Technique Ownership - A Question of Ethics

This is the main board for discussing general techniques, tools, and processes for fusing, slumping, and related kiln-forming activities.

Moderators: Brad Walker, Tony Smith

Phil Hoppes
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 2:20 pm
Location: Overgaard, AZ

Teaching

Post by Phil Hoppes »

I have to agree with both Paul and Jim and would also add a comment on teaching. I've had a number of opportunities to teach in technical field I use to be in. Nothing opened my eyes on my subject more for me than being an instructor. For one, it forces you to organize your thoughts, methods, etc. into a cohesive lesson plan. Second, we are all myopic in our area of expertise. What I mean is we have a perspective that is biased by our experience. This is both good and bad. I would get questions from students that for the first instant I would say to myself "How in the world did they get that from what I just said?" I would ponder a little and then the light would go on and I'd realize I was looking at a particular problem from only one perspective, mine. An unbiased student will ask you things totally out of the blue. In these cases both student and teacher learn. Different things but they both learn. This can be very rewarding if you are open to it.

Phil
Gale aka artistefem
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 8:14 pm
Location: MO-on the banks of the Mississippi
Contact:

Post by Gale aka artistefem »

Sharing is the best thing we all do. Bert is exactly right, sharing does advance our artform. This is exactly why we participate on this board.

The point at which I won't share is when I'm pretty surethe person asking for information will "try to" outright copy my designs, using my techniques and put this copy out for sale under their own shingle. Once you've been ripped off in this manner you become a bit cynical and more observant about why you've been asked for working info. Just as Geri noted about show goers - this is a reality in our business world.

I'll always share when the exchange is honest, recipricol to the extent that it can be and beneficial for all involved.

"Possibly" proprietary technique? Probably not....... Music, writings, dance, visual art; it's all been done before no matter how much of a spin we think we put on it with new technology.

I have respect for anyone who has paid their dues, worked long and hard to improve their skills and has developed personal working techniques they prefer to not share. This is their call - when and where they do share this info is entirely up to them.

I just hope I'm in the room when they do decide to lecture. :wink:
Paul Tarlow
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Helios Kiln Glass Studio - Austin
Contact:

It has all been done before...

Post by Paul Tarlow »

Belief that it has all been done before is, in my opinion, the end of progress.

It is also a good excuse not to take the risks of trying to do something new.

- Paul
Lani McGregor
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 2:12 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by Lani McGregor »

Boy, am I ever enjoying this thread!

Thanks, Tony!
Phil Hoppes
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 2:20 pm
Location: Overgaard, AZ

Done before? Well yes and no

Post by Phil Hoppes »

I would agree with Paul that you should not use "been there, done that" as an excuse not to explore. All of us should push our craft as much as we possibly can. If you are in your comfort zone...you aren't progressing. (Quote..."Never confuse motion with progress." Albert Einstien") That being said, I don't think it is right that anyone should get too high on their horse so to speak on a technique claiming they have discovered it. If you dig enough, long enough, just about any technique or visual aspect has been explored in the past by someone. Does that mean don't try new things? Of course not. It is just that ownership is a relative term. It is a fine line all of us need to decide just where we want to place it with respect to our work. For all I've said, there are some things with my own work that for the moment, I really don't want to share, both because I don't feel I've explored it enough and for the moment, it is a unique expression of my work. Has it been done before? I'm sure of it. But my expression is unique to me. What I don't want is to drill it into the ground. I'll work it for a while, move on to something new and at that time I'll be very comfortable in passing what I've been doing on to others. Like I said, we all need to determine the position of that line for ourselves.

Phil
Tony Smith
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:59 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

Post by Tony Smith »

This thread is achieving exactly what I hoped it would... an open discussion of an issue that has given some of us the freedom to reach new heights in our artwork and at the same time has made some of us feel trapped by the Catch-22 created by classes we have taken.

I've always been afraid to copy anyone's work because I felt that was unethical, but as Jim Wolverton suggested, copying a master's work as a way to develop and perfect the techniques should fall under the "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" caveat as opposed to the "artistic theft" category.

It's also clear that people want to learn from experienced teachers. But does a teacher have to have greater than 5 years of experience with a particular technique to make them "worthy" teachers? I fall into the same category as Paul Tarlow. I have a strong technical background, read everything about glass that I can get my hands on, talk about it incessantly to anyone who'll listen, and experiment constantly. I have the resources to buy many types of tools just to compare their relative merits, and I have access to materials that many people cannot get or cannot find. I have been fusing for a very short time (relatively), so I am considered a novice by most people's standards. I have been sandblasting glass for only five years, but again, I experiment constantly, and remember everything, so I have a vast amount of experience even though it has happened quickly.

Like Paul, I have received very positive feedback from the students who have taken my classes, but I have also heard the comments from people who feel that there are too many novices offering advice and teaching classes. I heard someone suggest that some members of our community offer advice as a way of paying back what they have gotten from the WGBB. Should advice-giving be limited to people with a minimum number of years of "experience"? Or limited to "certified" teachers?

Just a few more questions to add to the mix.

Tony
The tightrope between being strange and being creative is too narrow to walk without occasionally landing on both sides..." Scott Berkun
David Williams

Re: Interesting Question.......here's my 2 nanocents....

Post by David Williams »

I guess a second thing I'd like to maybe poke at is to put out there that NOTHING is really new.

I hear people say this and I STRONGLY disagree. One of the miraculous things about glass is that there is so much that hasn't been done. That's what keeps me going! Its like looking for treasure, or a quest or something. I know the next invention is just around the corner if I pursue it.

One thing I would say that "owners" of technique have in their favor is, its way harder to try and figure out and copy a technique than it is to invent the technique. When you make an innovation you've been led there by a sequence of events that happened in your studio. It's almost impossible to recreate that discovery though determined copiers can have some success. But they'll spend more money and have more sufferin than you did probably. If thats any consolation.
Phil Hoppes
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 2:20 pm
Location: Overgaard, AZ

Re: Interesting Question.......here's my 2 nanocents....

Post by Phil Hoppes »

David Williams wrote:One of the miraculous things about glass is that there is so much that hasn't been done. .
You miss my point. For example, my current work involves using glass on edge in lots of strips. Is that unique? Of course not. Is my interpertation and experimentation in this method unique? Probably. It has my bend on how I want to mix colors, arrange them and what statement I wish to make with my work. That is unique. That is what is facinating about glass and why it is such an expressive medium.

Phil
David Williams

Post by David Williams »

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.

I scratch my head at this. Was there some exact date when everything had been done? What is the reasoning behind the idea that everything has been done? For Pete's sake scientists don't even know what glass IS yet. New forms of glass are being developed all the time! A new way of working glass, cooking glass, cutting glass, firing glass anything you can think of to do with glass, gets developed just about daily. My life would be much less fulfilling if I thought everyhting had been done. I think I'd just retire to the garden. Plants have been around for a long time too but you can always breed a new kind.
Bob
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:01 pm
Location: Salt Spring Island, British Columbia
Contact:

Post by Bob »

I'm enjoying the thread too!

I have three more comments.

First, Michael (I believe on page one of the thread) stated that he gets a lot from the class. I agree. Participants always bring fresh ideas to a class and I love to see the innovative ideas. I learn from the group.

Second, is it right to copy others work? I spent much of my first few years doing geometric designs in irid glass that were essentially knock-offs of work by Liz Mapelli. I used the Bullseye technotes to learn how to kiln carve and started copying the style of Rudi Gritch (I believe he originated the technique). The "painting with light" style and the fantastic product range that Bullseye has promoted and developed has influenced me. The catalogue, Artifacts about the glass of William Morris has intrigued and inspired me. I believe it is OK to "copy" if it is taken in the context of steps on the learning curve. Hopefully we all move on in our work to truly express ourselves. If we are striving to be remembered for our work we will never reach that goal by creating faithful replicas of other's work.

Third, has it all been done before? Probably. I love textures and have seen crackled glass in many hot glass applications. Wafers... they are a logical extension of the painting with light techniques. I work extensively with design elements made in separate firings... not new.

Cheers,

Bob
David Williams

Re: Interesting Question.......here's my 2 nanocents....

Post by David Williams »

David Williams wrote:One of the miraculous things about glass is that there is so much that hasn't been done. .
You miss my point.

I don't think so. If what YOU are doing has been done before, that's one thing. But to extrapolate from that that everything has been done before, would be wrong IMHO. I know youre talking about technique not design. Techniques get built upon, and also built out of whole cloth, daily. Of course nothing happens in a vacuum, so every new technique springs from something already existing. But it is new. The fact that it has roots doesn't mean it is merely a variation of an existing technique and therefore already "been done". If that were the way we defined "new" or "original" then yes everything has been done, virtually from the point when early man stuck a stick in an anthill.
ellen abbott
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Houston Tx
Contact:

Post by ellen abbott »

Well said, Phil. 'New to me' doesn't equate to 'new to the world'. But 'new to me' is enough to give me plenty of hours, days, months of fun, aggravation, delight, frustration, inspiration trying to figure out how the 'new' thing fits into or enhances my body of work.

E
David Williams

Post by David Williams »

ellen abbott wrote:Well said, Phil. 'New to me' doesn't equate to 'new to the world'. But 'new to me' is enough to give me plenty of hours, days, months of fun, aggravation, delight, frustration, inspiration trying to figure out how the 'new' thing fits into or enhances my body of work.

E
But, is it just a sense of humility (admirable) that makes you think that? I can understand basing one's opinion on one's own experience. But I can assure you that there are people out there inventing techniques that are new to the world. Wether they have been done somewhere in someplace before is very difficult to say of course. But in some cases as with technology or other factors you can be reasonably sure. But that distinction seems sort of irrelevant to me. If it isn't being done now, and no one knows HOW to do it, then rediscovery requires such research and effort, to me that means new. But that last part is a grey area I know.
Simon
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:14 pm

Post by Simon »

One point that I don't believe has been directly addressed here:

Aren't these classes at least somewhat lucrative for those giving it? As I understand it, the master glass artists giving these classes profit in several ways:

1. The fees charged to students for attendance. Of course these vary, and have to offset the cost of the school space and the equipment/materials etc, but as I understand this, these classes can be a nice earner for those in demand.

2. In the case of local classes the students often then purchase materials, supplies, equipment etc. from their teacher in order to continue their work. More steady, if modest profit.

3. The students after their classes then spread the word of their guru and his methods through the community. this increases his status and profile, increases the value of his work, attracts lucrative commissions, and attracts more students, perpetuating the cycle.

4. When the Master reaches a certain status this leads to meeting/exposition invites, makes books written by the Master saleable and may even lead to local TV spots etc.

For examples from the cold glass world, De Brady and the Aanraku studios have all these aspects going for them. In particular, the Aanraku studio pumps out students who are particularly evangelical about their teacher *tips hat to Jeffrey*.

Now, the coin that the teacher pays for these benefits is that his teaching has to be good and this may mean offering the secrets and methods that the Master has learned. Obviously passing off wholesale the teaching materials and methods without attribution are unethical, but up to a point such stealing indicates the true success of the person being stolen from. Plagiarism is the cost of doing business.
Bert Weiss
Posts: 2339
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:06 am
Location: Chatham NH
Contact:

Post by Bert Weiss »

Tony Smith wrote:
It's also clear that people want to learn from experienced teachers. But does a teacher have to have greater than 5 years of experience with a particular technique to make them "worthy" teachers?
Tony
Tony I don't think there are any hard rules here. If you are a fast study and have put in the hours working out your own approach, you can be a great teacher. One of my best teachers gave me zero technique but lots of attitude in one class, and plenty of technique in a second class.

One thing I will say again is that doing something for 7 years is a significant milestone. As I understand it during the course of 7 years every cell in your body has been regenerated. You are a different person. There is no substitute for the wisdom gained through time.

I don't think for a second that you need that wisdom in order to be a good teacher, but it certainly helps.
Bert

Bert Weiss Art Glass*
http://www.customartglass.com
Furniture Lighting Sculpture Tableware
Architectural Commissions
Glenda Kronke
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:44 am
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Post by Glenda Kronke »

I am really enjoying this thread, but need a little clarification on some of the opinions.

When you all are talking about something being 'new' and 'it's all been done before', I'm a little unclear exactly what is being said.

Let's say that adding oxides to glass is not something new because lots of people do it. But, lets say that someone decided to add, let's say salt, to their oxide mixture and a beautiful thing happens. Is this something new? Has it been done before? Did that person invent it? Or do you make the statement that it isn't new because adding anything (no matter what it is) to glass is not anything new?


Please don't jump on me, I am just asking a question. (But, I do tend to disagree with the statement that 'it has all been done before'). I guess I'm just not clear on what is considered 'new'.

I sheepishly go back to work...
Lani McGregor
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 2:12 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by Lani McGregor »

Re David’s post and Glenda’s impression: I don’t think that any of us are saying “it’s all been done before, quit tryingâ€
K Okahashi
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:29 pm
Location: Washington

Post by K Okahashi »

Wow, what a great thread!

One thing I learned when I supervised counselors was that we are all in the "options" business. We can only suggest possibilities, the client needed to decide what worked for him or her. I think this is the same as learning. One learns for various reasons- ego, excitement, maybe even a calling, or necessity. We often get caught up in the capitalistic side of our art- the selling of supplies, teaching of classes, etc. Some artists want to just lock themselves up and create. Other glassers prefer to teach. Still others in the industry want to just gobble up info for various reasons- hoping to learn.

When I was a newbie, I got into glass because of the awe. Techniques were the tools that showed me how to "create" art. Merely the vehicle that gets me from A to B. My first instructor knew techiques but practically ruined my quest to pursue my creative side- he knew the techniques well, said they were his own (I find out later- not true) but his style was demeaning as he likened himself to a "master" and I would forever be dubbed his "student." As a newbie, I didn't know better- but if all glass artists are like that, then I wouldn't want to be part of that group.

Then I took another class. This one from Phil Teefy who was willing to teach all he knew and recognized he didn't know it all either. The fire was kindling for me again. Then I took another class...and another.....

My levels of awareness grew and I became knowledgeable in many facets of glass. Still, I have tons to learn. Some folks at shows are totally awed by some of my work- and it reminds me of when I first started. Teaching techniques are so important to advancing our field. And I want to thank all who share here and many of those instructors who felt comfortable enough to share. It's not easy to always share or to trust others but it does foster growth for all of us.

Thank you all for sharing.... keiko
Geri Comstock
Posts: 340
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 4:16 pm
Location: Northern CA
Contact:

An Observation

Post by Geri Comstock »

Although I don't know everyone who has responded to this thread so far, I have noticed something interesting about those I do know... I'm making some broad generalizations here...but here goes...

Generally, it seems that the trend so far is that folks who have a "day job" and don't make their entire living from glass are far more willing to share their secret techniques than those who don't.

Those who sell their work for high prices and have a "name" also generally fall into this category. They're known for a specific style/technique/whatever and if someone else does it, it would be obvious to those who know glass that they're simply "copying".

Those who are on the show circuit/sell through galleries, don't have a "name", and put food on the table for themselves and their family through their glass sales exclusively are more protective of their techniques. I include myself in this group, although if I never sold another piece of glass I wouldn't starve to death or be homeless.

I think our attitude about this has alot to do with our own perception of what we need to do to survive in the fulltime business of glass.

I have many stories about technique and design copycats I've had, which I won't share here. However, bitter experience with some people who seem to have no ethics when it comes to copying has taught me to keep my mouth shut about how I do things.

Geri
PaulS
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:45 pm
Location: Belize
Contact:

Re: Technique Ownership - A Question of Ethics

Post by PaulS »

Tony Smith wrote: 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.
Tony

Hope I die before I get old, but before I do;

my heart would be glad and full if someone said "Look at all the wonderful things I've done with what you showed me! Look at the golden fields from a single seed of knowledge!"

simple.


Paul
It ain't where you're from, it's where you're at!
Post Reply