"Le Mans Sleeper" V11 in Tonti frame

[audiomick]

1 hour ago, audiomick said:

... I find if something is cleverly designed for good function, it often also has a pleasing form.

Thinking about that, it is probably more accurate to see it the other way around. If something obviously wont work well because of its design, I find it very difficult to see any beauty in it.

Prime example: the extended forks on an extreme chopper, and the associated combination of a very skinny tyre at the front and a ridiculously wide one at the back.

[4corsa]

Once something enters the world of having at it's core reason to exist a physical functionality, purpose or use it's not part of the "art" world in my view. A motorcycle or a car by definition are transportation devices first and foremost as is an aircraft. They can be beautifully designed, formed and crafted but in my mind they are not art. A Spitfire no matter how beautiful the design is, is never referred to as a piece of "art" nor was the Concord or any other aircraft ever produced that I can think of for that matter. I wonder why people are so quick to assign the tag of "art" to a particular motorcycle as I've seen many times but not to something like a Spitfire? Both machines designed to transport people to a location albeit by different means but a beautiful motorcycle somehow enters the realms of "art" for some and the beautiful aircraft does not. A mystery to me at least.
The acid test is ask a non motorcyclist if the MV Agusta F41000 is "art" and they'll look at you like you are insane. BTW my MV along with the 1000SS Ducati lived in my lounge room and dining room for years.
 
Phil

Phil - I think your definition is about as close as you can get to anything ressembling a universal definition. I've been asking people this question all my life, and the truth is there is no perfect answer. That said, there are always exceptions to rules and definitions. Take a look at the attached photo of a decorative pitcher from the Italian Renaissance (probably a repro). It was created for, and used to carry and pour water as it's simple function. It certainly could have been left as unadorned fired clay. But as it is seen and used every day, advanced cultures elevated it with an artistic intervention to be more than a vessel. It is certainly now a piece of art.

I feel certain (rare) motorcycles like the MV F4 750 in the hands of people like Tamburini, who live, breath, and dream about every aspect of their design do in fact elevate the Motorcycle to art - perhaps more accurately "performance art".

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Scud]

The Arts. A pretty big category.

One can earn a Bachelor of Arts degree or Master of Arts Degree. These are distinguished from Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees by the focus of study. An MA in Psychology (the art of understanding people) might be used in clinical practice, while an MS in Psychology (the science of understanding people) might be used in clinical research.

Perhaps for the visual arts, a functional object is considered art when the design of the object makes it desirable or interesting even when not used for its intended purpose.

For example, When my Yamaha TW200 is parked next to my Moto Guzzi Nero Corsa, nobody wants to know more about the TW. And nobody says "you should park that TW in your living room."  Similar reactions can be expected if the above vase were to be displayed on a shelf next to an empty plastic milk jug.

FWIW - When I bought my Scura, it was already over 10 years old and had less than 200 miles on it. The previous owner bought it, maybe rode it once or twice, then parked it in his living room, where it functioned as art for a decade or so. It is now a motorcycle in my garage. So whether something is art or not may also be determined by the way people choose to interact with the object.

[LowRyter]

17 hours ago, Lucky Phil said:

Once something enters the world of having at it's core reason to exist a physical functionality, purpose or use it's not part of the "art" world in my view. A motorcycle or a car by definition are transportation devices first and foremost as is an aircraft. They can be beautifully designed, formed and crafted but in my mind they are not art. A Spitfire no matter how beautiful the design is, is never referred to as a piece of "art" nor was the Concord or any other aircraft ever produced that I can think of for that matter. I wonder why people are so quick to assign the tag of "art" to a particular motorcycle as I've seen many times but not to something like a Spitfire? Both machines designed to transport people to a location albeit by different means but a beautiful motorcycle somehow enters the realms of "art" for some and the beautiful aircraft does not. A mystery to me at least.

The acid test is ask a non motorcyclist if the MV Agusta F41000 is "art" and they'll look at you like you are insane. BTW my MV along with the 1000SS Ducati lived in my lounge room and dining room for years.

 

Phil

I remember looking at the classified on Wild.  Someone had a Greenie for sale.  It wasn't ridden but instead was an art object on display in a house.  

[Speedfrog]

When the people of Lascaux started to ornament the walls of their caves with depictions of the fauna surrounding them, I don’t think the notion of art existed. It was first and foremost a mode of expression and the realization that one’s self expression could not only satisfy the artist but bring pleasure to the people exposed to it.

The same could be said about sculpture, music or any other art form.

Art only exists within an audience. 

[Speedfrog]

One might see a car...

One might see a people transporting device riddled with engineering flaws and practical inadequacy...

This 20th century boy sees an artful mechanical creation. 

I could look at this thing all day and feel the weight of the world being lifted, if I could drive it, that feeling would be 100 fold. Don't even think about owning it...

[4corsa]

I took these photos a couple weeks ago while in Mandello del Lario down the street from the Guzzi factory red gate. I think we can all agree this is art!

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Speedfrog]

4 minutes ago, 4corsa said:

I think we can all agree this is art!

Well... It's not a motorcycle. No engineering involved here, except maybe for how it's holding upright. And just because it is a stone-throw away from the MG factory, doesn't increase its status even if we all know what it represent.

Modern sculpture maybe... or Mechanical Art.

 

[docc]

3 hours ago, Speedfrog said:

One might see a car...

One might see a people transporting device riddled with engineering flaws and practical inadequacy...

This 20th century boy sees an artful mechanical creation. 

I could look at this thing all day and feel the weight of the world being lifted, if I could drive it, that feeling would be 100 fold. Don't even think about owning it...

 

I can see the point that the technicians having to troubleshoot that wiring harness might not see that as art.

[4corsa]

...Lucas bullet connectors

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[audiomick]

The prince of darkness.

[docc]

I have tried to think of any artist I have known that did not care about the audience, accolades, or evocation their art might create.

It is a compelling concept that "It is art " as soon as the creator means it to be so. Something "created" and meant to evoke (an approval, a response, emotion, criticism, maybe a purchase . . . ).  

I have seen painters, sculptors, musicians, writers, poets (and yes: industrial arts builders) display their creations and quietly stand back and revel in the unsettled arguments over their effective evocation.

Zappa's "music", very intentionally, did this with some of his dystonic, anti-melodic projects. "Art?" He certainly meant it as such.

Hunter S. Thompson comes to mind in literature, "Song of the Sausage Creature ." 

And in painting? Too many culprits to count! Picasso and Dali come readily to mind.

From where we stand, using a motorcycle (especially a Moto Guzzi, and most especially a SpineFrame) as a palette for artistic expression is a formula for "unsettled arguments" and evocative emotions . . .

"I love it!"

"No! It pisses me off"

Heh - must be "art ! "

[Speedfrog]

I heard a Public Art artist once said  "If your mom likes it, it's not Art"...

[Speedfrog]

1 hour ago, docc said:

I have seen painters, sculptors, musicians, writers, poets (and yes: industrial arts builders) display their creations and quietly stand back and revel in the unsettled arguments over their effective evocation.

No need to look any further than the very pages of this forum to see pictures of one's accomplishment proudly posted for everyone's attention and debate. It might not be Art but the process is the same. We are social creatures and we value our peers opinion and revel in their approval. It's also a good way to open up one's own limited view to a broader perspective.

[GuzziMoto]

The notion that a motorcycle can't be art simply because some non-motorcyclist might not think it is art is laughable and misses the point of art. If even one person thinks something is art, it is art. That someone else, or even everyone else, would not call it art doesn't matter. Such is art.

I appreciate the art side of motorcycles (and cars, that E-type is certainly art). But my favorite part of motorcycles is riding them. 

Side note, I have a guitar hanging on my wall that is art. I do play it periodically. But more often I just look at it. It is beautiful.