn't always been so historically obvious. Both are examples of making, both involve creativity, problem-solving, an aesthetic sense, particular skills and ability to manipulate materials. In other cultures and times, items of "use" have often also been objects of aesthetic importance or enjoyment. I think precisely the intersection between so-called "art" and "craft" - right where the categories blur, is quite revelatory, at least potentially.
The intelligent mechanic engaged in his job, interested in doing well and finding sasisfaction in his handiwork, caring for his materials and tools with genuine affection, is artistically engaged. The difference between such a worker and the inept and careless bungler is as great in the shop as it is in the studio. Oftentimes the product may not appeal to the esthetic sense of those who use the product. The fault, however, is oftentimes not so much with the worker as with the conditions of the market for which his product is designed. Were conditions and opportunities different, things as significant to the eye as those produced by earlier craftsmen would be made. - John Dewey, "Art As Experience"
To further support your point: In most cultures (i.e., non-Western cultures) there is no word for "art." The aesthetic experience we enjoy and refer to as "art" when we enjoy viewing 19th century African masks - just to cite one of many exemplars - has no meaningful interpretation to the culture and time from which they hail.
That said, what I hoped to get out of initiating this discussion in the first place are examples that C&V enthusiasts might want to see displayed and collected into a single venue, and that the general public might also find interesting as well. At this point in time I have purposely chosen not to clearly define what "the art of the bicycle" means, partly to motivate the sort of philosophical dialogue that has already begun here, and partly to collectively brainstorm the possibilities. It would be so easy to simply narrow the focus down to photographs of Italian racing bikes or a display of modern frame designs or balloon tire wonders ... or something else equally esoteric. But it seems to me that many of us - certainly everyone in this forum, I would imagine - feel some sort of affinity for the bicycle. For some, it's tied in with the nostalgia of childhood; for others it is about the exercise; still others love the classical allure of vintage steel and lugs and chrome. The list of connections goes on and on. (To me, there is the intrigue of form and function striking a perfect balance: a beautifully designed machine that performs in time with the rider.)
I hope the dialogue continues and I plan to steal the best of your ideas mercilessly as we consider what a show like this might actually entail.