I’ve always believed that truly custom motorcycles are definitely works of art. Why should a motorcycle, not be considered as a sculpture?
On truly custom motorcycles the vast majority of parts and components are made by hand, just as any metal sculpture. Perhaps, the only real difference with a motorcycle being considered a true work of art, or a sculpture is the fact that it has a secondary function of transportation.
Naturally, I’m sure many will disagree with my opinion, but, I was delighted to note that just recently the New York Times just ran a piece entitled “Custom Motorcycles as Sculpture: ‘The White, the Black, the Kestrel’” by TAMARA WARREN, where the artist Ian Barry wholeheartedly endorses the belief that custom cycles are sculpture.
For all motorcycle enthusiast out there, this New York Times piece is definitely worth a read:
I think all motorcycles can be works of art. My business depends on that being the mentality of my customers. Some are prettier than others but while the picture in the article is relatively generic, they are all beautiful machines.
Bob: the Times article does have better images, but I wonder if they’re rideable?
That image looks like a Fury with tweaks. I’m not into cruisers, less so choppers, so it’s hard for me to be completely objective. I can respect that their owners enjoy them.
The work being done by Classified Moto is more to my liking as functional motorcycle art. http://classifiedmoto.com/
Motorcycles were the centerpiece of what’s STILL the most popular exhibition ever featured at NYC’s Guggenheim Museum. I weaseled a press pass from MSNBC, got into the pre-opening press night at the Guggenheim and took these shots with my 640×480 digital:
Custom choppers are kinda played out for me, not the least because they tend to value cosmetics over function, like a debutante dressing for the prom. I love old bikes because their form more or less follows function, like the attempt to put a radial engine in the front wheel.
I can’t say anything has played out for me. Once they have passed being the trend, we will look back and say “remember how cool those things were?”. I, personally, will always appreciate them for what they are and will be. Now KC, my favorite in your genre is the MV Agusta F4. Absolute beauty and function. As soon as I can find the time to ride it, instead of just look at it like my poor Raider, I will buy one.
The MV Augusta F4 is sweet, but KTM 1190 RC8 is more my taste in supersports. It’s more modern art meets motorcycle. On a more practical level Moto Guzzi strikes the right balance of art and function for me. They’re timeless, particularly the Griso.
I remember the Guggenheim exhibit. It was brilliant!
I’m not sure I agree about “custom motorcycles as sculpture”. Art, yes. Under the right circumstances, I can go along with that. It’s similar to the debate over photography as art. (I’m a photographer and it never ends.)
All motorcycles are a work of art to their owners to some degree, even if they’re stock. There’s an emotional response and that’s typically one of the “rules” for what is and isn’t art. Few of us purchase a motorcycle if it doesn’t resonate with us in some manner. There’s a tipping point where it becomes a personal statement, unique art. It’s the things we do that “make it ours”.
without a doubt, the choppers I built were my art. The first one was more bolt together parts, but you soon learn how to make the fender cuts match the exhaust tips, the paint design flow with the rest of the bike, etc. and take a lot of pride in a well thought out and executed design, but something you can still hop on and ride practically.
I had a little bobber type sportster, but when they came into style, I built my flashy 300 rr tire stretched out chopper after those types were out of style. I don’t really like driving what’s “trendy.”
I’m sure OCC considers their bikes art, after all, not any more practical to drive any distance than a Picasso. 🙂
I do like a mild cafe look. The Thruxton and V7 look works for me on a classic level. I used to find old motorcycles and tweak them to have that look.
Now, it’s a bit more interesting. There’s a lot of plastic on new motorcycles – sometimes too much. I like the silhouette of my CBR – up to the tail section where it gets way too busy. That’s a winter project.
K – I agree factories can turn out some gorgeous machines, but it’s just hard for me to call something a work of art or sculpture if there’s thousands more like it out there. the mona lisa is art, but wouldn’t be if robots had made them by the bucketload in a factory. just my perspective, nothing more or less.
Dave, beauty and art have infinite forms. I think you might agree that carburetors are beautiful and they are definitely works of art. Most bike owners make their bike their own, in a manner of speaking, and in the way they are able. Only a handful of people have the ability, time and resources to make their own custom bike. So they buy their brand or style of choice and add or subtract pieces they like better. Custom bike builders do the same thing, just from scratch. My customers are proud of their bikes whether they are hand built, highly customized or just a stock Ultra. They appreciate their beauty and artistic value. Sometimes elaborate, sometimes the same as thousands of others but no less a work of art to them. IMO, the “numbskulls” are the ones who see their motorcycles purely as functional
Dave, hate use bad words with you, but BS. art by definition is non-functional. A pencil is useful, but not art. a Picasso is art, nice to look at, but has no practical use. Technical and artistic skills are two different abilities. those who can bring the two together, now that’s where it becomes magic. but to say functionality is the art form, well that’s as silly as saying that objective logic is the beauty of emotion. opposing definitions.
Look at an early steam locomotive. It it totally art, yet 100% functional. There isn’t one single rivet or part that doesn’t have a purpose….the artistry of it is natural, not man made. The complete lack of form IS the artistic medium.
Go to the early diesel electric locomotives…. The sleek nose and flowing lines are fictional and beautiful – let some dumbass artist screw with it and it goes all to hell.
If form is the art, then go hang an empty canvas on the wall and see how many people like it.
I am not prone to long posts, but this except from a good source seems relevant:
In 1908 the Austrian architect Adolf Loos famously proclaimed that architectural ornament was criminal, and his essay on that topic would become foundational to Modernism and eventually trigger the careers of Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, Alvar Aalto, Mies van der Rohe and Gerrit Rietveld. The Modernists adopted both of these equations—form follows function, ornament is a crime—as moral principles, and they celebrated industrial artifacts like steel water towers as brilliant and beautiful examples of plain, simple design integrity.
These two principles—form follows function, ornament is crime—are often invoked on the same occasions for the same reasons, but they do not mean the same thing. If ornament on a building may have social usefulness like aiding wayfinding, announcing the identity of the building, signaling scale, or attracting new customers inside, then ornament can be seen as functional, which puts those two articles of dogma at odds with each other.
Conversely the argument “ornament is crime” does not say anything about function. It is an aesthetic preference inspired by the Machine Age. While human performance may be enhanced by a sense of well-being endowed by aesthetic pleasure, machines have no such need of beauty to perform their work tirelessly. Ornament becomes an unnecessary relic, or worse, an impediment to optimal engineering design and equipment maintenance. Other stylistic “non-functional” features may rest untouched (e.g., the feeling of space, the composition of the volumes) as we can see in the subsequent abstracted and non-ornamented styles. Much of the confusion between these two concepts comes from the fact that ornament traditionally derives from a function becoming a stylistic character (e.g., the gargoyle from Gothic cathedrals).
Modernism in architecture began as a disciplined effort to allow the shape and organization of a building to be determined only by functional requirements, instead of by traditional aesthetic concepts. It assumes that the designer will determine empirically (or decide arbitrarily) what is or is not a functional requirement. The resulting architecture tended to be shockingly simpler, flatter, and lighter than its older neighbors, possibly due to the limited number of functional requirements upon which the designs were based; their functionality and refreshing nakedness looked as honest and inevitable as an airplane. Modernists believed, perhaps incorrectly, that airplane design did not involve any aesthetic decisions by the airplane designers. A recognizable Modern vocabulary began to develop.
interesting article, and yes, you could argue that if burn the Picasso, it’s now performed useful function as fuel, but not efficiently as a piece of wood.
I still see a difference in technical design for functionality vs. artistic design for cosmetics. Having done both types of design for fun and jobs, the intent is very different, just like logical thought and emotional thought.
I agree, old steam engines look cool, but the intent of the design was functionality. choppers, sports cars, trains, buildings, etc. can all be design with both eyes though, and appreciated by anyone able to identify with either perspective.
Intense points gentlemen. Personally, I think form and function can co-exist but there are tipping points. To keep this to the realm of motorcycles there is a point when you can design (form) a motorcycle to such an extent that it’s no longer a functional motorcycle, although recognizable as one by definition. It’s a matter of degrees, or extremes, depending your point of view.
A simple example would be an amazing looking motorcycle with an impossible riding position. If it cannot be ridden is it still a motorcycle, or an abstract representation of one?
Some of us “design” a motorcycle please ourselves. Others “design” a motorcycle please others. There has to be something about the basic style of the motorcycle to want to take it further, to personalize it.
I’m jumping into this a bit late but I agree with Dave when he says adding form to function is like adding spices. A recent example is the the new engine on the 2014 Indian. Internally Polaris has put in all of the function to make it, hopefully, and great new engine and to their credit has also made it a beautiful thing to look at.
No matter what you do to a motorcycle anyone passing by will stop and take in the beauty and function of every inch of that machine. Motorcycles even in stock form are pieces of art. Adding your personal touch just makes them more unique although putting on every piece of chrome and lighting available is just overkill. That’s when “more” becomes “less”.
I saw what I call a “catalog” cruiser stopped at a light yesterday – I think. It took me a moment to realize that it was a motorcycle of some kind. There was long leather fringe and conchos on everything, including the rider. That was a partial tip-off that there might be a motorcycle and rider there. I’ve never seen leather fringe on the edges of a fairing and floorboards before. I could be wrong. It could have been on the rider. The rider and machine blended together with the fringed luggage into one big moving mass of black leather fringes, conchos, and shapes.
It was more of a parade float than anything else. I’d be afraid to get that barge up to speed for fear of being fringe whipped silly.
All kidding aside, I can pick on sports motorcycles, too. Putting LED glow lights and an aftermarket muffler does not qualify as “custom”. Neither do decals.
The “art” of a motorcycle takes a bit more work. Every time I walk up to mine I can’t help think a fine pinstripe on the highlight edges, maybe a different color seat, cleaning up the tail-light/license plate area, would make it a bit better.
I visit a lot of shows, mostly small locally organised efforts. I enjoy the seemingly endless variations driven by personal taste and consider myself reasonably unbiased. I admire most efforts but occasionally find a truly awful bike but would prefer telling the owner they have a ugly baby then tell them their bike is a hideous mess.
It must be hard to create an “art” motorcycle these days. Air cooled engines are cleaner visually. With water cooled motorcycles it’s more about the body work.
Commodity 600cc J-types run considerably higher compression ratios than the 9-change of the 110″ so you’ve actually got an advantage in the fuel wars. My detuned GTR14 ran 10.7:1 and it was happy on 89.
I think Harley’s biggest risk is an over-saturated market coupled with a general disinterest in technical innovation which prevents existing customers from trading up. There must have been a run today on eastern LI because I was in Greenport this weekend and 19 out of 20 bikes were Harleys or some custom knock-off of same.
The art of the motorcycle will evolve as motorcycles themselves evolve. Whether it’s water cooled, air/oil, or air/oil/water cooled there’s room for new aesthetics. It might be bodywork for aerodynamics or new ideas.
It was a big leap of faith and a complete rethink for me to get a faired, water cooled, fuel injected, ABS/combined brakes, modern motorcycle. Now that I have one, I have no idea why I held onto my old preferences for so long.
same reason you don’t upgrade a significant other every year. As you get older, you realize that newer isn’t always better. just because something looks fancier doesn’t make it worth relearning everything all over again, and you’re comfortable with what you have because it’s familiar. newer models may have more features, but maintenance can be higher and you just don’t know if it’s really worth the “upgrade”. plus there’s a certain “class” you have with the previous model the newer one just doesn’t possess.
With the exception of “significant other”, I don’t necessarily agree. Since my age in years exceeds the speed limit in miles per hour in most places, I like the challenges of change.
I went “traditional” with my last motorcycle (Shadow RS) and it was a bad move. Even though it was fuel injected and water cooled, that engine dated back some thirty years – and it felt like it. The suspension wasn’t “retro”. It was the real deal – old tech suspension. The whole thing moved like a new, quarter century old motorcycle – but it looked great! It was two years of “eh”.
I took a chance on an all black 2013 CBR250R with ABS and linked brakes – completely uncharted territory for me (except for the fact that it’s a single cylinder). It certainly didn’t cost much to try and it looks fantastic in all black. Classy, even. It’s an incredible small motorcycle. It’s compact, I’m compact. It’s a good fit. When Honda puts in the engineering and styling effort, they can get it right.
The point is anything new is an unknown. It’s a starting point. In this case, it’s a well made, classy looking, high tech starting point.
Mass produced motorcycles are art unto themselves sometimes. Some just get it right and a model can become iconic. I think the older, limited production, brands have it a little easier since they have a heritage that makes the entire brand iconic. That’s also a limitation.
Time will tell. New riders that have never touched older motorcycles will lead the way and create new motorcycle art.
Yebbut with an average marriage durability of about eight years in the US, people do seem to be upgrading SOs about as often as they buy new motorcycles .
An FLHR is still on my short list of next bikes because it was my favorite ride during the 90s until it was nicked. The showstopper isn’t the engine but the absolutely crap suspension.
This is what I mean by modern technology. Harley baggers are undersprung and damping seems to be all over the map: too soft when you need it to be more firm and nonexistent when you hit a NYC pothole. I have a problem dropping twenty large on a new bike only to have to spend another $1500+ replacing the shocks and springs… especially when just about every moderately priced modern motorcycle comes with fully adjustable shocks, in some cases adjustable from the onboard computer. AFAIK, even the expensive Ohlins aftermarket kit for the Road King lacks a manually adjustable preload.
It seems suspension is more decorative than functional sometimes. I swear my Shadow RS had the same suspension as wheelbarrow. On the other hand my CBR250R is spot on (for my size/weight).
Remember when you could adjust preload and damping on (some) stock suspensions?
That’s also part of the “art of the motorcycle”. There’s a tipping point when a motorcycle is a sculpture, as in a piece of art not meant to move. Maybe a caricature of motorcycle. When a design all comes together, when there’s a harmony between form and function, then you have moving art.
Perhaps the motorcycle for you, KC, is an “instrument”. In that case all of the adjustments are critical.
The Buell X1 is one bike that can truly can be dialed in – spring preload, comp and rebound damping, and more; you might have a blast setting it up for your style…..
Perhaps I have an interesting perspective on what makes a motorcycle “art” not only to me, but for me.
I can appreciate someone else’s efforts to create a motorcycle. I may not want to own it, ride it, or even sit on it, but I can see their vision, their goal. That’s art “to me”.
A motorcycle that goes beyond appearance and the performance, that fits well and disappears when I’m on it, that becomes an extension of my body, when riding it becomes intuitive – that’s art “for me”. Some motorcycles I can make that way, others are damned close right out of the crate and all they need is a little refinement.
There’s more to it, of course. If a motorcycle doesn’t sound right, it’s wrong. Some have the sweetest exhaust pulse (I’m not talking about loudness), and engine sounds.
The pictured bike is about as generic as a chopper can get. Sculpture ? I don’t see that….
I think all motorcycles can be works of art. My business depends on that being the mentality of my customers. Some are prettier than others but while the picture in the article is relatively generic, they are all beautiful machines.
Bob: the Times article does have better images, but I wonder if they’re rideable?
That image looks like a Fury with tweaks. I’m not into cruisers, less so choppers, so it’s hard for me to be completely objective. I can respect that their owners enjoy them.
The work being done by Classified Moto is more to my liking as functional motorcycle art.
http://classifiedmoto.com/
cool stuff there, KC….epsecially the bobber kawasaki
Motorcycles were the centerpiece of what’s STILL the most popular exhibition ever featured at NYC’s Guggenheim Museum. I weaseled a press pass from MSNBC, got into the pre-opening press night at the Guggenheim and took these shots with my 640×480 digital:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28827240@N08/sets/72157606839458394/
Custom choppers are kinda played out for me, not the least because they tend to value cosmetics over function, like a debutante dressing for the prom. I love old bikes because their form more or less follows function, like the attempt to put a radial engine in the front wheel.
I can’t say anything has played out for me. Once they have passed being the trend, we will look back and say “remember how cool those things were?”. I, personally, will always appreciate them for what they are and will be. Now KC, my favorite in your genre is the MV Agusta F4. Absolute beauty and function. As soon as I can find the time to ride it, instead of just look at it like my poor Raider, I will buy one.
The MV Augusta F4 is sweet, but KTM 1190 RC8 is more my taste in supersports. It’s more modern art meets motorcycle. On a more practical level Moto Guzzi strikes the right balance of art and function for me. They’re timeless, particularly the Griso.
I remember the Guggenheim exhibit. It was brilliant!
I thought you’d like Classified Moto, Dave.
EBR 1190 ….. That’s the ticket. Just watch it give a major hassle to the GSX1000 in superbike.
Good luck, Erik Buell !
There’s some other “motorcycles-as-art” here: http://www.bikeexif.com/
I’m not sure I agree about “custom motorcycles as sculpture”. Art, yes. Under the right circumstances, I can go along with that. It’s similar to the debate over photography as art. (I’m a photographer and it never ends.)
All motorcycles are a work of art to their owners to some degree, even if they’re stock. There’s an emotional response and that’s typically one of the “rules” for what is and isn’t art. Few of us purchase a motorcycle if it doesn’t resonate with us in some manner. There’s a tipping point where it becomes a personal statement, unique art. It’s the things we do that “make it ours”.
without a doubt, the choppers I built were my art. The first one was more bolt together parts, but you soon learn how to make the fender cuts match the exhaust tips, the paint design flow with the rest of the bike, etc. and take a lot of pride in a well thought out and executed design, but something you can still hop on and ride practically.
I had a little bobber type sportster, but when they came into style, I built my flashy 300 rr tire stretched out chopper after those types were out of style. I don’t really like driving what’s “trendy.”
I’m sure OCC considers their bikes art, after all, not any more practical to drive any distance than a Picasso. 🙂
I do like a mild cafe look. The Thruxton and V7 look works for me on a classic level. I used to find old motorcycles and tweak them to have that look.
Now, it’s a bit more interesting. There’s a lot of plastic on new motorcycles – sometimes too much. I like the silhouette of my CBR – up to the tail section where it gets way too busy. That’s a winter project.
K – I agree factories can turn out some gorgeous machines, but it’s just hard for me to call something a work of art or sculpture if there’s thousands more like it out there. the mona lisa is art, but wouldn’t be if robots had made them by the bucketload in a factory. just my perspective, nothing more or less.
Calling these cookie cutter billet barges a “sculpture” is like calling a paint by numbers a form of “art”
Gents, its a matter of perspective. Some people don’t have the ability to create their own custom motorcycle.
@Rob Dana – you said “I think all motorcycles can be works of art. My business depends on that being the mentality of my customers.”
It sounds like you depend on customers that are numbskulls.
Business should be booming….
Dave, beauty and art have infinite forms. I think you might agree that carburetors are beautiful and they are definitely works of art. Most bike owners make their bike their own, in a manner of speaking, and in the way they are able. Only a handful of people have the ability, time and resources to make their own custom bike. So they buy their brand or style of choice and add or subtract pieces they like better. Custom bike builders do the same thing, just from scratch. My customers are proud of their bikes whether they are hand built, highly customized or just a stock Ultra. They appreciate their beauty and artistic value. Sometimes elaborate, sometimes the same as thousands of others but no less a work of art to them. IMO, the “numbskulls” are the ones who see their motorcycles purely as functional
Pure functionality IS the art form. So I guess I am one of the numbnuts.
I don’t consider changing the air cleaner cover and mirrors the work of an artist.
I see that as I mechanical wannabe that’s following the rest of the sheeple. Those are your people, not mine.
Go buy a new bike. Change the mirrors…. Presto, your an artist. Disgusting!
Dave, hate use bad words with you, but BS. art by definition is non-functional. A pencil is useful, but not art. a Picasso is art, nice to look at, but has no practical use. Technical and artistic skills are two different abilities. those who can bring the two together, now that’s where it becomes magic. but to say functionality is the art form, well that’s as silly as saying that objective logic is the beauty of emotion. opposing definitions.
Sorry but just cannot agree.
Look at an early steam locomotive. It it totally art, yet 100% functional. There isn’t one single rivet or part that doesn’t have a purpose….the artistry of it is natural, not man made. The complete lack of form IS the artistic medium.
Go to the early diesel electric locomotives…. The sleek nose and flowing lines are fictional and beautiful – let some dumbass artist screw with it and it goes all to hell.
If form is the art, then go hang an empty canvas on the wall and see how many people like it.
Fictional – meant functional. Artist mojo invaded my fone and made that change.
Also….if u believe ur Picasso example, then ur chopper is not art since it has a function
I am not prone to long posts, but this except from a good source seems relevant:
In 1908 the Austrian architect Adolf Loos famously proclaimed that architectural ornament was criminal, and his essay on that topic would become foundational to Modernism and eventually trigger the careers of Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, Alvar Aalto, Mies van der Rohe and Gerrit Rietveld. The Modernists adopted both of these equations—form follows function, ornament is a crime—as moral principles, and they celebrated industrial artifacts like steel water towers as brilliant and beautiful examples of plain, simple design integrity.
These two principles—form follows function, ornament is crime—are often invoked on the same occasions for the same reasons, but they do not mean the same thing. If ornament on a building may have social usefulness like aiding wayfinding, announcing the identity of the building, signaling scale, or attracting new customers inside, then ornament can be seen as functional, which puts those two articles of dogma at odds with each other.
Conversely the argument “ornament is crime” does not say anything about function. It is an aesthetic preference inspired by the Machine Age. While human performance may be enhanced by a sense of well-being endowed by aesthetic pleasure, machines have no such need of beauty to perform their work tirelessly. Ornament becomes an unnecessary relic, or worse, an impediment to optimal engineering design and equipment maintenance. Other stylistic “non-functional” features may rest untouched (e.g., the feeling of space, the composition of the volumes) as we can see in the subsequent abstracted and non-ornamented styles. Much of the confusion between these two concepts comes from the fact that ornament traditionally derives from a function becoming a stylistic character (e.g., the gargoyle from Gothic cathedrals).
Modernism in architecture began as a disciplined effort to allow the shape and organization of a building to be determined only by functional requirements, instead of by traditional aesthetic concepts. It assumes that the designer will determine empirically (or decide arbitrarily) what is or is not a functional requirement. The resulting architecture tended to be shockingly simpler, flatter, and lighter than its older neighbors, possibly due to the limited number of functional requirements upon which the designs were based; their functionality and refreshing nakedness looked as honest and inevitable as an airplane. Modernists believed, perhaps incorrectly, that airplane design did not involve any aesthetic decisions by the airplane designers. A recognizable Modern vocabulary began to develop.
You might add gargoyles to your bikes, eh?
godam editor took my spaces out! probably some numbskulls idea of adding form to the editor code.
I HATE FORM!
interesting article, and yes, you could argue that if burn the Picasso, it’s now performed useful function as fuel, but not efficiently as a piece of wood.
I still see a difference in technical design for functionality vs. artistic design for cosmetics. Having done both types of design for fun and jobs, the intent is very different, just like logical thought and emotional thought.
I agree, old steam engines look cool, but the intent of the design was functionality. choppers, sports cars, trains, buildings, etc. can all be design with both eyes though, and appreciated by anyone able to identify with either perspective.
Adding form to function is like adding spices to food – easy does it, experts only please
Intense points gentlemen. Personally, I think form and function can co-exist but there are tipping points. To keep this to the realm of motorcycles there is a point when you can design (form) a motorcycle to such an extent that it’s no longer a functional motorcycle, although recognizable as one by definition. It’s a matter of degrees, or extremes, depending your point of view.
A simple example would be an amazing looking motorcycle with an impossible riding position. If it cannot be ridden is it still a motorcycle, or an abstract representation of one?
Just look at some of Arlen Ness’s work from the 70’s and 80’s…..
“Art” is truly in the eye of the beholder – and that’s a fine thing
I agree with K.Cavaliere, Art is in the eye of the beholder. To each his / her own.
Some of us “design” a motorcycle please ourselves. Others “design” a motorcycle please others. There has to be something about the basic style of the motorcycle to want to take it further, to personalize it.
I’m jumping into this a bit late but I agree with Dave when he says adding form to function is like adding spices. A recent example is the the new engine on the 2014 Indian. Internally Polaris has put in all of the function to make it, hopefully, and great new engine and to their credit has also made it a beautiful thing to look at.
No matter what you do to a motorcycle anyone passing by will stop and take in the beauty and function of every inch of that machine. Motorcycles even in stock form are pieces of art. Adding your personal touch just makes them more unique although putting on every piece of chrome and lighting available is just overkill. That’s when “more” becomes “less”.
I saw what I call a “catalog” cruiser stopped at a light yesterday – I think. It took me a moment to realize that it was a motorcycle of some kind. There was long leather fringe and conchos on everything, including the rider. That was a partial tip-off that there might be a motorcycle and rider there. I’ve never seen leather fringe on the edges of a fairing and floorboards before. I could be wrong. It could have been on the rider. The rider and machine blended together with the fringed luggage into one big moving mass of black leather fringes, conchos, and shapes.
It was more of a parade float than anything else. I’d be afraid to get that barge up to speed for fear of being fringe whipped silly.
All kidding aside, I can pick on sports motorcycles, too. Putting LED glow lights and an aftermarket muffler does not qualify as “custom”. Neither do decals.
The “art” of a motorcycle takes a bit more work. Every time I walk up to mine I can’t help think a fine pinstripe on the highlight edges, maybe a different color seat, cleaning up the tail-light/license plate area, would make it a bit better.
I visit a lot of shows, mostly small locally organised efforts. I enjoy the seemingly endless variations driven by personal taste and consider myself reasonably unbiased. I admire most efforts but occasionally find a truly awful bike but would prefer telling the owner they have a ugly baby then tell them their bike is a hideous mess.
It must be hard to create an “art” motorcycle these days. Air cooled engines are cleaner visually. With water cooled motorcycles it’s more about the body work.
I think I agree….today tech has removed cooling fins, butterfly valves, and other function only art from the result.
Go back in time, people. It’s nice back here.
Hideous is sometimes the only word that will do.
Sooner or later it will all come together, Dave. In a few years people will look back on air cooled only motorcycles as quaint and retro.
Not too soon, KC.
I got a 120 inch air cooled that says otherwise.
My demise is going to be fuel
I have a feeling you’ve got a plan (other than warehousing fuel). I don’t think the emissions laws won’t affect the tracks for a while.
Pure racing motorcycles are an art form all to themselves.
Commodity 600cc J-types run considerably higher compression ratios than the 9-change of the 110″ so you’ve actually got an advantage in the fuel wars. My detuned GTR14 ran 10.7:1 and it was happy on 89.
I think Harley’s biggest risk is an over-saturated market coupled with a general disinterest in technical innovation which prevents existing customers from trading up. There must have been a run today on eastern LI because I was in Greenport this weekend and 19 out of 20 bikes were Harleys or some custom knock-off of same.
The art of the motorcycle will evolve as motorcycles themselves evolve. Whether it’s water cooled, air/oil, or air/oil/water cooled there’s room for new aesthetics. It might be bodywork for aerodynamics or new ideas.
It was a big leap of faith and a complete rethink for me to get a faired, water cooled, fuel injected, ABS/combined brakes, modern motorcycle. Now that I have one, I have no idea why I held onto my old preferences for so long.
same reason you don’t upgrade a significant other every year. As you get older, you realize that newer isn’t always better. just because something looks fancier doesn’t make it worth relearning everything all over again, and you’re comfortable with what you have because it’s familiar. newer models may have more features, but maintenance can be higher and you just don’t know if it’s really worth the “upgrade”. plus there’s a certain “class” you have with the previous model the newer one just doesn’t possess.
With the exception of “significant other”, I don’t necessarily agree. Since my age in years exceeds the speed limit in miles per hour in most places, I like the challenges of change.
I went “traditional” with my last motorcycle (Shadow RS) and it was a bad move. Even though it was fuel injected and water cooled, that engine dated back some thirty years – and it felt like it. The suspension wasn’t “retro”. It was the real deal – old tech suspension. The whole thing moved like a new, quarter century old motorcycle – but it looked great! It was two years of “eh”.
I took a chance on an all black 2013 CBR250R with ABS and linked brakes – completely uncharted territory for me (except for the fact that it’s a single cylinder). It certainly didn’t cost much to try and it looks fantastic in all black. Classy, even. It’s an incredible small motorcycle. It’s compact, I’m compact. It’s a good fit. When Honda puts in the engineering and styling effort, they can get it right.
The point is anything new is an unknown. It’s a starting point. In this case, it’s a well made, classy looking, high tech starting point.
Mass produced motorcycles are art unto themselves sometimes. Some just get it right and a model can become iconic. I think the older, limited production, brands have it a little easier since they have a heritage that makes the entire brand iconic. That’s also a limitation.
Time will tell. New riders that have never touched older motorcycles will lead the way and create new motorcycle art.
Yebbut with an average marriage durability of about eight years in the US, people do seem to be upgrading SOs about as often as they buy new motorcycles .
An FLHR is still on my short list of next bikes because it was my favorite ride during the 90s until it was nicked. The showstopper isn’t the engine but the absolutely crap suspension.
This is what I mean by modern technology. Harley baggers are undersprung and damping seems to be all over the map: too soft when you need it to be more firm and nonexistent when you hit a NYC pothole. I have a problem dropping twenty large on a new bike only to have to spend another $1500+ replacing the shocks and springs… especially when just about every moderately priced modern motorcycle comes with fully adjustable shocks, in some cases adjustable from the onboard computer. AFAIK, even the expensive Ohlins aftermarket kit for the Road King lacks a manually adjustable preload.
It seems suspension is more decorative than functional sometimes. I swear my Shadow RS had the same suspension as wheelbarrow. On the other hand my CBR250R is spot on (for my size/weight).
Remember when you could adjust preload and damping on (some) stock suspensions?
That’s also part of the “art of the motorcycle”. There’s a tipping point when a motorcycle is a sculpture, as in a piece of art not meant to move. Maybe a caricature of motorcycle. When a design all comes together, when there’s a harmony between form and function, then you have moving art.
Perhaps the motorcycle for you, KC, is an “instrument”. In that case all of the adjustments are critical.
The Buell X1 is one bike that can truly can be dialed in – spring preload, comp and rebound damping, and more; you might have a blast setting it up for your style…..
Perhaps I have an interesting perspective on what makes a motorcycle “art” not only to me, but for me.
I can appreciate someone else’s efforts to create a motorcycle. I may not want to own it, ride it, or even sit on it, but I can see their vision, their goal. That’s art “to me”.
A motorcycle that goes beyond appearance and the performance, that fits well and disappears when I’m on it, that becomes an extension of my body, when riding it becomes intuitive – that’s art “for me”. Some motorcycles I can make that way, others are damned close right out of the crate and all they need is a little refinement.
There’s more to it, of course. If a motorcycle doesn’t sound right, it’s wrong. Some have the sweetest exhaust pulse (I’m not talking about loudness), and engine sounds.