Ouch! Does smart business=evil artist?

The forum for discussion on business aspects of working with glass.

Moderator: Brad Walker

Paul Tarlow
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Helios Kiln Glass Studio - Austin
Contact:

Re: Ouch! Does smart business=evil artist?

Post by Paul Tarlow »

db wrote:I heard what you said about Chihuly knockoff plagueing the market, but if every little glassblowing trick was patented, nobody'd be able to do anything anymore.
I'll take it a step farther -- Chihuly probably benefits from some degree by people trying to copy his work. Being the subject of widespread copying validates someone's prestige.

I question the validity of a patent on hand stitching anything -- the process is ancient and has been applied to countless materials. Imo, it fails the "non-obvious" test for a patent - material being stitched not withstanding.

I also agree with others who have raised the question of cost-benefit of patenting an artistic technique. Patents (and trademarks) must be enforced to stay valid. Unless you intend to go to court any time you see what you believe is an infringement then getting the patent verges on pointless. I doubt that the benefit of the patent will cover those legal costs.

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

Post by Tony Smith »

Susan,

I couldn't find your application online. Do you have an application number or have they told you why they haven't published the application yet?

Tony
The tightrope between being strange and being creative is too narrow to walk without occasionally landing on both sides..." Scott Berkun
Jackie Beckman
Posts: 475
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:01 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Post by Jackie Beckman »

This is an interesting thread, really. I have taken glass tiles before, drilled little holes along the top and bottom edges and attached them by looping wire through the holes, making a "curtian" looking thing. Is that sewing? Its nothing like what you do Susan, but in my opinion, it is sewing. When I completed that project I thought the next one I made I'd use multi-colored suede or leather laces and let the edges hang down in a bright fringe. That's even more like sewing, and yet, even less like what you are doing. What is it exactly you are hoping to obtain the patent on? Your particular method of sewing the glass together? I guess I'm confused.

Trust me, I do understand ones desires to prevent others from taking unique ideas and running with them, but I truly think the best defense is to stay on top of your work and constantly make it better. Your work Susan, is very unique and very much "yours" and if someone were to copy what you are doing with your forms, Brock is quite correct in that it would be frowned upon to say the least. But the thing to remember is that imitations never have your actual "self" in them, and hence, won't look the same. Nobody's frit waffers are going to look the same as Bob's, or anyone's mica applications the same as Avery's. People want to try to reproduce an interesting technique, but I think they then make it their own in some way, or choose not to use it at all.

When I came home from Portland last year, I played around with ideas and concepts I learned in Doug and Jack's class. In fact, I even made a piece using the exact process Doug uses in the majority of his work. I just wanted to understand the process - I won't make one again, and I certainly didn't sell it! But from that experimentation I advanced my OWN work a great deal. Ron isn't taking what he learned from Avery and using the Micas to produce work that looks anything like hers. Her work is very recogonzable, and it wouldn't be accepted from anyone other than Avery. That's the case with your work too Susan. Bravo on doing something so unique and all your own. So even if you wanted to teach your process in the future, like you mention, I don't think you'll have people trying to do what you are doing with it.
Susan Taylor Glasgow
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: Missouri
Contact:

Post by Susan Taylor Glasgow »

Hi All! I'm so pleased to get such varied input, as my mind has struggled with all these issues. Perhaps my pending patent has already served it's purpose! But as far as an "obvious" technique goes, I'm curious what the examiner will bring up, as I've never seen glass joined in the way I've developed. You're correct Rodney, If I were to show someone my technique and how I solved the problems with it, their learning curve would be shorten to 1000th of the time it took me. "Reverse-engineers" have a somewhat similiar advantage. It's still not a new idea if somone just figures out another artist's process. But they certainly have the advantage of not having to be creative--just a good technician. Another component of the patent process that seems most annoying to others seems to be the point Sara brought up about "spontaneous" genius...If two people invent the same thing separately on their own, the inventor who files for a patent has the right to protect the idea. That's the only way it can make sense, in order to insure that inventors feel it is worth the time and expense of creating a new product. If 2 people invent the teleporter, the one who files first gets to protect that idea and the other inventor moves on. (Maybe to invent inter-galactic warp drive, if they were that clever in the first place!) I'm not saying that's fair, but it's the way works. I just re-read Sara's comments and realized that I'm not really that worried about others copying my technique (it's kind-a hard) as much as I feel it's so darned rude, and dare I say, lazy. My original intent in filing was to use it as a marketing tool and give me time to get my heels dug in, and hopefully be known for this technique. Again, maybe my pending patent has already served it's purpose.....
Patent pending Sewn Glass.
Sara
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: Magdalena, New Mexico, USA

Post by Sara »

Susan Taylor Glasgow wrote:Another component of the patent process that seems most annoying to others seems to be the point Sara brought up about "spontaneous" genius...If two people invent the same thing separately on their own. . . .

I just re-read Sara's comments and realized that I'm not really that worried about others copying my technique (it's kind-a hard) as much as I feel it's so darned rude, and dare I say, lazy. My original intent in filing was to use it as a marketing tool and give me time to get my heels dug in, and hopefully be known for this technique. Again, maybe my pending patent has already served it's purpose.....
Susan, I've been accused of being in Chinese medicine "too spleen" and "too much in my head" and you're beating me outta that distinction :lol:

If I'd felt that others doing images on dichro was rude and lazy I'd be in a real muddle wouldn't I. Just because I got my work out there before others doesn't make me the first, it's more about timing than anything else.

It's time to quit fretting and let the needle stitch where it may.

good luck and happy sewing,

Sara
Rob Morey
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 4:33 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Post by Rob Morey »

Susan,
I took a workshop from Doug Randall last year after the WGW in Portland. He demonstrated a technique that he uses which is central to making some of his work. I was very attracted to the process and wanted to explore it more. I questioned Doug and Brock about the legitimacy of me doing so. They both agreed that if I were to explore the process, that the work which would evolve would be more of my own instead of knock offs of Doug’s. I took another workshop from Roger Thomas shortly after returning to San Diego and am using some of the techniques that he taught as well. My work is in a constant state of development and, though, you can see the influences of both Doug and Roger, it is distinctly mine.
The point is your work is completely distinctive to you. I have never seen anyone else do this kind of stuff. Even if you were to share your technique, no one could make it the way you do without putting in real time and effort to copy you. Bob Leatherbarrow won’t share his technique, but he encourages people to try it on their own and see what happens. The result is that most people give up and those few that keep trying end up learning and creating something different and new.
I agree with Paul that you will have a very difficult time patenting a technique like sewing, even if it is glass. I think that it will take energy and finances that could be better used elsewhere. As for sharing your technique, don’t do it if you don’t want to. How rude of people to make you feel so uncomfortable because you aren’t willing to give away what you have worked so hard to develop.

Keep up the wonderful work.

Rob
Susan Taylor Glasgow
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: Missouri
Contact:

Post by Susan Taylor Glasgow »

Excellent points Jackie! And exactly what I was hoping to hear! I am a firm believer in learning from experienced professionals in the field that you love...and then moving on to create your own style. Ron and Doug and Brock are awesome to want to pass on their knowledge to the next generation of fusers. It's the obligation of their students to make it something of themselves. When I'm ready to teach I'll look forward to seeing the ways other artists make Sewn Glass their own. By the way, my patent is on the process I use to get all those holes in the glass so close together--close enough to look like it's sewing on fabric. People have been doing creative work by drilling for longer than I've been alive--My blessing to anyone who wants to stand over a dremel that long! I also used to make my glass look just like fabric too, but then the viewer didn't understand what it was, so now I use alot of transparents too. Bullseye all the way!
Patent pending Sewn Glass.
ellen abbott
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Houston Tx
Contact:

Post by ellen abbott »

Well, I'm against it. I think it's silly. You can't patent art. You can't patent creative expression. People aren't going to copy someone whose work doesn't sell. And if you are already selling at the level that makes anyone want to copy you, then you have already achieved your goal. So what's the point of the patent? I doubt seriously that Chihuly is adversely affected by people who copy him. And besides, who's to say that a similiar piece of work was an attempt at copying someone else (not that it doesn't happen but I don't think those people are ever really successful). Case in point...a good, and extremely talented, friend of mine does beautiful sandblasted engraved work on crystal. His motifs have been flora and fauna. He had been wanting to do some cased cameo vessel work for many years and finally found a glass blower willing to make some vessels for him. He had a dream of a zebra one night that was so clear to him that when he woke up, he sketched it out. And used the design on one of the cased vessels. He happened to be showing it at a show that Valerie Surjan was also at. She saw it and had her lawyer send him a letter telling him to basically cease and desist and to destroy all his cameo cased vessels. Did he copy her work? Absolutely not. Does she have the right to prevent other artists from using that technique or animal motifs? Absolutely not. Was she the first to do this type of work? Absolutely not. And what about the artists who are not familiar with your work and conceive of something similiar, come up with an idea of stitching glass together because it is integral to the expression of their idea. Are you going to prevent them from fulfilling their creative expressions? Do you think that just because you spent a lot of time and effort working out your technique that someone else is incapable of coming up with the same ideas independently? Having a patent on a technique or style is not going to guarantee, or protect, any level of economic success. It seems to me that in filing for a patent on technique you are basically only trying to stifle other artists out of a fear of competition. If your work doesn't sell, it will be because it is not speaking to the buyers. It won't have anything to do with 'owning' a technique.

I have no problem with choosing not to teach. I took drawing in college from an artist who refused to teach painting because that was his medium of creative expression. I'm the type, though, that will share everything. I figure if anyone else wants to spend the time and aggravation learning and getting good at the most difficult, tedious, time consuming, detail oriented, and frustrating thing I have ever done then more power to them.

Ellen
Susan Taylor Glasgow
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2003 12:22 pm
Location: Missouri
Contact:

Post by Susan Taylor Glasgow »

Okay, One more post and then I'm really going to get to work--you guys were so right about the topic keeping me out of my studio! Thanks Rob, for your comments. Doug's a great guy and does beautiful work! Because I think this way, his work reminds me of quilts. Well time to get back to work! I'm pretty sure now that the subject of art versus business will never be solved. But with new insight, it will be interesting to see how my art and business evolve!
Patent pending Sewn Glass.
sadiesjewels
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 2:02 pm
Location: N. CA
Contact:

Post by sadiesjewels »

Oh my gosh - my mind is all over the place on this topic! How very fascinating ...

Where to begin ... (and much of this may end up contradictory in nature) ... Background first - I originally trained (went to Art college - is that training?) as a fashion textile designer and worked in the field for 10 years. My final collection was "thonged and fringed" and it's a look that seems to reoccur throughout my work even though my focus now is wearable art in the form of jewelry, which I've been developing slowly over the last 10 years. I've done some rudimentary "thonging" - or sewing in silver pieces, and have a couple of basic and simple sketches thonging small glass pieces together with silver dating around this time last year or so. Jackie has also said that she has sewn pieces of glass together.

So, the idea in itself is not new - yes people have sewn all manner of pieces together over the millenia.

We all I imagine (whatever our chosen field) use our senses (things we see things, we hear and touch) to derive and develop our art. Cultural and ethnic costume and designs remain a strong underlying theme throughout my work even if I sometimes foray into other areas that capture my interest.

I suppose I'm really bothered that someone should patent "sewn glass" ... or maybe I'm confused .... what part of it are you trying to patent? Now if you have a method (and I've not seen your work in person so I have not seen your "method") that is particular and unique and invented by you - or you use some clever tool that you have devised; or you have invented a new material to sew with, then I can see that a patent is in order. But just patenting the idea of sewn glass? Somehow that just seems like the antithesis of art -...

You mentioned that you wanted to teach the method ... which is admirable - definitely. But where do the students stand when they use the method to produce their own work for sale? When I take a class I want to come away with information that I can use to further develop my own work - for my own look, and for sale. It may contain elements of all my class experiences in some way or other without being a copy of the instructors own work ... I wouldn't want to take a class that stood in a vacuum.

Now, a copyright ...

But perhaps my own distinction of what a patent is is wrong?

Sadie
Pama Designs

Post by Pama Designs »

My top ten opinions:

1. All works of art are original if made individually by hand.
2. Knockoffs are a reality of the market -- always will be.
3. Paul is right that to be copied is to be revered, and wouldn't I love to have someone say, "It looks like a PAMA original!"
4. That said, the originators of patent laws already worked through all of the objections and counter-objections launched in this thread. The laws exist to protect people precisely like Susan from knockoffs.
5. Ever notice that most of the really successful artists are white and male? I say more power to any woman who takes the business of art seriously!
6. Number 5 is testimony to the fact that the art itself is just one of many variables that make art sell.
7. The argument that you will have to defend your patent and therefore shouldn't have one is spurious: All copyrights, patents and trademarks have to be defended.
8. Business is integral to art, always has been.
9. Anyone who doesn't need to sell their art to make a living is living off of someone else who made or makes money in business. Purist artists are phonies.
10. More power to you, Susan, and if you ever need help with your business communications (my specialty), I'll be happy to assist!

Best regards,
Alice
Paul Tarlow
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Helios Kiln Glass Studio - Austin
Contact:

Post by Paul Tarlow »

Pama Designs wrote:7. The argument that you will have to defend your patent and therefore shouldn't have one is spurious: All copyrights, patents and trademarks have to be defended.
How is it spurious? Just because it is true for copywrites and trademarks doesn't it make it less true, relevant or important for patents.
Pama Designs wrote:9. Anyone who doesn't need to sell their art to make a living is living off of someone else who made or makes money in business. Purist artists are phonies.
No. I don't need my art to make a living. And I don't depend on "someone else". I, like many others on this board, have a job/career that is unrelated to the art -- other than it enables us to pursue art without having to make that art profitable.

I don't know what a "pure artist" is -- but I can think of no example where a person was acurately labeled a pure anything.

- Paul
ellen abbott
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:04 pm
Location: Houston Tx
Contact:

Post by ellen abbott »

4. That said, the originators of patent laws already worked through all of the objections and counter-objections launched in this thread. The laws exist to protect people precisely like Susan from knockoffs.
That's the purpose of copyrights, to protect artists/writers. The purpose of patents is to prevent anyone who comes up with the same or similiar idea independently from profiting from their work and ideas.
5. Ever notice that most of the really successful artists are white and male? I say more power to any woman who takes the business of art seriously!
This has more to do with our culture not taking women seriously and less to do with women not being serious about the business or art (or anything else for that matter). Patents are about control.
9. Anyone who doesn't need to sell their art to make a living is living off of someone else who made or makes money in business. Purist artists are phonies.
That's a rather arrogant viewpoint. If I had had the good fortune to be born independently wealthy or had a spouse to support me (my spouse works with me), I would still be the same artist I am today trying to get people to notice and buy my work (selling your work is validation, not just income). I don't think that would have made me a phony, I would just have a higher standard of living than I do now. And I don't think the only legitimate artists are just the ones who live off their art and their art alone (although I do fall into that catagory).

E
Barbara Muth
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC Metropolitan Area
Contact:

Post by Barbara Muth »

Pama Designs wrote:9. Anyone who doesn't need to sell their art to make a living is living off of someone else who made or makes money in business. Purist artists are phonies.
I don't make a living with my glasswork at this time - though I hope to in the future. I work a full time job. Does that make my art or my desire to remain true to my vision without having it ripped off any less important? Does the fact that my husband and I both work and that we don't need the money from glass make me any less interested in making my art profitable? I don't think so. Frankly I think it is unfair to suggest that someone who has other sources of income has any less committment or dedication to making the art work and sell.

I think quite a few of the people who are expressing discomfort or disagreement with the idea of a patent are people whose sole source of income is their art. Even the married folk with spouses who work. Let's be honest here, no one can count on a spouse's income in this day and age. Divorce and layoffs are all too common.

Barbara
Barbara
Check out the glass manufacturer's recommended firing schedules...
LATEST GLASS
Bob
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:01 pm
Location: Salt Spring Island, British Columbia
Contact:

Post by Bob »

Hi Susan,

I have read this thread through several times. reminds me of the discussion in April about whether a student taking a class in a specialized technique is morally allowed to teach that material to others. Oops, I didn't mean to open that lively discussion again.

I agree with many comments in this thread that imply the patenting effort is more trouble and expense than it is worth from a pure business sense. I would guess that getting patent attorneys to chase and sue starving artists isn't going to get you much return on your investment. You would do much better by teaching the technique.

When do you teach a "secret"? I would say when you are well known for the technique, and have gained the recognition that "knock-offs" would be recognized as copies of Susan Taylor Glasgow. Frankly Susan, I would say that you are there. Your work is included in NGR, you have won presigious awards, your work is carried in major galleries. That odor in your studio is not burning fibre paper but the sweet smell of well-deserved success.

I have seen your work in galleries, in print and on-line. The sewing technique is an important part of the piece, no doubt about it, but what really sets your work apart is your "voice". No one will ever copy that.

Even if you did teach it, I would hazard a guess that it is not easy or simple. Students would take a long time getting to your level of expertise. Many of the comments in this thread have been about people taking information from one class, playing/working with it and coming up with new ideas and treatments. That to me is the sign of an artistic soul.

My thoughts,

Cheers,

Bob
gone

Post by gone »

By Jan Hopkins, one of my favorite basket makers! She sews a lot of natural materials, including citrus peels. Her work smells wonderful too.

Image
Pama Designs

Post by Pama Designs »

Barbara Muth wrote: I work a full time job. Does that make my art or my desire to remain true to my vision without having it ripped off any less important? Barbara
Hi Barbara. :D Not at all -- By phonies I'm referring only to those who insist business somehow pollutes art. I was just trying to say few can afford that purist point of view, which I believe is inherently flawed because there is no art without business. We have to make a living doing other things for people who pay us with money made through business of some sort. I was an educational grants specialist before my position was axed due to school budget woes. My salary had been supported by taxes, tax revenue that is now low due to the slow-down of business in New York State and nationwide and from overspending on foreign wars. Well, I studied sociology before I began glass art work and I probably think too much about the interconnectedness of things such as business and art. Please don't anyone take offense!
Pama Designs

Post by Pama Designs »

ellen abbott wrote:
This has more to do with our culture not taking women seriously and less to do with women not being serious about the business or art (or anything else for that matter).

E
Hmmm...wish I knew the answer to this one...nature, nurture, culture, economy, they probably all enter into the mix. Guess I'd start with the question, Why does our culture not take women artists as seriously? And then I'd ask, what can we do as women and men do to correct the problem?
Sara
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: Magdalena, New Mexico, USA

Post by Sara »

Well said Ellen,

I read this message and went down to the studio to work and had a difficult time not leaving my project to come up and answer this. Harumph.
ellen abbott wrote:
4. That said, the originators of patent laws already worked through all of the objections and counter-objections launched in this thread. The laws exist to protect people precisely like Susan from knockoffs.

That's the purpose of copyrights, to protect artists/writers. The purpose of patents is to prevent anyone who comes up with the same or similiar idea independently from profiting from their work and ideas.
I believe Susan got off track here. Here's a snip of her message . . .
Susan Taylor Glasgow wrote:By the way, my patent is on the process I use to get all those holes in the glass so close together--close enough to look like it's sewing on fabric.
A patent isn't needed for this unless one were to want to sell the technique or fixturing. If one is using it solely for their own work then the patent is truly unnecessary unless one were to persue each and every drilled piece to find out if the exact technique was used. convoluted does this make sense?
5. Ever notice that most of the really successful artists are white and male? I say more power to any woman who takes the business of art seriously!

This has more to do with our culture not taking women seriously and less to do with women not being serious about the business or art (or anything else for that matter). Patents are about control.
Aiiyiiyiiyii. What I notice is that I am successful at my business and my sole support. I personally know many women who are successful artists. Using the white/male card helps to perpetuate this long outdated view of our society. . . politics excepted.
9. Anyone who doesn't need to sell their art to make a living is living off of someone else who made or makes money in business. Purist artists are phonies.

That's a rather arrogant viewpoint. If I had had the good fortune to be born independently wealthy or had a spouse to support me (my spouse works with me), I would still be the same artist I am today trying to get people to notice and buy my work (selling your work is validation, not just income). I don't think that would have made me a phony, I would just have a higher standard of living than I do now. And I don't think the only legitimate artists are just the ones who live off their art and their art alone (although I do fall into that catagory).
This viewpoint makes me very sad. Phonie? Where did THAT come from? Who cares if someone is making a living a art or not, except for curiosity. Ease doesn't necessarily mean an easy path. Whether I make money from my craft or not I'm creating for the love of creating, the process and personal joy. The fact that I have been fortunate to begin this business with a very small investment and grow it into something that supports both myself and my husband is moot, I'd be melting glass regardless.

Sara
Paul Tarlow
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 4:06 pm
Location: Helios Kiln Glass Studio - Austin
Contact:

Post by Paul Tarlow »

Pama Designs wrote:...I believe is inherently flawed because there is no art without business.
If you mean that everyone needs to eat, well then I guess there isn't anything without business. That seems obvious -- not sure I understand the point.

- Paul
Post Reply