- cross-posted to:
- scifi@kbin.social
- cross-posted to:
- scifi@kbin.social
cross-posted from: https://kbin.social/m/scifi/t/814344
Most motorcycle models seen in the movies can be had at a local dealership. But one iconic movie motorcycle hasn’t been available because it wasn’t even real. Until now.
This.
I mean, it’s an art bike (see: 1 Moto Show, et al), so I get it. You’re not wrong about some bikes transcending their humble origins. 🤘🏼
I disagree that this is an art bike. This is a gimmicky replica knockoff of existing art banking on nostalgia for its value. The makers of it aren’t expressing their artistic vision. They’re making a cash grab from nerds who grew up and made enough money to buy shit they wanted when they were kids.
If someone made this as a passion project because they were the nerd that grew up and wanted to bring it to life for themselves…then I’d call it an art bike. Instead it’s a product.
You’re confusing “art” with “art you like”. All gallery art exists to “make a cash grab from nerds who grew up and made enough money to buy shit they want”, FFS. Really, just depends on your definition of nerd. Just because you don’t want to buy it doesn’t don’t its value as art for those who appreciate it. 🤓
No I am not confusing them.
Again art is created with creative expression.
A thing that is designed to be made in numbers for the purpose of selling to customers isn’t art.
If this is art then a Tesla cars, iPhones, and and Stanley cups are all art. Someone designed all those things…but they are products.
This thing doesn’t even have a design that was made by those selling it. It’s a copy of someone’s art, made into a product.
So, “a copy of someone’s art” is not art and simply being a product invalidates a thing’s ability to be art? Interesting take, and I think you’ll find that it’s not only resoundingly false but completely unsupported. You are, in fact, mistaking the definition of “art”. Try again?