I are just a engineer/scientist with no artistic edjukashun (other than being a musician for longer than I've done anything else except eat and breathe). Yes, it is a fascinating discussion though a bit esoteric for me. Still, I grok a few points made here: Art to me happens when it enhances my experience beyond mere utility. I, or anyone else, may not notice it and or be "enhanced" at all, but it may still enhance the experience of someone else.

Which is why I mentioned chrome a few zillion posts ago, as flippant as that note may have seemed. The point, and what AZORCH appears to be saying, is that the art part comes when some feature of design exceeds the merely necessary. No bike needs chrome fork tips just as no building facade needs gargoyles or archways. Lugs as a necessary part of frame construction can still be made pretty or ugly.

What hasn't be mentioned yet (I think) is that the simple act of riding a bike can be art. It enhances life, produces wondrous visual input, lifts the spirit, etc. But it is ephemeral, a moment-by-moment experience which dissolves into memories as soon as it happens. You can't hang it on a wall except in pictures or in the physical componentry which makes it possible. That may be why you folks are having such a hard time coming to terms with the concept of "bicycle as art". What we really experience as bicycle art has no iconic element beyond the bike itself or using bike parts in an artificial creation.

I'll go back to being a enjuneer now.