Cycling Art: Important or Not

This is a work of art: a friend had one stolen from his bike shop a few years back, never saw it again. I reckon it would be almost impossible to resell, there are so few of them out there.
 

Attachments

  • Colnago-C35-Campagnolo-Super-Super-Record-Gold-888135803.jpg
    Colnago-C35-Campagnolo-Super-Super-Record-Gold-888135803.jpg
    242.4 KB · Views: 13
This Trek for Armstrong, by Damien Hirst finished with real butterflies sold at auction for $500,000 in 2009, rumoured to be worth $3 million now, officially the most expensive bike ever.
 

Attachments

  • most-expensive-bike-ever.jpg
    most-expensive-bike-ever.jpg
    52.7 KB · Views: 17
  • butterfly-bike.jpg
    butterfly-bike.jpg
    35.5 KB · Views: 17
  • damien-hirst-butterfly-bike.jpg
    damien-hirst-butterfly-bike.jpg
    47.3 KB · Views: 18
Yes I think art is important - and always was in the bicycle industry.

That Trek above is arguably the worst example of (disgusting) commercialised art. Plus a rider name associated with a right cnut who did nothing but damage the sport. Only a moron with no sensitivity on any level could appreciate such a thing, because like all art, it does symbolise something.

What @Nob shows is much more to my liking from an individualistic point of view and wanting to say something.

Overall and general I find art transcends in the simple track machines. but then again I like minimalist and abstract stuff.

1730583711542.png
 
Back
Top