Originally Posted by botto
they thought Manet, Monet, Cezanne, Picasso, Matisse, etc were sh|t at the time, only for them to be loved later.
That is simply not true. They were regarded as excellent at the time. Why do you think they stood to the test of time? There were hundreds or thousands of other painters from their times and you don't see their paintings around do you?
Originally Posted by Bike Lover
Boy, it sounds like someone is stuck in the past. Don't worry, it happens to all of us. For example, I love the classic styling of the late 80s Mustang LX Notch backs (sedans). Those are sweet! Now the later Mustangs are just eh to me. Of course this isn't the same for others but that's my favorite. I guess what I'm suggesting is you found something you liked and you're judging the rest based on the one you like instead of going with the flow and embracing new technology and styling.
I see your point, but I do disagree with it. I do love new stuff and new styling and technology, but it seems bikes for one took a design/look turn that maybe it is simply against my personal taste or simply have not "progressed" much. I loved 50's Porsches for example, but couldn't care less for the new designs of the late 70's-80's. Loved them again in the 90's and now, but a few late models I could care less for. So, it is not simply a matter of new vs old looks. I love the 80's "classic" bikes and their looks, but I love them for what they are: an old classic looking bike from the 80's. I by no means wished all bikes today looked like back then.
Mass production has a lot to do with it.
In the 70-80s, the most sought after bikes were full Campy Italian, which came from a tradition where many small bike manufacturers put out distinct bikes in relatively small numbers. So you had many variations in lugs, paint etc within manufacturers lines and also among different manufacturers.
Fast forward to today, and the most sought after bikes are machine made, either CF or until recently,aluminum, so all the bikes look essentially the same.
Or maybe we are just moving towards a "form follows function" asthetic, where decoration is left out.
I think you do have a very valid point here with the mass production vs the personal builders. It does make sense to me at least. Now, the decoration vs function part is probably not there even today. Look at the 2 CF bikes posted here already and tell meif all of it truly follows function
Again, even though it may not be my personal taste, I don't fail to see some of the "beauty" a lot of today's bikes have. It just seems like there is very little distinction between one and another
