Ouch! Does smart business=evil artist?

[Jackie Beckman]

I . . . because there is no art without business.


I totally disagree with this. If I were locked away forever in a tower someplace with a kiln, glass, etc. and knowing that I would never get out of there and nobody would ever see my work except me, and no chance of anyone ever buying it, ever - I'd still be making it.

[Pama Designs]

Who cares if someone is making a living a art or not, except for curiosity. Sara

Sara,
Perhaps "phony" was too strong a word to use. Sorry about that. I'm referring to people who object to polluting art with business -- because pure art in that sense is fictitious. did not mean to suggest that it's better to make a living from art or not making a living from it. Alice

[Avery Anderson]

I'm coming in on this topic late so Brock, Jackie, Sara, Ellen, et al have said most of what I feel about this subject. While I understand wanting to protect hard earned "technique", I think design is more important than technique and that can be protected with a copyright. Having a signature style that is easily reconizable is the best protection you can have. I began testing and using micas over 15 years ago, before hardly anyone knew what to do with them on glass. Now many artists are using micas in their work but it is their work and vision, and totally unlike mine. It is simply a matierial and a technique. Bottom line is it's doubtful anyone could replicate your work, mine, or anyone else's because it comes from the soul. If they did try they would ultimately fail due to peer pressure and the inability to capture the essence of our pieces. Good luck to you Susan, your work is wonderful.

Avery

[Cynthia]

...early on in my R&D I decided I wanted to protect my technique/style so I could finally make a living in art, be special , and maybe even make up for several lost years of "developing as an artist"... At a recent workshop where I was attending as a student, I got "poop" from not only the other students, but from the instructor as well for not wanting to "share" my technique!

Hmmm. I don't know why anyone would be obligated to share his or her knowledge with anyone else, whether proprietary or not. If you don't want to expose your technique, then don't. It seems to me that this is a non-issue.

They argued that it was un-artist-like and you can't keep other artists from figuring it out using it anyway. My argument is that this is my business! And I'll lovingly share a lot of info, but lay off my signature style. It's a sad art climate where not even the Masters like Lino and Chihuly can keep knock-offs of their work out of every mid-range gallery in the nation! Am I alone here? Or have I just made myself out to be the Black Sheep?

Again an Hmmmm? What exactly is artist-like? Throughout this thread I've read as folks have commented on whether sewing glass was patentable (is that even a word?). I kept on thinking that you hadn't yet stated what it was that you were attempting to get a patent on (initially anyway). Regardless of what process or aspect of your work it is that you are trying to patent, and what your reasons for doing this are, seem moot. Are you a bad person for wanting to protect your work? No. And how you go about doing just that is your affair.


The other side of this coin is that I am of similar thinking as many others who have responded to your post in respect to what makes your work unique and distinctively yours. I have learned many techniques from educators, and those techniques can be found in publications that were around long before these teachers were teaching. These techniques are as old as glass making itself yet in each individual’s hands, they gain a new flavor, a new persona and inherit the voice of the person manipulating the medium. Your voice is yours alone though and can never be replicated.

If I start piercing my glass to make puckered holes that make it appear that the glass is behaving as if it were a soft and malleable material responding to the thread that was pulled, chances are, even though the aesthetic is similar and the techniques used may be the same, my work will be making a different impact and reaching a different audience than yours does. My statement will be different as well. Here's a tangible example of what I mean. There was that guy at the Smithsonian show that had carved and painted wood to look like fabric. Remember the leather jacket and quilt? He had every one fooled until they touched the work. He nailed it right down to the texture, tension and stitching in these pieces. A 3-D trompe l'oeil. You manipulate glass to seem as if it was behaving as fabric...Yet the these works have a different impact and make different statements. His work spoke of his skills with wood and paint. Your work is politic, both personal and public as well as being a technical marvel. I'm just not sure that you can patent what your biggest achievement is...and I'm pretty certain your success isn't just your technique.

I have been painting again. En plein air, standing side by side with a companion whose palette has the same paints on it, whose canvas is identical to mine, using the same materials, seeing the same scene, but with different eyes. You would never know that we worked together on the same day in the same spot other than the location was the same. We've employed differing as well as similar techniques, yet the end result is that we are different individuals with different voices.

Your work is so strong and so solid conceptually and technically that it stands on it's own. I don't have any qualms with your desire to protect your investment, but am wondering if it will give you what you hope to gain from doing so.

Don't tell anyone or me how you make that glass do what you make it do. That's not required of you to be a good person or a good artist. But what will your efforts to protect that process do for you and the progress of your work and career? Only you can know that, and if you feel you are on the right track, stay the course. If you don't, there's nothing that says you can't change direction. Don't worry about what others think. Heck, toss this opinion on the fire to smolder if you chose as it's only my views and are only valid in my universe.

Good luck, and by the by, I know you are a fine and good-hearted individual for all that's worth.

[Pama Designs]

...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

I'm going to have to admit that you're right, this point is way too general to have been of much use. It just occurred to me as I read the debates that there's no clear line between art and business. No genius in that discovery. I'd better get back to trying to make a living and fusing some glass!

[ellen abbott]

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?

Well, considering that the 'Church' was debating whether or not we even had souls a mere 500 years ago, I'd say we've made progress. But it's not just women artists...it's women's achievement. What can we do about it? Persevere! Do not go quietly. Refuse to accept less than equal treatment. And write the history books. Here's a little tidbit...who invented the cotton gin? Everybody knows that, right? Eli Whitney. Wrong.

'Catherine Greene, 1731-ca. 1794; United States. Greene invented a method for seperating cotton from it's seed. She entrusted the fabrication of the machine she designed to her boarder, Eli Whitney, who nearly abandoned the project several times, but Greene continued to support and encourage him. By law, women were not able to apply for patents, so Whitney received credit for the invention of the cotton gin.' ... from 'The Dinner Party, a symbol of our heritage' by Judy Chicago, page 168.

Even when we do achieve we don't always get credit for it.

I know this is totally OT so I tried to keep it short.

E

PS My 'patents are about control' statement was misplaced. It was supposed to be up there after quote 4.

[Bert Weiss]

I find this discussion pretty bizarre. First of all I think Susan has wasted time and money worrying about a patent. Drug companies get a patent and can sue a company making a knockoff drug and making millions on it. knock off glass artists are making tens of dollars, not much you can do about that. Nobody is likely to liscense Susan's glass sewing patent and have them made in China by the thousands so that Susan can take her innovation to the bank. So the only point is for Susan to be able to market her work as being patented or patent pending. I wasn't exactly overhearing art collectors marveling about the fact that the work they are about to purchase is patented by an artist.

The more interesting question to me is: Do you teach a technique? My wife asks me; why teach what you do and create competition for yourself? My answer is in 2 parts and simple. First, the more people who see kiln carved architectural glass and glass sinks, the more people there will be who are thinking that they want some for themselves. My work will speak for itself and I'll get more business. The second is maybe well illustrated with raku pottery. Potters may use the same clay body, and the same glaze slips and fire to the same temp and quench their work in the same trash can. However every practicioner of these techniques makes unique and recognizable works. The artist's soul finds it's way in to the work and attracts or repels buyers. This effect can not be taught, it can only be learned.

I respect Bob's approach of teaching a basic technique but not teaching his specific trademark look. Letting people figure it out for themselves will lead to the potential for different and maybe better looking effects, which, for Bob, would be a hurrah. And if the would be copiers make a less compelling effect, Bob's work will continue to sell well.

The most important thing we can teach is the zeal to pursue one's vision until that vision sings loud and clear.

[Jackie Beckman]

. . . Because I think this way, his work reminds me of quilts.

Wow - I can't believe you said this - I've always thought that too. Infact, I've seriously considered making one based on his work using velvets and dupioni silks and all sorts of lucious fabrics in hundereds of colors with black thread where he uses powder. Funny - this is perfect example of what Sara was talking about earlier in this thread - simuitaneous inspiration

Jackie

[Diane Trepanier]

Well this will be my first post on this board. Finally got the sign up to work.

Susan, The best time a patent will work for you is when it is in the pending stage. All the paperwork you have to file is only seen by the patent office and lawyers. Once a patent is granted, all paperwork and drawings are published and everyone who would interested in copying, etc. will be able to see exactly what technique, process or whatever it is that is patented. And your patent covers only that which you filed.

If someone wanted to, they could change your process, technique, or whatever slightly, (I believe it only has to be 10%, could be wrong on the %.) And then they could file for a patent and go through everything you are.

Your best bet is while you are in the "pending" stage, get the most publicity you can, sell what you can, get name recognition. When you are ready, teach it or write a book or article on it. If someone isn't happy that you won't share the whatever, tough! Just don't wait too long on the teaching or writing, because somebody will figure it out sooner or later and then teach it themselves.

And if you have your patent by that time then there is the expense of legal stuff. And by the time you find out someone else is teaching it, there will be others that know and then they share with someone else, etc. And believe it or not, not every fuser reads this board or is in touch with the glass world, so self policing will not always work.

You might just want to make what you can with the "whatever" and let your pending stage lapse. The money that you would be spending on the rest of the patent process could be used to further promote yourself or support your start in teaching or writing about "Whatever".

I'll stop now. Didn't mean to get so windy about this! I have been where you are now and have had the same feelings, etc. Get your name out there in connection with "whatever" now! Then it will be obvious that anyone who copies, is copying.

Now I really will shut up! Good Luck!

[Susan Taylor Glasgow]

Hi! I'm back from the studio, ready to theorize somemore! Wow! What a thread! This is great! I didn't even think I'd get much of a response. A quick note to Tony--I requested that my application not be published. Sadie--I don't know if you read my last posting to Kitty--I have filed for a patent on the technique I use to get the hundreds of little holes along the edges of the glass. There is actually another patent already issued that does a similar thing using a completely different method intended for industrial use. If anything, that's where my patent will fail. Other ways folks are using to get their holes in their artwork/products is already "fair use". What I'm patenting is my own technique. I do not plan to teach it until I am ready to let it be used/sold by other artists. You're right in that's the whole idea of teaching. You know, all this dialog makes me think that a patent would be fun to have, just for this great dialog and the exercise in filing (and it is exercise!), but I'm not looking forward to the gritty side of it at all. Especially since some of you have noted that it is already my own representative style. I really do live in a vaccuum here in Missouri, so it's nice to know folks are seeing/ remembering my work. Hey Cynthia! It was nice to hear your "voice"! I'm glad I made a good first impression when we met in DC. Those of you meeting me for the first time here are seeing my serious, business side!

[Susan Taylor Glasgow]

Okay, okay. One last quick note and I'm getting back to the kiln! Hey Diane, I've been thinking the same thing on a gut level. I've really pushed hard and spent a lot of dough on advertising and driving across country to shows that I thought I should be at. I did have the foresight to request my application not be published. That should buy me extra time. Thanks for the advice about teaching...I overlooked the fact that it might be taught my someone other than moi. That would be a bit of a bummer! Alice...if you couldn't tell already, I was in business also in my previous life. I owned a sewing shop for 12 years with 8 employees. My business experience has been a big help working in the art market, but by the sounds of it may be getting in the way of my art. Well, at least all those years of sewing didn't go to waste! I definitely think that art is the hardest business to be in, mostly because a lot of artists feel that business should have nothing to do with it. Els--Thanks for that great pic of Jan Hopkins work. I really like it too, naturally, but her sewn orange peel head kind-of scares me! Well, back to the mines....

[dee]

Wow. Recent conversations with other artists about my patent pending process has made me question my worth as a good human being/nice artist! I'm secretly hoping for moral support here, but really, truly want honest feedback. I love creating work, but I can only continue to create if I sell it. No fancy business degree needed there. So early on in my R&D I decided I wanted to protect my technique/style so I could finally make a living in art, be special , and maybe even make up for several lost years of "developing as an artist". Granted, I'm self-taught in both business and art, so I do live in my own little world, so set me right if I'm off base here....At a recent workshop where I was attending as a student, I got "poop" from not only the other students, but from the instructor as well for not wanting to "share" my technique! They argued that it was un-artist-like and you can't keep other artists from figuring it out using it anyway. My arguement is that this is my business! And I'll lovingly share alot of info, but lay off my signature style. It's a sad art climate where not even the Masters like Lino and Chihuly can keep knock-offs of their work out of every mid-range gallery in the nation! Am I alone here? Or have I just made myself out to be the Black Sheep?

hi susan, i developed a look that is now my signature look and my husband was quite insistent that i should copyright it to protect my work, however, when talking with another glass artist who has a certain level of familiarity with the the copyright process, it was pointed out to me that the copyright process would be applicable and then someone only need copy me with a 10% change to avoid copyright infringement and to enforce the copyright it would be very time consuming - i can only imagine patent infringement policing could potentially be draining and timeconsuming....

as for sharing HOW one does one's signature work - ain't nobody's business but yours and those people who got pissy about you not sharing it were out of line! i don't share specifics about how i arrive at my inner glow and underwater looks either - i have had some very specific questions about it that i won't answer - now general fusing info i'm more than happy to share - and while those poopy people were correct that you can't prevent them from figuring it out, let those other artists spend their own time doing the r&d you did to figure out your technique and refine it

so maybe i should trademark my Inner Glow and Underwater names but as for the rest of it, i'm gonna spend my time staying ahead of the competition
D

[Pama Designs]

Alice...if you couldn't tell already, I was in business also in my previous life. I owned a sewing shop for 12 years with 8 employees. My business experience has been a big help working in the art market

Susan, It would be great to mine some of your knowledge in this area. Do you have a Top Ten Tips for success? My ears/eyes are open! Since it's off this particular topic, would you be willing to start a new thread with your advice and all interested parties can participate from there?

Alice

[Pama Designs]

Greene invented a method for seperating cotton from it's seed. She entrusted the fabrication of the machine she designed to her boarder, Eli Whitney, who nearly abandoned the project several times, but Greene continued to support and encourage him.

Ellen, I love this. Betsy Ross got the flag job through a family connection, I believe an uncle, suggesting personal networks are also important. My personal mentors (i.e. opportunity makers) in the writing field have been men. Perhaps that's one way our fellow male artists can help out. I'd love to start another thread about how we can succeed as women in the art business. Are you game? (I've asked Susan for her best business tips, not just for women but in general, in a separate note on this thread, since we're a bit off topic here now)

Alice

[Paul Housberg]

There are patents and there are business secrets. Once something is patented it becomes public. The beauty of the patent system is that it offers protection for the patent owner for a time, but ultimately becomes available for others to use and build upon. On the other hand, a business secret remains a secret until it's divulged or someone figures it out.

Do you think the formula for Coke is patented? Hardly, but it's one of the best protected secrets of all time!

[Phil Hoppes]

I've read all of this thread with interest. Most pros and cons have already been said. In the end, my 2 cents, is it is all about money. By that I mean, you paid a substantial amount of money ($5000 to $8000 dollars I would guess) to a patent attorney to get your patent (all be it in the filing stage). I would HOPE that your attorney advised you ahead of time just what it will take you to get your patent, keep your patent active (you will get to spend more money with your lawyer every 3 to 5 years) and defend your patent. Over it's lifetime (17 years) if you don't litigate, you will probably spend $15,000 to $20,000 on your patent. If you litigate, you will not get into a court room for probably less than $15,000 to $20,000. Your patent (I assume) is only good in the US. Now if you want to keep away the Taiwan knock off's you will probably need to spend another $25,000/country. If you licence you will spend more money on lawyers with no guarantee of a return. On a licence you will make money when your licencee makes money. If you litigate you will only get money assuming the person you litigate HAS money. Nobody sues a pauper. This is why in high tech, all of the big boys wait until the little guys actually start to make money before they sue them (assuming they are not a direct threat to their own business). They sit back and wait and then their legal beagles come in and drop a 10' stack of patents on the little's companies CEO's desk and say you are violating all of these patents. Now you can litigate every one or our current rate is $50,000/inch but if you act right now we will cut that rate to $25,000 and throw in a set of Ginsu knives.

I'm trying to paint a picture for you here. The money is flowing in one direction and one direction only--------->TO THE LAWYERS. Am I a cynic? You bet!!!! I've seen this just way too many times.

There is another reason for getting a patent and that is for the self gratification of knowing you got one. If that was your major reason, great. It is unfortunately diminished somewhat however, I believe, when the US Patent office issues patents for swining sideways and "One Click" shopping a-la Amazon. IMHO I believe the patent system and the patent office has turned into a bit of a joke.

I do wish you well. I don't think that patents belong in art. I've taken classes from a number of the renouned people on this board. I have copied their techniques and added my own personality to them. I'd never copy their work. Couldn't do it for one, wouldn't want to do it for two.

Phil

[Susan Taylor Glasgow]

Hi Phil, Don't laugh, but I filed for my own patent. So far I've paid $375+time. What it's gotten me so far is a nice 5 page article in Glass Craftsman mag, lots of publicity and interest, and a lively dialog. My "tag" line at shows is a big sign that reads "Award Winning, Patent Pending, Sewn Glass". You can imagine the interest it receives. I mentioned to Jackie and Kitty earlier that maybe my pending patent has already served it's purpose. I did request that it NOT be published, so it's not too late to make it a trade secret instead.....

[Phil Hoppes]

Susan,

Good for you! Obviously I don't carry lawyers, at least ones that prey upon people for money, in much regard. Trade secret is the way to go.

Phil

[PDXBarbara]

First, the more people who see kiln carved architectural glass and glass sinks, the more people there will be who are thinking that they want some for themselves. My work will speak for itself and I'll get more business.
--snip--
I respect Bob's approach of teaching a basic technique but not teaching his specific trademark look. Letting people figure it out for themselves will lead to the potential for different and maybe better looking effects, which, for Bob, would be a hurrah. And if the would be copiers make a less compelling effect, Bob's work will continue to sell well.

The most important thing we can teach is the zeal to pursue one's vision until that vision sings loud and clear.

Exactly what Bert said.
And, per the Chihuly mentions, my understanding is that throughout his career Chihuly's philosophy has been: the more people imitate his work, the better it is for him. More art consumers become familiar with him, and he can just keep raising the prices & selling more & more. Remember that it's the name Chihuly that one remembers.... not the name of the imitator. I listened to Phil Teefy describe Chihuly's marketing plans in Teefy's pre-HotGlassHorizons class during year 1 of my glass addiction (2001). Pretty interesting, and kind of counter-intuitive at times. But, whatever one feels about Chihuly's work.... ya gotta admit that -- as a marketer--he's up there with the Master Mistress o' Popular Marketing.... Madonna.
BB

[Susan Taylor Glasgow]

Hi Barbara, I agree that Chihuly is a genius in more ways than glass. Thanks for that insight. It makes me alot less annoyed at his copycats to think he not only doesn't care--he had hoped for it. It is very counter-intuitive. But I'm an old territorial dog, if you hadn't noticed already!