Technique Ownership - A Question of Ethics

[Phil Hoppes]

I've taken a number of classes now from lots of outstanding instructors. I always felt, I was taking the class because I wanted to learn the techniques. It would be absurd to think you would take a class and then not use the technique. Now, would I want to copy the instructors work? No way. For starters, there is no way I could, second, I just would not want to. It would not be my work. I want to take the techniques I learn, put my own twist on it, put my screwy psycological perspective on things on to it and make it my work. Hopefully there will be people out there that like my version of vision and want to buy it.

I guess a second thing I'd like to maybe poke at is to put out there that NOTHING is really new. I may be stepping on some toes here and there but look at history. Jeppers Creepers.....pattern bars are what? 2000 years old (I think that what Brock said in his famous slide shows!!). Come on, how many of you out there had an idea for a design. A really dynamite idea. You thought, "This is really an original thought. No one has done this before....." Then you look at the new posts in the WG Gallery and bingo.......it's your idea....why my goodness....someone has read your mind!!!!. It has happened to us all. Point is what makes all of our work unique, beautiful, inspirational and every other positive word I can think of, is the unique quality we bring to the glass as OUR expression, our work, our personality. The person who just copies someone elses work (or teaching someone elses class verbatim) is the real looser. They miss the entire point of art and self expression.

As an aside....it is an interesting note that there are very similar discussions in the technical world on many the same type of topics. One in particular of late has been around the world of computer security and cyphers. There is a camp that believe's the world is safer by keeping security methods closed and "secret". The short name for this is "security by obscurity". There is the other camp that believes that the only real way to keep things secure is by open discussion of methods and ideas which fosters rapid testing, growth and robustness. History has shown time and time again that security by obscurity does not work. Much like the glassblowers of Murano. You can't put the Genie back into the bottle once it is out. Better to put that light into the middle of the room so that it can be shared by all and work to make it grow in intensity, not die in a closet.

Course that's just my opinion.....I could be wrong.

Phil

[Nickie Jordan]

I've taken one class, over a year ago - the only available class in this area that I know of - and I still know nothing about technique. Obviously, it's all in what you decide to impart as an instructor.
The class involved 4 small pieces; all of the instructor's own design - a candle votive, a heart-shaped candy dish, a pin, and a small platter. We students were only to select colors. The class cost $150 for one day - we never discussed firing schedules, kiln techniques, etc... but spent lots of time cutting, grinding, etc... Similar to a stained glass class. Two of my pieces cracked in the kiln...
Some folks are artistically challenged, so, if any of my artistically -challenged fellow 'classmates' decided to get a kiln and hit the warm glass market, chances are, they'd copy some of the instuctor's simple designs. That instructor would scream like a hyena, but, it's not like the pieces are very 'artfull'. Of course, it will still be awhile before I'll see them at any arts fairs - since none of us learned any actual technique.
The only good thing that came out of the class, in my opinion, was that the instructor recommended Brad's book (which only a couple of us bought, at a hugely inflated price).
So, here I am, still salivating for information, plugging away by myself, doing the 'hit and miss', reading this board, and, thankful for any bones you throw my way If I come up with some big 'break through' , it's possibly already been done - so, please forgive me if something looks similar to your work in the future (if I ever succeed in a piece to actually post a photo of). I consider myself a consciencious artist, and have a need to be unique - as we all should.
You are all my instuctors here, until I get the finances and the right scheduling to actually come to one of your classes. Bert, Ron, Tony, Paul, Cynthia, Barbra, Amy, etc... - I'm on you like white on rice ! Thank you, thank you for all of your tidbits. Your reputation precedes you - THAT is what your confidence is based on, before you ever teach a class - right ? - Nickie

[Brian and Jenny Blanthorn]

I would like to initiate a discussion about Technique Ownership. I don't want it to be a controversial topic, but one that is thought provoking and will establish some commonly-agreed-to guidelines for the rest of us to use in the future. After the discussion dies down, I will try to summarize the thoughts and opinions for everyone to comment on.

What prompted this discussion was that recently, someone asked me what I thought about another individual distributing detailed information about a technique that that person learned in a class they had taken. I was surprised that a person would do that as I felt it was unethical. Or is attributing the information to the original source adequate before distributing it to the world?

I think what we are witnessing within our community is the evolution of an artform accelerated by the advances in technology and communication due to this website and the internet. We are also seeing more classes offered in kilnforming than ever before. I'm sure the glass and kiln manufacturers are seeing increased sales as well. With this evolution comes the dilution of unique techniques. People are taking a technique here and a technique there, and combining them to acheive some other effect that was not possible with either of the original techniques alone. I believe that the person who combined the techniques can now call that technique their own and teach it or not teach it.

But what about the person who goes to Las Vegas and takes a class, then goes back to their studio and teaches that same class, verbatim, using the same information and the same class projects... There are some retailers who feel that this is a legitimate use of the classes in Las Vegas and at other conferences, and is a way to keep their classes fresh.

What about the perspective of the teachers? I'm sure that if someone were to teach a class only to see a student copying their work and competing with them on the teaching circuit there would be hard feelings... or not, I'm not sure. Certainly, there are a lot of glass artists making pattern bars. Many of them took classes and learned the technique from someone else. But by teaching the technique does the teacher have any justification for feeling slighted by her students who are now using that technique? Or is there an unspoken expectation that the students will use the techniques but not teach them?

Your thoughts on this complex topic will be appreciated.

Tony

Much technology in not new

A few tweeks here n there

Much is rediscovered

Mix n Match tm n U got something new

I have learned more form the boards than I ever did B4

I am slowly beggining 2 get the hang of it

But with Board Therapy I hope 2 improve

[Barbara Muth]

I have taken classes. First and foremost with Judith and Kevin at Vitrum, with Brock and Avery, with Bob Leatherbarrow, with Roger Thomas. With the exception of my first classes with Judith, in every class I have taken I learned some things that were new to me and did some things that I had already done at home in my then puny little kiln. Yes I learned techniques. And frankly, just about anyone can teach techniques, at least on the surface. What distinguishes a good class from a mediocre one is the depth of the knowledge and experience of the instructors, not just in the techniques, but in fusing in general. What I have taken from the classes that is more valuable than anything else I have done is the knowledge about the science behind fusing, the exposure to other people's work in class and in the world at large, and discussions about design. (Those can't be taught by just anyone.) It has enabled me to develop, in the dark corners of my cavelike studio (makes me think of a medieval alchemist's lab) techniques that work for me. I work almost every night.

In one of the first classes I took, I listened, mouth agape to a student telling her instructor that she planned to take the class home and teach it in her community within the next few months. The instructor's response was more than gracious. I would have tolde her to learn her craft before teaching it. There is something to be said for that. Given that I have been fusing for a little over two years now, I think I will be ready to teach in about another five years or so. In the meantime I will keep encouraging people to take classes from the masters, because glass is so much more than technique.

Barbara
retreating back to my cave now.....

[Paul Tarlow]

I think that teaching somebody a technique and then requiring that they don't repeat what you have told them is absurd.

They can repeat it all they want in their own work.

When someone buys a book they can't copy the book and re-sell it. They can write their own book and sell it -- but there has to be a meaningful difference between their own book and the book they bought.

Why is a class different? They are both doing the same thing -- only one is written communication and one is spoken. Both represent an investment by the author/teach to create a unique body of intellectual property.

- Paul

[Bert Weiss]

I have taken classes. First and foremost with Judith and Kevin at Vitrum, with Brock and Avery, with Bob Leatherbarrow, with Roger Thomas. With the exception of my first classes with Judith, in every class I have taken I learned some things that were new to me and did some things that I had already done at home in my then puny little kiln. Yes I learned techniques. And frankly, just about anyone can teach techniques, at least on the surface. What distinguishes a good class from a mediocre one is the depth of the knowledge and experience of the instructors, not just in the techniques, but in fusing in general. What I have taken from the classes that is more valuable than anything else I have done is the knowledge about the science behind fusing, the exposure to other people's work in class and in the world at large, and discussions about design. (Those can't be taught by just anyone.) It has enabled me to develop, in the dark corners of my cavelike studio (makes me think of a medieval alchemist's lab) techniques that work for me. I work almost every night.

In one of the first classes I took, I listened, mouth agape to a student telling her instructor that she planned to take the class home and teach it in her community within the next few months. The instructor's response was more than gracious. I would have tolde her to learn her craft before teaching it. There is something to be said for that. Given that I have been fusing for a little over two years now, I think I will be ready to teach in about another five years or so. In the meantime I will keep encouraging people to take classes from the masters, because glass is so much more than technique.

Barbara
retreating back to my cave now.....

I find Barbara's point much more relevant than Paul's. I have written before about the frustration I have when trying to ask art school graduates questions about the behaviour of glass and they are clueless. I am offended at the notion of clueless teachers. Those people were capable of teaching the steps of glass blowing, they just didn't really understand why.

When I taught kiln casting as a newbie, I was actually teaching the creative process in relation to basic glass working technology. This was a great course for both teacher and students. Learning about how to go about developing your own technique is much more valuable than learning steps one two and three.

I stand by the notion that if you don't want something you say repeated, don't say it. If you are contemplating taking a class, choose a teacher who's knowledge is worth repeating.

[Ron Coleman]

I think that teaching somebody a technique and then requiring that they don't repeat what you have told them is absurd.

They can repeat it all they want in their own work.

When someone buys a book they can't copy the book and re-sell it. They can write their own book and sell it -- but there has to be a meaningful difference between their own book and the book they bought.

Why is a class different? They are both doing the same thing -- only one is written communication and one is spoken. Both represent an investment by the author/teach to create a unique body of intellectual property.

- Paul

If the information contained in a book or presented in a class is considered intellectual property no one would be able to learn anything. What would be the purpose of my buying a book on a glass working technique if I can't use the information for my own personal gain.

You buy a book or take a class for the information content and you learn and you profit from it. If the author or teacher presents what they may consider sensitive information that's too bad, I bought the book and I paid for the class, the information is mine and I'm going to profit from it.

Ron

[Paul Tarlow]

I wouldn't even know where or how to begin teaching "creative process". I cannot image what a class in creative process would look like.

Maybe more important -- for me at least -- is that I take great pleasure in the glacial speed that my own creative process is evolving.

Barbara and Bert both raise the valid issue of experience as it relates to teaching. This is something I'm sensitive to because I teach and I've been doing this for less time than many -- maybe even most -- of the people on this forum. It isn't lost on me that that irks some people.

I considered many of the things people are discussing when making the choice for myself. I do have many years experience teaching difficult and technical topics. I have lots of written, formal feedback that says I'm pretty good at it.

I also considered that while my experience with warm glass has been over a relatively short time, it has been intense with several thousand hours dedicated to studying what is written (on this board and many books) and in the studio. That's less than many people -- but not inconsequential.

The final test for me was teaching and seeing what the response was. I've taught two classes so far. Both of them focused on techniques. Neither of them cheap. The first class included 6 people, some of which have previously gotten on an airplane to take glass classes elsewhere in the country by known instructors. Of the six people, five signed up and took my second class. For me, that validates me as a glass teacher.

What's the point?

First, that experience is important but there are lots of relevant types of experience that determine one's ability to impart knowledge.

Second, the teacher's answer to the question of "how long have you been doing it" is a poor predictor of the quality of the class.

Third, there's great value in a class that effectively teaches you how to do things you could not do before (i.e technique).

So, I put myself out there...have at me

- Paul

[Paul Tarlow]

If the information contained in a book or presented in a class is considered intellectual property no one would be able to learn anything.

Learning from a book -- and using the knowledge -- is different from copying the book.

If the book is "an original work of authorship" then the author has the exclusive right to reproduce and create derivative works. That is, in the basic sense, what copywrite law says.

- Paul

[linn keller]

tony,

an exhibit opened today at the Met: Manet/Valazquez: French Taste for Spanish Painting. it shows what happened when Manet went to Spain and, for the first time, was exposed to the works of Valazquez. different techniques, different styles suddently met and when Manet went back to france, he, fellow french artists and the world of art would forever be different. To permit comparison and perhaps demonstrate the levels of influence, the spanish works are hung next to the french. works of two masters hanging together, one clearly influenced by the other, yet unique, each a masterpiece.

i think that's what a good class is all about, imparting a how-to (knowledge of technique, approach, etc.), then i can go home and incorporate that information into what i do. i have no desire to be someone else - or make someone else's art - but i do use techniques that i've learned from others. and when i see someone else's work, i do try and figure out "how" they accomplish things - not to copy, just to know more about this glorious/curious medium.

are techniques "reinventing the wheel" or totally new modes of transportation? either/both. to share or not? it's always a choice. from my perspective, exposure expands the vision and may take us all into new realms.

linn

[Ron Coleman]

If the information contained in a book or presented in a class is considered intellectual property no one would be able to learn anything.

Learning from a book -- and using the knowledge -- is different from copying the book.

If the book is "an original work of authorship" then the author has the exclusive right to reproduce and create derivative works. That is, in the basic sense, what copywrite law says.

- Paul

I agree with you Paul about copying the book and even class notes, that is a violation of the copyright. But using what I learn for the book or class isn't.

If you don't want me to use your technique don't tell me.

Ron

[Bert Weiss]

I

So, I put myself out there...have at me

- Paul

This time I'm in agreement with you. You probably know more and teach more about the creative process than you are aware.

For me, a big point of this board or of teaching a class is to inspire people to spend thousands of hours figuring out what to do and how. It is my estimation that after 7 years, you should have a clue.

[ellen abbott]

Early in my career as a glass artist, in the late 70's, my partner and I and another glass artist started an 'association' of local budding glass artists. During one meeting we were lucky enough to have Ludwig Schermer, a well known dalle de verre artist living in Houston, come and give us a talk on glass and glass arts. I don't remember much about the entire lecture. However I do remember one thing that had an incredible impact on me and set me on the road to becoming the type of artist that I am. What he said, basically, was that we should be open and sharing with our techniques, that technique did not make you an artist. That people did not buy your work because of a technique you used. They bought your work because of your design skills. That if you focused on technique over design, you wouldn't get very far. This was a watershed moment for me, one of those times when your whole mind and body are filled with clarity and understanding. (The other time this happened to me was in high school chemistry class. After having been in a total lost fog for the past several weeks, something the teacher said brought it all together and instantly I understood what she had been talking about.)

From that point on, I shared openly anything I knew or had worked out 'on my own' even as I struggled to become an artist (I think I'm finally getting there). I don't mind sharing. What I mind is that person who comes over to my studio, gets every question they ask answered, but won't reciprocate. More than once I have been to a person's studio after they visit mine only to be met with evasion and closed doors. I soothe myself by reminding me that they will ultimately probably not be very successful.

As to 'proprietary' techniques...I don't think there is any such animal. Just because you noodle something out on your own does not mean that someone somewhere in the nearly 5,000 years of glass forming hasn't already done it. We tend to think that because we have all this technology that we are coming up with new things. But we still marvel at the accomplishments of the past...in art, architecture...even with our technology, or maybe because of it.

ellen

[quill]

The class involved 4 small pieces; all of the instructor's own design - a candle votive, a heart-shaped candy dish, a pin, and a small platter. We students were only to select colors. The class cost $150 for one day - we never discussed firing schedules, kiln techniques, etc... but spent lots of time cutting, grinding, etc... Similar to a stained glass class. Two of my pieces cracked in the kiln...

OH man....I would have been so disappointed.

[Lani McGregor]

"Just because you noodle something out on your own does not mean that someone somewhere in the nearly 5,000 years of glass forming hasn't already done it."

ellen[/quote]

Ellen, exactly!

Go to the glass museums on Murano or in Duesseldorf and look at what was done in kilnformed glass (even if much of it wasn’t compatible) decades and centuries ago… gape and be humbled.

Spending time worrying about owning a technique keeps us from moving forward. In most cases we’ve already been passed up by the past.

L

[The Hobbyist]

Why a person teaches will determine their attitude on this subject.

If the primary motivation for teaching is to promote and advance the subject/art then the teacher will be delighted that the students pass on what they have learned and improve upon what was taught. For this teacher, seeing the student surpass them is very rewarding. For this teacher, seeing their technique being used by more and more practitioners will be validating.

If the motivation is to "cash in" on the teacher's skill and reputation then all the materials should be copywrited and protected with diligence. For this teacher it is unimportant whether the students even understand what is demonstrated. Success is having the participants have fun and then encourage others to take the class too.

For the former, the teacher is often caught teaching without remuneration but simply for the sheer joy of it. IMO this is why public education has gotten away with such poor payscales for decades.

For the latter, a casual question on technique is viewed as an opportunity to recruit a prospect and is usually answered with, "Why don't you take my class and we'll show you that and more".

Copying another's work is good means of learning and a high form of praise. Copying another's work for the purpose of selling it is plagarism/theft and should be prosecuted as such.

We make the assumption that students take a class to learn the skills being taught with the goal of using them in their work. There are some who would take the class and acquire the materials for the main purpose of reteaching the class with or without attribution. This is just another form of intellectual theft.

It is not unreasonable for an accomplished artist to refuse to teach their technique(s). When one has invested time and materials in a development necessary for their livelyhood then it is theirs and need only be shared if/when the inventor feels so inclined. Here again, appropriation of the technique for profit is theft and should be treated as such.

Retired teacher................................Jim

[Jo Holt]

I agree with Lani - it's all been done sometime before.

We are in a cyber frontier right now and info is unbelievably accessible. I learn every day from someone on this wonderful board; and as I can, I try to repay the favors. It is everyones' choice whether to share their ways or not; the cyber space just allows it all to be focused in one place.

I do however agree with Geri. Just because she has her work in a booth for sale does not mean she is obligated to reveal her techniques.

Two questions come to mind with this thread:
1. How do you choose a teacher?
2. Why do you teach?

If I like what they do; if I respect their knowledge; then I want to learn from them. We both share responsibility. It's my responsibility to be selective as much as it is their responsibility to be appropriate. Just because someone says they can teach me doesn't mean I have to blithely accept their word for it.

Do you teach only for monetary purposes? Do you teach because you want the fusing community to benefit and upgrade itself? Do you teach because you love the joy of glass?

The teacher I look for is one who is constantly bringing fresh thoughts and questions into each class. So, if someone copies their notes from a class they attended, they're really not teaching the same things anyway. You can copy notes but not the person and their knowledge or experiences.

Jo

[Cynthia]

...We were lucky enough to have...a well known dalle de verre artist...come and give us a talk on glass and glass arts. I don't remember much about the entire lecture. However I do remember one thing that had an incredible impact on me and set me on the road to becoming the type of artist that I am. What he said, basically, was that we should be open and sharing with our techniques, that technique did not make you an artist...If you focused on technique over design, you wouldn't get very far...

Hallelujia, Amen and Yes! Yes! Yes!

From that point on, I shared openly anything I knew or had worked out 'on my own' even as I struggled to become an artist (I think I'm finally getting there). I don't mind sharing. What I mind is that person who comes over to my studio, gets every question they ask answered, but won't reciprocate. More than once I have been to a person's studio after they visit mine only to be met with evasion and closed doors. I soothe myself by reminding me that they will ultimately probably not be very successful.

I'm pretty sure these people live here too. There's one studio artist here who won't even let you into the studio, Yet will pick you clean for information about how you do what you do. It's silly, but perhaps it's human nature. That fear is self defeating. How do you expand if you don't learn, experiment and share?

I also get a little leary when I hear someone call a technique theirs. Perhaps they figured out how to get a particular effect from their own research and experiments, but it's not their technique when you see the same thing being done across the board out there by people who have never shared technique info...which just supports your next statement.

As to 'proprietary' techniques...I don't think there is any such animal. Just because you noodle something out on your own does not mean that someone somewhere in the nearly 5,000 years of glass forming hasn't already done it. We tend to think that because we have all this technology that we are coming up with new things. But we still marvel at the accomplishments of the past...in art, architecture...even with our technology, or maybe because of it.

ellen

Thanks Ellen, you said it much better than I did. And you've helped firm up my thoughts and philosophy about this topic. Thanks for sharing your point of view.

[Paul Tarlow]

Ellen, exactly!

Go to the glass museums on Murano or in Duesseldorf and look at what was done in kilnformed glass (even if much of it wasn’t compatible) decades and centuries ago… gape and be humbled.

Spending time worrying about owning a technique keeps us from moving forward. In most cases we’ve already been passed up by the past.

L

I don't disagree. But there is something to be said for someone who invests a lot of time (and glass) trying to do something nobody seems to be doing -- breaking through the collective perception of limits.

Then there is a legitmate choice of whether or not to share. I don't fault someone for saying "I invested a lot to figure this out -- I choose not to share/sell/teach it." Sometimes a specific technique contributes to an individual style and uniqueness. And uniqueness is one very real factor in establishing value.

Regardless of if they share -- just putting the work out there inspires everyone to keep pushing.

And, yes, there there is work hundreds of years old that is light years beyond anything I could ever create in a dozen lifetimes. Still, I'd hate to believe it has all been done. I take huge pleasure from my noodling and developing processes that contribute to what I hope is a unique body of work.

- Paul

[dave laporta]

I agree with the comments made by Watershed in that there are lessons to be learned by the off hand community. And that Lino Tagliapietra has generously shared his experience, understanding, and knowledge of traditional Venetian glassblowing techniques with glass artists and audiences around the world. In the late eighties and early nineties this new knowledge changed how american glassblowers applied techniques, many of which have been secretly held on the island of Murano. His generosity is responsible for a new explosion in glassblowing. And many of his student have tried to copy his work but none have had the success with that work. Lino has affected the course of glass history by helping to raise the international standards of glass craftsmanship.

In this relm of kilnforming I believe we are witnessing a similar evolution. Those teachers who are kind enough to share their experiences and those of you who share on this board all elevate the quality of this craft and the exposure it recieves in the press, at shows and in galleries. It is easy to see a copy cat and I truly believe that those artist will never reach the heights of their insperations.

I hope I was able to articulate this perspective well enough. Thanks Tony for openning the dialog.

Dave