In defense of the beautiful bicycle

Not everyone can be picky when it comes to the bike they are afforded.  Some have a somewhat generic yet lovely hand-me-down gifted to them that served a family member or friend well for years .  Others had limited resources and jumped at the least expensive option because it was fast, inexpensive and easily acquirable with minimal research.  Not all of us have the luxury to take the time to purchase and build up a well riding, beautiful looking bicycle that suits our functional needs as much as it satisfies our aesthetic eye.  For some it doesn't even matter much altogether.

Then there are those of us who see the bike as more than just an object of pure utility, but as a gracefully functional piece of art that blurs this line entirely.  For some the bicycle is embraced as an object that will acquire not only tremendous use, but also visual admiration that warrants a treatment in beautiful design and assembly that parallels its function.  For those who see the bicycle as a marvelous object, the craft of bicycle building, assembly and repair becomes much more than just an act of labor, but an expression that elates the workmanship of bicycles to its highest form; an art.

Many people would consider nearly every aspect of this bicycle a constituent of art

Does it really matter?

Many a person has failed to understand my long time affinity with the bicycle let alone my attraction to the object in an artistic context.  Unnecessary and frivolous are words I have heard uttered in conversations that are suggestive of aesthetics' importance in bicycle design.  "Why is it that so many fail to see the mundane as beautiful" I have often wondered in my observance of the lack of love and attention given to so many otherwise potentially beautiful objects.  From kitchen knives to desks, I have seen both polar extremes of pure function vs pure form dominate the design and execution of various objects, both previously said and not.  For many its either one or the other while few manage to seamlessly teeter the fine line that so often dissects the two.  It is when function rests neither above nor under aesthetic that a seemingly perfect blend between the two begins to distinguishing an object as art vs the contrary.  What this whole "art" thing remains to be interpreted as is of course entirely in the eye of the beholder.  For some it is the gentle taper of a 4:1 airfoil that composes the down tube of a highly aerodynamic, fully carbon race machine.  For others it is a thin walled tube of steel that gently announces its encounter with its partnering tubes in the form of softly curving, color contrasting lugs.  Maybe a huge part of all of this is what the user plans to do with these machines of beauty.  Is it an upright, mellow paced cruz through town that the rider is looking for or perhaps an all out time trial effort that boasts the singular goal of speed?  Will swept back bars and a large leather saddle be the visual cue of a cyclist who wishes for optimal speed?  I wonder if conversely, a cyclist seeking leisure, comfort and practicality would find a pair of deep section, low spoke count carbon wheels attractive on their bike that is suggestive of everything BUT high speed?  Do intended applications give rise to particular aesthetic taste? Do our lifestyles and ambitions dictate our concept of what makes a bicycle beautiful to begin with?

Conversely, others would consider this to be highly artistic in execution

Treat your self

Regardless of your cup of tea, or coffee for that matter; I am here to say that I feel we should all be sensitive to one an others' selective taste.  What stands out as art to me might be a repulsive bit of kit to your sensibilities.  I can't expect my desired flavor to resonate deeply with all whom it concerns, but I can make an argument for the search of flavor altogether.

For those of us who might eventually spend decades with a bicycle in our possession, it only makes sense to acquire something that satisfies our visual desire as much as our physical.  When expressing our taste in the form of color palate, component selection, tube bonding and line flow in frame design we are merging multiple elements of beauty that give our ride a unique, personal bit of artistic character.  Will any of the previously mentioned adversely or positively affect the handling characteristics, weight or overall feel of the bike?  The answer is usually no.  But if that is the case, why not experiment with flavor a bit?  Why not take some time and spice up our experience in a way that gives it multiple dimensions that might otherwise be lacking?  For what reason can one argue the revocation of additional layers of depth that only seem to enhance our relationship with these potentially beautiful objects that we integrate into our daily lives?  For what reason should we avoid splicing elements of artistic craft into the "every day" work and product that we inevitably spend so much time laboring over and acquiring?