Technique Ownership - A Question of Ethics

[Tony Smith]

I certainly admit to feeling passionately that it's the wrong direction... not because it's easy, but because it leads the beginner to believe that kilnforming is as simple as pushing buttons. I am seeing more and more of this lately and it upsets me.

I think I've made my position clear. Kilnforming is more complicated than making popcorn. There are some things that just can't be reduced to pushing a button.

I hope that having strong opinions isn't inappropriate on this board or I should go elsewhere.

Stay right here. I think it's important to be passionate about the things that are important to you... I also think it's important for others to understand why you are so passionate.

From the background you've posted on the WGW controversy it's obvious I step into this stuff more frequently than is comfortable for most. I apologize to those who are disturbed by my opinions, but Bullseye came on as the first sponsor of this board because we hoped that it would be a place where we could debate the issues. I've had a difficult time getting debate going sometimes because I'm perceived as being "accusatory". I hope that I can be forgiven my style and taken just on my substance. Anyway, Tony, thanks for all your research on and synopsis of the WGW "dumbing down" controversy.

You're welcome. Sometimes it's hard to be passionate without being controversial. While we haven't always agreed, you usually bring a reasoned, well thought out argument to the table... sometimes you come across as just wanting to mudwrestle. Hopefully we can continue the discussions and debate in a way that doesn't offend too many members of our community.

... If the goal is to "certify" teachers, then is it unreasonable to think that someone who works in float glass should have access to the same teacher training classes as someone who works with Bullseye glass? Or that someone who uses many types of glass: Bullseye, Uroboros, Spectrum, Kugler, Fremont, float and others should be excluded because she isn't exclusively a BE customer?

Yes, it is unreasonable if Bullseye bears the expense of that training. We are not a non-profit. Our only revenues for our educational efforts come out of sales. Why would we spend those revenues on someone who uses other products before we spend them on Bullseye users? We run teacher training programs at Bullseye regularly. They are run with Bullseye materials - if we taught with other materials (that we're not familiar with) we'd be as guilty as any other ill-prepared beginning teacher.

That brings up a good question: Why don't you charge for your teacher training? And before you accuse me of being facetious, I would like to point out that I'm asking the question from a different perspective. Charging for the classes would allow people from all mediums to benefit from your teacher training. In the long run, it would benefit the artform across the board. I'm sure you don't have any restrictions on affiliation or glass type in your other classes.

I haven't seen any company with a greater investment in education and process development than Bullseye... but is being altruistic part of your charter? Is providing teacher education to glass artists regardless of their medium-of-choice important for the greater good?

Of course not. Is this a facetious question? Again, we're not a non-profit. This is still a business. One that believes its customer's success results in its own success and believes that education is a way to insure that success. Is that altruism? Sheesh, no. It's a business strategy. Which doesn't mean that it's passionless or not apt to lead us into swampy territory where our beliefs may seem unbusiness-like at times ...

It wasn't facetious, it was, however, a rhetorical question intended to lead into the question about the "greater good" of advancing the artform. I don't know how Bullseye is structured, and after our last go-around, I decided it wasn't any of my business to question your business decisions. For some reason, I thought that the BE Connection Gallery and the educational segments of your business would be separate, not-for-profit entities. I withdraw the question.

.... and, Tony, I know that you don't agree with much of our business strategy ... but you don't have to ... and I won't call you on being accusatory and taunting just because you feel strongly about that...

Lani

see above under "none of my business"... at this point, I don't agree or disagree with your business strategy.

But this just brings up more darned questions...

Is there a way to ensure that teachers are properly trained without a bias toward one manufacturer, technique or method? Is it necessary? Phil says no, that the marketplace will cull out the inadequate teachers. But like Lani said,

Tony, I've seen rave reviews for really bad classes (full of technical misinformation, but "fun"). How does the beginning student know what they're not getting?

I have to agree with Lani here. Especially if the student isn't asked for a review, how do future students know what they are getting or "not getting" (as Lani said)?

Tony

[Geri Comstock]

Lani McGregor wrote:
Tony, I've seen rave reviews for really bad classes (full of technical misinformation, but "fun"). How does the beginning student know what they're not getting?

Tony wrote:
I have to agree with Lani here. Especially if the student isn't asked for a review, how do future students know what they are getting or "not getting" (as Lani said)?

Tony

Let's for a moment take this out of a discussion only about glass and about classes in general.

How do students know when they're getting a good teacher or not whatever they're learning?

The answer is they don't until they take the class. I'll use myself as a student this past semester as an example to illustrate this point. As you may know, I'm a professional glass artist/jeweler. I took 6 stained glass classes about 10-15 years ago (from a really good teacher who no longer teaches...rats!), 3 fusing classes 10 years ago that weren't so good (I had to unlearn of misinformation afterwards). I've taken a bunch of classes in sculpture, 3-D design, and various aspects of metalsmithing. Just call me "professional art student" girl. LOL.

This year I decided to take some time away from producing work and doing shows and to work on my skills as an artist. I enrolled in a Beginning Drawing class and an Independent Studies class in metals with the metals prof I've studied with on and off for 10 years.

The Beginning Drawing class is taught by a woman who has produced some students who have accomplished some amazing things once they got out of school; she likes to take credit for that. LOL.

However, her style of teaching drove me up the wall. She'd use new terms we didn't know and refused to define what they meant. She told us if we wanted to know what they meant, we'd have to look them up in the 16' Oxford Dictionary after class. In the meantime, I for one, couldn't figure out what in the world she was talking about in her lectures where she used these terms because I didn't know what half of them meant.

She'd make assignments in a very vague way. We'd all come to class prepared with what we thought were appropriate materials for what she was asking for, and one-by-one, she'd tell us our materials weren't correct for the assignment and would change/redefine the assignment. ARGH! I like assignments to be very clear so I don't waste alot of time finding incorrect resources for them.

To top it off, this woman constantly made insulting and rude remarks to some people in the class and about other faculty members, and students in other classes.

After about 6 weeks of this, I'd had enough and dropped the class. This woman may be a wonderful teacher for people who like that kind of confusing, somewhat hostile environment, but I couldn't stand it. I like things to be clear and friendly in a class.

I can imagine that some of her really successful students would say she was a fabulous teacher. I, on the other hand, would rate her as one of the worst teachers I've ever experienced. Our styles of teaching and learning were just too different.

What's kind of funny is that I got A's on the drawings I completed while I was in class. So it's not like I wasn't learning anything...

My metals prof always defines new terms and gives very clear written assignments. That's why I've been his student on and off for so many years. He's very clear and his classes are very friendly.

Rating teachers is difficult. My ideal teacher might not be yours...

How do we figure this one out with a rating system? I'm not objecting to rating systems at all...I just don't know how to make one work.

Geri

[Tony Smith]

Geri,

I agree with you. You just gave a perfect example of a teacher that was not culled out of the system... she was recommended.

I don't know if there is a good way to rate teachers... for that matter, I don't know that "certified" teachers are any better... They can still become certified if they complete the material even though they may be lousy communicators...

Tony

[Geri Comstock]

I don't know if there is a good way to rate teachers... for that matter, I don't know that "certified" teachers are any better... They can still become certified if they complete the material even though they may be lousy communicators...

Tony

LOL. I wasn't trying to talk you out of a certification process, Tony. My BS and Ed.M. degrees are in education and educational design. In my former career I ran a couple of customer training departments and an instructor certification program, among other things. These programs CAN work.

I was asking the question because I wanted to get the discussion of out anyone's personal ballywick and into a more general question about what makes a good teacher and how a teacher can be evaluated.

I think some things are unquantifiable using any of the methods I was taught for evaluating teachers/potential teachers, such as student/instructor match. There are questions that could be asked that might given an indication of the instructor's style, but as to whether or not their style is a match for the student's learning style is a judgement that someone would have to make based on their own understanding of themselves as a learner. I'm not sure everyone really understands their learning style without having taken a couple of classes in the recent past and figured it out on purpose.

However, things such as the instructor's knowledge of the subject matter, the ability to convey information effectively, good classroom management skills, etc. are pretty quantifiable if the people doing the quantifying are told or somehow already know what to look for.

Of course, this process is going to be somewhat subjective, because human communication is very subjective. You may say something and because of my experiences, previous knowledge, etc., I may hear something different from what you intended to say.

I think instructor certification is a good idea and have talked about this previously on this board...well, this board in its former incarnation. LOL.

Keep talking. Keep thinking. It's a good idea, IMHO. The implementation of this, or any other good idea, is what's important.

Best -

Geri

[Geri Comstock]

LOL. I obviously need remedial instruction in the "Quote" feature, as well. Sorry, I quoted me instead of you! Next time I'll know which tag goes where, I hope. LOL.

Geri

[Barbara Muth]

Geri,

I agree with you. You just gave a perfect example of a teacher that was not culled out of the system... she was recommended.

I don't know if there is a good way to rate teachers... for that matter, I don't know that "certified" teachers are any better... They can still become certified if they complete the material even though they may be lousy communicators...

Tony

One of the worst teachers I ever had is someone who is a master teacher of some sort in the art clay world. She has been through a bunch of certification steps. And not only is her teaching p**s poor, but her work isn't what I would even call attractive, let alone showing a mastery of her medium.

Plus she was so negative about the kiln I had just purchased (because I didn't buy one from her with a controller) that it literally gave me nightmares and took me 3 months to get up the nerve to use it.

There's an example of a certification system that doesn't work.

Which is not to say that I disagree with instructor certification of some sort. At the very least you want to certify that the instructor understands the material they are teaching.

Or maybe student empowerment, some set of questions which may help students determine if this instructor will meet their educational needs and desired outcomes. We all want different things out of a class...

[Lani McGregor]

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?

Tony

Tony, I thought this was a terrific topic initially, but I think we've all gotten off on tangents (mea culpa). If we can go back to where you started and talk about possible solutions....

We work with lots of artists in the Bullseye studios and one of the agreements for our support is that they allow us to make public what they discover during their research here. This is understandably touchy territory. Who wants to give away their hard-won efforts? On the other hand, we can't afford to underwrite projects that are often hugely expensive if they only benefit a single artist. And frequently an artist couldn't afford to do the research without our support.

The solution: we try to publish the results with FULL AND TOTAL ATTRIBUTION TO THE ARTIST AND THE HISTORY OF THE PROJECT. We've never had an artist refuse. What they get is documentation that the method is/was THEIRS at least at its origin*.

This is how most of our TipSheets and TechNotes evolved, e.g.:

Rudi Gritsch developed the vitrigraph kiln here. It's documented.

Narcissus Quagliata developed many Painting with Light techniques here. Also documented.

Other projects were more fully documented in catalogs, etc.

At this point, it's "out there" ... but it has the history and the artist's name on it. Anyone who feels competent to then use or teach that method, would benefit him/herself and the students to use the originally published literature. It is a service to the student and does not detract from the teacher. If, instead, they let the student assume they are the originator, the truth will eventually out and they'll be unmasked as phonies and plagiarists.

Of course, not all artists can afford to publish their discoveries in catalogs or professional publications, but this board is living proof that "publishing" is more accessible than it's ever been in history.

So, I guess I'd suggest that anyone concerned with teaching or telling, think about documenting.

And anyone teaching or telling information they have received from others give credit where it is due.

Lani

* Of course, it will always be open to argument as to how original the work was, even if published, but at least documenting the method, the surrounding history, and crediting those involved is a start at allowing creative people to "give it away" and still "own" it.

[Lani McGregor]

Why don't you charge for your teacher training? ... Charging for the classes would allow people from all mediums to benefit from your teacher training. In the long run, it would benefit the artform across the board.

A good question. But again, we're just one small company. There is only so much we can do for the "greater good." If we charged what it costs us to run our teacher training programs we'd likely cull out many of the best people and be left with the less talented, but richer student. Plus, we could just become a training ground for instructors working for other manufacturers .... undercutting our own product and eventually going broke. Gee, I didn't go to business school, but thinking this one through to its logical conclusion leads me to a pretty bleak picture.

Is there a way to ensure that teachers are properly trained without a bias toward one manufacturer, technique or method?

Tony, is this so bad? Other industries have manufacturer-based certification programs. IBM doesn't offer training to certify Macintosh technicians. Microsoft offers certification for those interested in working with their software. What's so wrong with a company like Bullseye offering certification in the use of its product?

- Lani

[Tony Smith]

Lani,

Thanks for the segue back to the original topic.

Anyone who feels competent to then use or teach that method, would benefit him/herself and the students to use the originally published literature. It is a service to the student and does not detract from the teacher. If, instead, they let the student assume they are the originator, the truth will eventually out and they'll be unmasked as phonies and plagiarists.

I think that your statement clears up a lot of questions. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I get from your statement is that if the glass artist feels competent using a method then they should be able to teach it as long as they provide proper attribution of the technique, or at least as far as they are aware... There is so much teaching going on, that it is difficult to know where techniques started unless they are documented as in the BE Tipsheets. There's no doubt that the BE tipsheets are an invaluable teaching tool, especially since they do include attributions and some of the history.

And anyone teaching or telling information they have received from others give credit where it is due.

This is only fair. It was brought up earlier in the thread by Avery, but I think there is still some confusion between proper attribution and using someone's name or technique without their permission. That's actually why I started the thread.

* Of course, it will always be open to argument as to how original the work was, even if published, but at least documenting the method, the surrounding history, and crediting those involved is a start at allowing creative people to "give it away" and still "own" it.

Some of this came up earlier in the "everything has been done before" tangent. I think we can refer to that as "technique dilution" where it has been used do much that it's history becomes lost and the technique becomes commonly used. Of course the history problem is mitigated if the technique is properly documented in the literature.

[Pam Hrycyk]

What's so wrong with a company like Bullseye offering certification in the use of its product?
- Lani

Lani - There is nothing wrong with it. In my opinion, it's great that Bullseye is taking the time to try and improve the quality of teachers. It is not up to any ONE company to try and ensure that all teachers know about the differences between working with Bullseye vs. Float vs. Kugler vs. anything (nor should it be). Other manufacturers could step up and offer similar programs and a teacher who was interested could take as many programs as they wish.

It would be an entirely different issue if an independent training facility set-up a program to certify kiln-forming instructors and showed a preference toward one manufacturer over another - then it could become an issue. That's not the case here.

Pam

[Tony Smith]

Why don't you charge for your teacher training? ... Charging for the classes would allow people from all mediums to benefit from your teacher training. In the long run, it would benefit the artform across the board.

A good question. But again, we're just one small company. There is only so much we can do for the "greater good." If we charged what it costs us to run our teacher training programs we'd likely cull out many of the best people and be left with the less talented, but richer student. Plus, we could just become a training ground for instructors working for other manufacturers .... undercutting our own product and eventually going broke. Gee, I didn't go to business school, but thinking this one through to its logical conclusion leads me to a pretty bleak picture.

I don't think it's a bleak picture at all. It's unfortunate for the people who don't use Bullseye glass though. You have a business to run and the bottom line is what keeps it going. You also have competition in the marketplace, and familiarizing teachers with your products and how they can be used gives you a real advantage over your competition.

Is there a way to ensure that teachers are properly trained without a bias toward one manufacturer, technique or method?

Tony, is this so bad? Other industries have manufacturer-based certification programs. IBM doesn't offer training to certify Macintosh technicians. Microsoft offers certification for those interested in working with their software. What's so wrong with a company like Bullseye offering certification in the use of its product?
- Lani

Stated like that, I agree. There is a difference though between a Certified Fusing Instructor and a Bullseye Certified Fusing Instructor... and I can see the advantages to both. Again, I'm really not questioning your business philosophy, just trying to understand it from the dribs and drabs that I get through the rumor mill. When I originally heard about the idea of certified instructors, I thought that Bullseye wanted to become the source for certified fusing instructors through their teacher training program... but by making it specifically a Bullseye certification (like GM's "Mr. Goodwrench") it changes my opinion significantly... I'll have to spend some time thinking it over, but I don't see anything unfair about it.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify that.

Tony

[S. Klein]

My 2 cents. What we do is not rocket science. I think that an instructors certification is their bio and their work. Frankly, the techie stuff is not of real interest to me. I learn what I have to learn to do what I have to do. When I teach I depend a lot on TA's, students with more experience, or the "Let's give it a try" approach.

Unlike a class at IBM, Microsoft, or GM, my students all want to do something different using a similar technique. I encourage a "no limits" approach. There is no magic firing schedule. Firing schedules will differ depending on, the kiln, color, thickness, desired texture, etc. My answer to a student who presents a concept is, "Let's try it". I think that adherance to rules stifles creativity.

Regarding ownership of a technique or style. I don't think it exists in the art world. We are all influenced by someone or something that has come before. My influences happen to be painters. I started by copying and some of these nice pieces are in my house or belong to friends. I see students and professionals in museums copying great works of art. This is a wonderful way for you to physically experience the excitement that you mentally get when viewing some work. I do believe that most artists want work to be their own and that most collectors know the difference.

To sum up my short respose. As an instructor, my work and that of my students will serve as my credentials. I hope that at sometime I am respected as I have respected others, by having my work copied and having that serve as an inspiration for a student to push through the limits that my work presents..................steve

[Pam Hrycyk]

I encourage a "no limits" approach. There is no magic firing schedule. Firing schedules will differ depending on, the kiln, color, thickness, desired texture, etc. My answer to a student who presents a concept is, "Let's try it"

And that is the best lesson any student of glass can learn!

[Lani McGregor]

I think that an instructors certification is their bio and their work.

Also a valid approach - the one that has certainly been successful at Pilchuck. And I sure don't see certification as a requirement, just an option ... and at this point... only a hypothetical one.

There is no magic firing schedule. Firing schedules will differ depending on, the kiln, color, thickness, desired texture.

Exactly, but what about the teacher whose experience hasn't gotten him/her to the stage of understanding that? (and I think we've all seen examples of that) ... wouldn't some sort of training program insure that they had at least that minimal awareness before they were let loose to instruct others?

I think one can get to the level of being a magnificent teacher by experience such as you have. Or maybe one can be helped to get there with a more formal training program. Just a different path.

Steve, I agree with everything else you say so I'll shut up.

Lani

PS. Can you say "Roll-Up" in Spanish yet?

[Tony Smith]

Unlike a class at IBM, Microsoft, or GM, my students all want to do something different using a similar technique. I encourage a "no limits" approach. There is no magic firing schedule. Firing schedules will differ depending on, the kiln, color, thickness, desired texture, etc. My answer to a student who presents a concept is, "Let's try it". I think that adherance to rules stifles creativity.

Steve,

My only exposure to you is through your work that I have seen, and from what I have heard from people who have taken your classes or have otherwise worked with you. My impression is that you are, what I would consider, a first tier teacher, teaching advanced techniques, and that most of your students have fusing experience or at least have an understanding of the process.

I believe there is a significant difference between a beginner and someone who has enough experience to be taking your advanced classes. A beginning student needs to understand the way the material behaves with respect to temperature. I'm not talking about understanding COE's necessarily, but knowing how glass behaves... that the glass softens as the temperature increases, then it becomes sticky, then it all melts together and takes on a new shape. After learning the basics, in order to grow as an artist and develop new looks, it's important for the student to experiment with the rules and break them... pushing the limits.

Perhaps the best approach is a combination of approaches... "no limits" at first (but with close supervision) and limited technical information so the student can see what the possibilities are with the medium without the burden of having to know the technical information, followed by technical information and more techniques, followed by advanced techniques and the "no limits" approach again.

Your thoughts?

Tony

[S. Klein]

I will stand corrected as far as having someone certified to teach the first time student. It is important that beginners understand that glass will thermal shock, it needs to be annealed, etc, etc, etc. Also safety issuesneed to be covered.

Tony: Yes, my students have had some experience, however many have had very little.

Lani: can we say "enrollando"?

steve

[Tony Smith]

Lani: can we say "enrollando"?

How about "BE-rito"?

Tony

[lyndasglass]

I am new to this bulletin board, so forgive me if I am repeating what has already been said. I have really enjoyed this discussion.

I teach and I also have a retail shop that I sell supplies out of. First, when I teach I try to help my students achieve their goals. In order for them to do that it requires that I give them the technicques they need to get there. Sometimes what a student wants to do is beyond their level of ability at this time. As a teacher, it my job to guide them to the point that they are able to achieve their goal. What is frustrating to me as an artist/teacher is when someone wants to move from beginner to master without putting in any of the work or time it take to gain experince.
( Don't get me wrong, I don't consider myself a master. I'm still learning too. That 's why I enjoy this board)

I think that the two things that have been discussed on this board, techinique stealing and teaching are both wrapped up in this frustration.

We live in a instant society. Everyone wants it now without having to put in any effort. I know I am resentful of those who would like the short cut. I think that if someone whats to figure out how you did something bad enough, they will keep working at it until they figure it out. They may arrive at the process differently than you did, but they will probably get there and probably have learned some interesting stuff along the way. Like it has already been said, You will have moved on anyway.

Secondly, as a retailer and teacher, I am very unhappy with the microwave, push button fusing that has been promoted by manufacturers.

As the local retailer, I will be the one they call when things don't work out like the ads says it should. How in a five minute phone conversation am I suppose to give a 20 hour fusing class? If the kiln owner knows nothing about what happens to glass when it get hot or cools down, how can they make informed decisions about what they need to adjust to be sucessful next time? Some one said it earlier, "if you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day, but teach him to fish and he'll never be hungary". Knowing what your doing and why enriches the experince.

To imply that you don't have to be any smarter than a dog to fuse glass certainly seems to de-value what any of us, both artist and hobbyist, do with warm glass. Mydog is pretty smart but I still don't let her use my kilns.

I believe part of our responsiblity as artist and hobbyist is to help educate others about this glass stuff that we have become passionate about. When we are passionate about what we do, it causes others to also be passionate, well if not passionate, at least respect the skill required to work in the medium.

Well, I had better get off my soap box and go to work
Lynda

[hussie]

What a great question!!! I don't know if I am worthy of responding to the question, but I do having feelings on the subject. I have yet to have my kiln wired in, nor have I ever fired a piece. But, I am ready when I do get my hubby to wire it up (i have been thinking of unhooking his air compressor and hooking the wire up to the kiln!!! Wonder how long it would take him to realize what I had done )

I feel that when I pay someone to teach me a techique, I am paying them to teach me what they are willing to share, but I don't think that would give me the right to teach it; furthermore, I feel that it is theirs to sell and not mine.

On an artistic note, I don't think that I should stay holed up in some dark, dank, dungeon cowering in the corner with a bare bulb swinging over head as I try to keep my "precious" hid from view. I am skeered of the dark!!!!
I have dabbled in photography for many, many years, and have had my portait style copied...repeatedly. Alas! That is what happens when wedding portaits and beautiful babies are shown off. I have written, and have had my writing style ripped right off the page. That won't stop me from sharing.

I think the world deserves to see art in all its glory, no matter the medium. If someone copies it, it would quickly be identified as a knock off right off the bat by a keen eye.

Technique is a method, but style is the AWWWWWEEEE that sets artists and hobbiest (is that spelled right?) apart!!!!

I have been sitting in this board for months aborbing all that I can. I live out in the styxs with no one to teach me . I have purchased books and have read each several times. I will screw the courage up to one day put my first piece in the kiln. With a little luck in about 50 years, I will be able to proudly display a warbled bowl on the coffee table or to wrap up something warm as a present for my mommy (she gets tired of crayon pictures to hang on the fridge). A glass artist has nothing to fear from my untrained hand. I am not that lucky! But, the power company in Indiana should fear me; I may short circuit half the state!!!

[Brian and Jenny Blanthorn]

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?

Tony

Tony, I thought this was a terrific topic initially, but I think we've all gotten off on tangents (mea culpa). If we can go back to where you started and talk about possible solutions....

We work with lots of artists in the Bullseye studios and one of the agreements for our support is that they allow us to make public what they discover during their research here. This is understandably touchy territory. Who wants to give away their hard-won efforts? On the other hand, we can't afford to underwrite projects that are often hugely expensive if they only benefit a single artist. And frequently an artist couldn't afford to do the research without our support.

The solution: we try to publish the results with FULL AND TOTAL ATTRIBUTION TO THE ARTIST AND THE HISTORY OF THE PROJECT. We've never had an artist refuse. What they get is documentation that the method is/was THEIRS at least at its origin*.

This is how most of our TipSheets and TechNotes evolved, e.g.:

Rudi Gritsch developed the vitrigraph kiln here. It's documented.

Narcissus Quagliata developed many Painting with Light techniques here. Also documented.

Other projects were more fully documented in catalogs, etc.

At this point, it's "out there" ... but it has the history and the artist's name on it. Anyone who feels competent to then use or teach that method, would benefit him/herself and the students to use the originally published literature. It is a service to the student and does not detract from the teacher. If, instead, they let the student assume they are the originator, the truth will eventually out and they'll be unmasked as phonies and plagiarists.

Of course, not all artists can afford to publish their discoveries in catalogs or professional publications, but this board is living proof that "publishing" is more accessible than it's ever been in history.

So, I guess I'd suggest that anyone concerned with teaching or telling, think about documenting.

And anyone teaching or telling information they have received from others give credit where it is due.

Lani

* Of course, it will always be open to argument as to how original the work was, even if published, but at least documenting the method, the surrounding history, and crediting those involved is a start at allowing creative people to "give it away" and still "own" it.

Yo Lani

I realy like UR approach

But if I had 2 list where all my Cheetin Technology stuff is stolen from it would B very long

And if U I include the machines as well it would cover many disaplines

From fish equipment to geology

I am not fussy

If its got any use I will steel it

One thing tho I dont pretend anything is mine