I ran across this and thought some of you might appreciate his work.
http://www.browndogwelding.com/new/
I wish I were half as creative.
http://www.browndogwelding.com/new/
I wish I were half as creative.
-
Enjoy XS650.com? Consider making a donation to help support the site.
XS650.com receives a small share of sales from some links on this page, but direct donations have a much greater impact on keeping this site going.
Ironsled77
XS650 GRAND HACK
some serious stuff! serious prices too!. bet its very time consuming tho
mrpink
XS650 Enthusiast
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 6
for one off art from a talented artist his prices are pretty reasonable when you think about it.
sweet shit there... his hot rods are amazing.
p!nK
Teebs
King of the Ass-Hats
I like 'em. I could get into a serious discussion about whether this is really art or not, but it's creative crafting and they're pretty cool, no matter what.
kent_in_kc
Heartlander
It's art Teebs.
Dammit, man!
Dammit, man!
Yea its art to me.
Nice work and the prices are ok to me, would take some serious time to make some of those reproductions.
Q: What do you call a man with no arms and no legs hanging in a Gallery
A: Art
Q: What do you call 2 arms and 2 legs hanging in a Gallery
A: pieces of Art
Couldn't help myself
Nice work and the prices are ok to me, would take some serious time to make some of those reproductions.
Q: What do you call a man with no arms and no legs hanging in a Gallery
A: Art
Q: What do you call 2 arms and 2 legs hanging in a Gallery
A: pieces of Art
Couldn't help myself
Teebs
King of the Ass-Hats
lol It's craft, not art. Fabricating something that looks like something someone already made is not art. This is a really hot button issue in the fine art world. Is most popular art really art?
EXAMPLE:
Realistic exercise in graphite use and detail, but NOT real art.
But his work is still really cool... I'd probably pay $100 for one of those... except I could make one myself. It's not hard to copy other people's work... ultimately what he has done. And that is not a criticism of what he's doing... Jesus, I feel like I need to qualify everything I say now..
EXAMPLE:
Realistic exercise in graphite use and detail, but NOT real art.
But his work is still really cool... I'd probably pay $100 for one of those... except I could make one myself. It's not hard to copy other people's work... ultimately what he has done. And that is not a criticism of what he's doing... Jesus, I feel like I need to qualify everything I say now..
kent_in_kc
Heartlander
That's bad to the bone, uh...skull!
Yea he is a craftsman but if art is expression then his choppers are an expression and, (i do assume here), are original builds. It has been said that choppers are the art form of bikes and it has been acknowledged that copy's can be considered art, is fine art any more art than the fine art of a copy.
Teebs
King of the Ass-Hats
Now you're talking like an art dealer... 
In fine art you combine highly developed skill, real talent, and a lot of imagination to create something unique that stirs some cerebral or emotional response in the viewer. Since these pieces are just the breaking down of preexisting objects into their simplest shapes, I would definitely qualify them as craft, though a few of them are craft bordering on art.
An example just from one shop:
Craft:
Art:
The first pic is a good example of craft. Those scoots show a high level of building skill and talent. They're also just copies of what others have done, with frames made on the same jig. Clean, well-made, solid, production rides and not very creative.
The scoot in the second pic combines skill and talent with that third important element; imagination. It is totally unique bike design while maintaining functionality. It does what a motorcycle is supposed to do, and whether you like it or not, it stimulates a cerebral or emotional response. That's art.
In fine art you combine highly developed skill, real talent, and a lot of imagination to create something unique that stirs some cerebral or emotional response in the viewer. Since these pieces are just the breaking down of preexisting objects into their simplest shapes, I would definitely qualify them as craft, though a few of them are craft bordering on art.
An example just from one shop:
Craft:
Art:
The first pic is a good example of craft. Those scoots show a high level of building skill and talent. They're also just copies of what others have done, with frames made on the same jig. Clean, well-made, solid, production rides and not very creative.
The scoot in the second pic combines skill and talent with that third important element; imagination. It is totally unique bike design while maintaining functionality. It does what a motorcycle is supposed to do, and whether you like it or not, it stimulates a cerebral or emotional response. That's art.
It's definitely art in my book and I think his art is awesome. I'm going to contact him to have one made of an early XS-1. Then if that works out, maybe an XS650 chopper and cafe. 
kent_in_kc
Heartlander
Teebs, next we know you'll be doing a Grey Poupon commercial. Better start working on that British accent.
"...and this is Shinola. Grey Poupon - Take it from Teebs! It's better, old boy. Cheerio!"
"...and this is Shinola. Grey Poupon - Take it from Teebs! It's better, old boy. Cheerio!"
Teebs
King of the Ass-Hats
I do say my good man, you're a bit late aren't you? lol My pops is from Whitby. I've had the accent down since I was about five. (Grams died at 86 her North Yorkshire upper-crust accent firmly intact.)
Somehow though, the tattoos and long chin whiskers lend more to "GARRRRR!!!!" than "pip-pip!" or "cheerio!" lol I'm thinking I'm probably not going to be sitting in that Rolls anytime soon...
Other than that all I can really say is that arguing with me (BA in studio art, MFA, professional sculptor) about what really constitutes art is akin to me arguing with a brain surgeon about how best to remove a brain tumor; I could do it, but I'd almost definitely be wrong.
Somehow though, the tattoos and long chin whiskers lend more to "GARRRRR!!!!" than "pip-pip!" or "cheerio!" lol I'm thinking I'm probably not going to be sitting in that Rolls anytime soon...
Other than that all I can really say is that arguing with me (BA in studio art, MFA, professional sculptor) about what really constitutes art is akin to me arguing with a brain surgeon about how best to remove a brain tumor; I could do it, but I'd almost definitely be wrong.
kent_in_kc
Heartlander
Teebs, you're a hoot. Now shut up. : )
Yeah, I've got a little copal oil in my (me?) background too. Never sculpted much, always envied that.
British blood, eh? I'm Chakobsa.
Yeah, I've got a little copal oil in my (me?) background too. Never sculpted much, always envied that.
British blood, eh? I'm Chakobsa.
Teebs
King of the Ass-Hats
Tragic. You don't even know your own people's history. You're a Fremen, you speak Chakobsa...
Art is just defined by convention in any particular culture, the same as anything else is deemed appropriate or desirable or not or has a particular value ascribed to it in that culture. Artists expend a lot of energy denying that.
They want their art and their (often egotistical) lives to have more universal significance so they tend to act as if it was a science - thinking this thing is objectively more valuable than that, and so on. But not being scientists they don't see how nonsensical it is.
To see the artist's personality captured really well, read Last of the Mohicans, and pay close attention to the character David Gamut.
So if something gives you pleasure call it art if you choose. It's impossible to make a logical objective argument that it isn't. But you may encounter plenty of self-aggrandizing and self-righteous arguments that it isn't. But that's not a bad thing since it seems to be an essential part of their world, in which they can create some interesting things.
They want their art and their (often egotistical) lives to have more universal significance so they tend to act as if it was a science - thinking this thing is objectively more valuable than that, and so on. But not being scientists they don't see how nonsensical it is.
To see the artist's personality captured really well, read Last of the Mohicans, and pay close attention to the character David Gamut.
So if something gives you pleasure call it art if you choose. It's impossible to make a logical objective argument that it isn't. But you may encounter plenty of self-aggrandizing and self-righteous arguments that it isn't. But that's not a bad thing since it seems to be an essential part of their world, in which they can create some interesting things.
Last edited:
Teebs
King of the Ass-Hats
So, with your vast knowledge of the art world and your degrees in fine art and art history you are able to determine how much of a science it is? If you had even the slightest understanding what is involved in the study of art, you would know that your broad-sweeping statements are beyond ridiculous.
Art is defined by conventions within the art community, which is more global than any other community I know. We cross borders and boundaries and share knowledge, ideas, friendship and spirituality with one another as a matter of coarse, on a level I don't think you could possibly fathom. While people fight wars and choose sides, and use your vaunted science to kill one another and rape and destroy the natural world, artists are the light in the darkness. Without us, humanity would already be dead. What would your rational world be without paintings and music and dance and theater? An ugly, dirty, joyless place at best.
Arrogant? YES. We have every right. Because while we create beauty and encourage honest discourse, you dismiss us as self-aggrandizing and self-righteous braggarts believing we are better than we are. While we give to you, you take without even a thank you most of the time, believing our contributions to be secondary to other "important" matters, like the development of viagra, or the next biological weapon. Uneducated, uninformed, pretending knowledge you don't possess, your conclusions are shallow and devoid of any merit. So yes, arrogant for sure.
Discounting all of the actual chemistry involved in creating the various media used to create art, understanding not only how a certain pigment might react with another based on it's chemical composition, but how it will react to light, humidity and temperature, no there is absolutely no science there. A year dedicated to the study of human anatomy and physiology, learning alongside future doctors, nurses and biologists. Years are given to studying thousands of compositions, learning techniques handed down from master to master over hundreds of years. Our science was a well established fact before yours ever began.
Funny that you should use a work of fiction as a basis for your "logical and rational" argument. David Gamut was in fact a psalmodist; a religious man. Hardly suitable as an example. However, since you used him I'll point out how completely erroneous and misinformed your argument is since music (his chosen art form) is a highly developed form of math. It has structure and form, and is the farthest thing from nonsensical. Just because you don't understand a thing, you have to denigrate it, denying your own failure to comprehend, your own lack of imagination and talent.
The layman likes to throw up arguments like yours because everyone wants to believe that the kitsch crap they buy and stack on their shelves has some artistic merit. It stings that your unsophisticated, untrained eye has you believing that anything someone says is art and throws a big dollar tag on must be worthwhile. You grab it up like a magpie with a piece of colored glass and then squawk when someone points out that your shiny has no real or aesthetic value. Silly bird.
Art is defined by conventions within the art community, which is more global than any other community I know. We cross borders and boundaries and share knowledge, ideas, friendship and spirituality with one another as a matter of coarse, on a level I don't think you could possibly fathom. While people fight wars and choose sides, and use your vaunted science to kill one another and rape and destroy the natural world, artists are the light in the darkness. Without us, humanity would already be dead. What would your rational world be without paintings and music and dance and theater? An ugly, dirty, joyless place at best.
Arrogant? YES. We have every right. Because while we create beauty and encourage honest discourse, you dismiss us as self-aggrandizing and self-righteous braggarts believing we are better than we are. While we give to you, you take without even a thank you most of the time, believing our contributions to be secondary to other "important" matters, like the development of viagra, or the next biological weapon. Uneducated, uninformed, pretending knowledge you don't possess, your conclusions are shallow and devoid of any merit. So yes, arrogant for sure.
Discounting all of the actual chemistry involved in creating the various media used to create art, understanding not only how a certain pigment might react with another based on it's chemical composition, but how it will react to light, humidity and temperature, no there is absolutely no science there. A year dedicated to the study of human anatomy and physiology, learning alongside future doctors, nurses and biologists. Years are given to studying thousands of compositions, learning techniques handed down from master to master over hundreds of years. Our science was a well established fact before yours ever began.
Funny that you should use a work of fiction as a basis for your "logical and rational" argument. David Gamut was in fact a psalmodist; a religious man. Hardly suitable as an example. However, since you used him I'll point out how completely erroneous and misinformed your argument is since music (his chosen art form) is a highly developed form of math. It has structure and form, and is the farthest thing from nonsensical. Just because you don't understand a thing, you have to denigrate it, denying your own failure to comprehend, your own lack of imagination and talent.
The layman likes to throw up arguments like yours because everyone wants to believe that the kitsch crap they buy and stack on their shelves has some artistic merit. It stings that your unsophisticated, untrained eye has you believing that anything someone says is art and throws a big dollar tag on must be worthwhile. You grab it up like a magpie with a piece of colored glass and then squawk when someone points out that your shiny has no real or aesthetic value. Silly bird.
Teebs
King of the Ass-Hats
True dat yo!
kent_in_kc
Heartlander
Art is both a personal expression and a personal appreciation. So, too, is the lack of art.
Thus, art is not defined by anyone other than the artist and his audience. One person may perceive a work as art while his neighbor calls it trash.
Let no one tell the artist or the appraiser what is art. A work can be both art and trash.
How? Art is beauty. Either aesthetic or emotional or cerebral. And beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder, empirical declarations notwithstanding.
: )
Thus, art is not defined by anyone other than the artist and his audience. One person may perceive a work as art while his neighbor calls it trash.
Let no one tell the artist or the appraiser what is art. A work can be both art and trash.
How? Art is beauty. Either aesthetic or emotional or cerebral. And beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder, empirical declarations notwithstanding.
: )
