Technique Ownership - A Question of Ethics

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Thu Apr 17, 2003 11:16 pm

When I say that "it's all been done before", take a good look at the images of glasswork in the glass history books. Try to figure out the techniques used in those "tech-less" time periods - how those earlier artists achieved their magnificent pieces of glasswork. If you can figure out their techniques, then you'll realize that most of what we do today has been done before ----- and with none of the array of modern gadgets we all use to cook and manipulate glass.

I still don't understand how this makes sense. It seems to be the conventional wisdom but I haven't heard any reasoned argument for it. At what point in history was it all done? Was there an exact date? I think only if you take a sort of macro approach to the definition, can you make the argument. So that, if a technique stemmed from an existing one (and of course every idea is just part of a progression) or the work that results can be put under a general heading of say, "kiln cast" or "pattern bar", then that means it already exists. I don't agree. I think there are many completely unique 'small' innovations in technique that happen in studios everyday. More rarely a new form emerges that leads to completely new work. But it certainly does happen. Really I think what is most bothersome to me about this idea that everything has been done, is the assumption behind it; that somehow the *possibilities with glass technique are finite*. No way man!

Cynthia · Post by **Cynthia** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 12:59 am

I still don't understand how this makes sense. It seems to be the conventional wisdom but I haven't heard any reasoned argument for it. At what point in history was it all done? Was there an exact date?

1137 B.C.E.

I think only if you take a sort of macro approach to the definition, can you make the argument. So that, if a technique stemmed from an existing one (and ofReally I think what is most bothersome to me about this idea that everything has been done, is the assumption behind it; that somehow the *possibilities with glass technique are finite*. No way man!

I think we're getting hung up on semantics...There are infinite possibilities for you to express yourself artistically regardless of wether your view is that it has all been done already or not. We're talking techniques, not artistic ability, creativity and innovation...simply that we are building upon an already established foundation. Tony's synopsis feels right to me. Your world view is just as valid as mine or anyone elses. It isn't limiting either way. The possibilities are endless.

Tony said:

The fact that the methods that we use to create art are prehistoric or modern is irrelevant... It is the end result... what we are doing with those methods that makes a difference. It is the style, that we add to our designs that make them truly unique.

Lynne Chappell · Post by **Lynne Chappell** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:37 am

I should visit the board more often. This thread took a long time to read.

About teacher qualifications: I don't think you have to have x number of years of experience. You do need to know enough to benefit your students. That will depend on the students' level. And being a good teacher is more than knowing your craft.

And if you teach it, then you have given permission (and been paid for it probably) to use that knowledge any way they want.

I do understand Geri's problem with the copycats. I teach fusing and lampworking because I love it and don't make my living from it. I teach stained glass even though I do make a living from it because what I teach is information available everywhere anyway. I don't teach sandblasting because I do well with sandblasting commissions and there isn't much information out there. Why produce more competition for a lucrative field? And I have been known to hide some projects when I know certain people are going to visit my studio, and been guilty of giving out disinformation to competitors who are ballsy enough to directly ask how I achieved a certain look (we're mostly talking about the sandblasting here).

There certainly is a difference in my attitude when I'm talking about my "art" (as in what I do because I love it) and my "business" (what I do for profit, and might not do if I wasn't making a profit).

Nickie Jordan · Post by **Nickie Jordan** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 2:25 am

It's been done before....
Who is that guy that designs snowflakes, that no two are alike ?
If I was a pessimist, I'd say that in all these thousands of years of blizzards, there has HAD to be two alike, but, no one 'human' has been around long enough with nothing better to do but to check them all.
The designs in nature are a constant, however. When you think about it, it's highly unlikely that any one of us could ever come up with any real original designs, especially when they are all over the planet - in our back yards, etc ...

Tony Smith · Post by **Tony Smith** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 2:48 am

Nickie Jordan wrote:It's been done before....
The designs in nature are a constant, however. When you think about it, it's highly unlikely that any one of us could ever come up with any real original designs, especially when they are all over the planet - in our back yards, etc ...

I don't know, I've come up with some pretty ugly designs that I'm sure nature wouldn't have anything to do with.

Tony

Tim Lewis · Post by **Tim Lewis** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 8:54 am

Here is an artilcle about a glass maker who uses intentional knock offs to create something new and interesting. He is the only glass maker to be included in the Whitney Biennial so he has serious "art cred."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/arts/ ... b426fc6024[/url]

Bert Weiss · Post by **Bert Weiss** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 9:38 am

Tim Lewis wrote:Here is an artilcle about a glass maker who uses intentional knock offs to create something new and interesting. He is the only glass maker to be included in the Whitney Biennial so he has serious "art cred."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/arts/ ... b426fc6024[/url]

One big difference is that Josiah is copying with artspeak. Chihuly knock offs are copying with $$ in their minds.

I met Josiah at Pilchuck when he was a student at RISD. He has a lot going for him, a solid educated background and great technical training with several of the greatest blowers working today. I love the fact that he took one of the tritest techniques, mirrored glass balls like in the garden sculptures, and made beautiful, conceptual art with it. Go dude

Most things have been done before. The trick is having the good taste of what to emulate.

Gale aka artistefem · Post by **Gale aka artistefem** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 9:49 am

the assumption behind it; that somehow the *possibilities with glass technique are finite*. No way man!

Quite the opposite David - nothing is finite! Space, time x's continuum. Let's even throw the "evolution" word into the mix.

There has always been and always will be change, which is definitely not finite! The discovery of "something presently unknown", the growth and flowering of "this something" and the decline of the same. This evolutionary fact applies to everything including the field of glasswork.

My point in making the statement "it has all been done before" is that there are laws of physics governing everything we touch and do and as any of us know who work with glass - it especially has it's own set of work rules. We can only tag along, hoping to eventually understand and master the medium. We can however tweak and refine and combine glasses and techniques to present pieces that appear "new" to our eyes. The technology we employ today certainly supports these changes in glass "appearance", but we cannot transmute the basic laws of glass physics which has been with us as long as man has walked the earth.

I stand by my statement, that "it's all been done before" based on the physical "basic" structure of glassworking, plus.........

David, I am humbly not so arrogant to think that our present civilization has the definitive handle on glass and glassworking technique.

--------- or even a definitive handle on much else. Hell.....we can't even stop warring.

Call me a romantic, call me a dreamer, call me a universal-ist (this is an integral part of what makes me an artist) .........are we really the first sentients to take glass into space?

Hummmmmmm - me thinks not on all counts.

Well here "we" are - "all flipped out"

and going to the studio to "discover" more about glassworking.

Sorry Tony........this is way OT-OT-OT Off Topic of your original question. I'm done now

Lani McGregor · Post by **Lani McGregor** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 10:09 am

Tim Lewis wrote:Here is an artilcle about a glass maker who uses intentional knock offs to create something new and interesting. He is the only glass maker to be included in the Whitney Biennial so he has serious "art cred."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/arts/ ... b426fc6024[/url]

I love this guy. I don't know if I've ever met anyone with the depth of knowledge that Josiah has for the history of our medium - who uses that knowledge to keep making it new ... THIS guy does visually what we're all debating here ... thanks for sharing the article! Imagine: the NY Times using "braininess" to talk about glass... sigh...

(But JM isn't the only glassmaker to get into the Whitney Biennial: don't forget Judith Schaechter)

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 12:30 pm

I keep on thinking of a comparison between glass and a guitar. Anybody that buys a guitar gets the exact same thing... six stings attached to a resonating box. We all have access to the same techniques. From the same starting point we end up with hack guitarists (me!), accomplished guitarists, and people like Mark Knopfler who has a style so unique and expressive it bread a whole new style to playing.

With glass we all have the same ingredients and "a family of techniques". We all do different things with glass. Some people do knock-offs and some create a style that deeply moves the viewer . What Klaus Maoje does with colour is incredible. I only wish I could imitate it.

Cheers,

Bob

Ruth Gowell · Post by **Ruth Gowell** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 12:36 pm

What a fascinating discussion. I have spent 20 + years doing shows and showing fiber art of a very specific technique and material, and during this time I've probably explained my technique thousands of times to people (often weavers) who asked how it was done. I'm pretty specific as I explain, but I doubt that anyone has ever done what I do. Now I don't specifically teach classes (mostly because the complexity of loom required makes it awfully difficult, but also because I didn't want to teach every step to someone.) I'm very much in agreement with the attitude that if you don't want a technique used, you don't teach it. But you also do not copy another's work. These are 2 distinct issues. You learn a technique - you make it your own - then it is different. When pushed by people to declare my weaving technique unique I do tend to defer to the "it's all been done before" line - although I'm not sure I really mean it specifically but wish to convey the vast knowledge of weavers through history. Just a comment on doing shows (in response to Geri's comments) I love to explain what I do - but I am at a show to sell - that is my first priority - and I find that most people understand and let me take care of sales.
My glass class experience is limited - a 2 day workshop at Glen Echo got me started - I got a kiln and started playing. I feel like it took about 2 years to have my 'look' although hopefully it is always evolving and changing. As with my weavings, I also see several directions that I am following - the different techniques lead to separate bodies of work. In a totally bizarre twist of fate I was juried into the Smithsonian Show this year - nothing like a little pressure. So my thanks for all I have learned from this board - and my good fortune to live in the D.C. area where glass is happening!

Delores Taylor · Post by **Delores Taylor** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:21 pm

[quote="Tony Smith"]I would like to initiate a discussion about Technique Ownership. I don't want it to be a controversial topic, but one that is thought provoking and will establish some commonly-agreed-to guidelines for the rest of us to use in the future.

Tony,

This is a good thread and there will be many opinions. I like to learn techniques but look for a different way to use the knowledge and avoid me too teaching. In this regard I then take the knowledge, adapting it and through my own personal experience teach from there. Education is supposed to be liberating and provide you with wings to experiment and a foundation of technique not a dictate as to the "proper road". Safety being the caveat of course.

I'll use pate de verre as example. I have learned from multiple teachers and many techniques. I do not hand my students another teachers notes. I create my own lesson plans, projects and have a handout that is based on my personal experience, numerous firing experiences and my education. When I give students a hand out, my notes have a copyright at the bottom. This doesn't mean I don't think people will share what they learn it's to say they must create their own advise to others based on their education/experience not hand out my notes to short circuit their own experience.

I have teachers take my class with the intent of teaching others. I don't consider them unethical in the least they are taking my information, adding their experience and will do something totally different, generating their own notes/lesson plans, style... heck, I might just want to take from them, we all learn from one another at many different levels. Sometimes students ask just that right question which takes me down a track of exploration and changes how I work/feel. I encourage the mad scientists in my classes they turn things on its ear and look at life with a different set of glasses.

The key is take the information, have enough experience to know what works or doesn't work for you, put your own personal technique with it to provide something that's truly your own, provide others with your experience and give students your own documentation not someone else's.

Also Bob's comment is incredibly important which is what I was doing a year ago is radically different from now, sometimes last month. I'm constantly experimenting and pushing the envelop trying new things. That's my form of entertainment and exploring my medium. There are many out there of the same mind set that's why it's such an exciting time to see the myriad of off shots that morph and develop into such wonderful applications.

How an artist uses the information is what's important and the test of integrity. I've given my notes to other teachers outside of a class knowing they would read the information and experiment. I've had teachers be generous with me and I didn't take their class but I'm respectful not to copy and distribute their notes to my students. Teachers understand that once you really get into something no two people will approach it the same.

If this wasn't a solid fact of life there wouldn't be so many books on the same subject that approached the result differently.

I try to sit down with each student at the beginning of the class to see what they want to design/accomplish. I have even made up new things on the spot just to accommodate that need. I can't think of all the different morphs a medium can take but when a student wants to accomplish a certain thing I try to think up as many different ways to get reach thier goal. These have been my most interesting students. One shy student came alive after a session and began playing with the possibilities in all of the classes she took. She ended up doing the project in electroplated enamel rather than glass. Proudly she showed up to see what the seed and morphed into. The project rocked and gave her permission to experiment and think cross boundaries where she's taken off like a rocket ever since both in glass and metal. Really had nothing to do with me other than the fact I gave her permission to play, experiment and not worry if it'd been done or tried before. The worst that could have happened is she may not have liked the result, plus she returns to learn new things from me in other classes. I can't wait to see how she applies the knowledge next.

When students look for a mirror give them a candle for their own light. then they have no motive to copy or distribute your notes, rather they distribute your enthusasium and love of the art. I never liked the many me professors I had at university. Empower not impound is my 2 cents for those still left awake after this long comment.

gone · Post by **gone** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:25 pm

[quote="Gale aka artistefem"]

Well here "we" are - "all flipped out"

and going to the studio to "discover" more about glassworking. [quote]

It's so much more exciting to experiment and believe you're doing something "nobody has done before" than to practice a technique you've learned in a class. I sawed up a pattern bar this morning and I feel like I could jump out of my skin with excitement.

In 20 years at my old job, not once did I feel like this!

Els

Carol · Post by **Carol** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 2:00 pm

[quote="Bob"]I keep on thinking of a comparison between glass and a guitar. Anybody that buys a guitar gets the exact same thing... six stings attached to a resonating box.

Hmm, Bob anybody who buys a guitar does NOT get the exact same thing...you can buy a $200 mass produced guitar or you can pay tens of thousands for one handcrafted by a master luthier or for a vintage Gibson. The difference in tonal quality is tremendous.

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 2:59 pm

It's so much more exciting to experiment and believe you're doing something "nobody has done before" than to practice a technique you've learned in a class.

I sure feel that way. I've never taken a glass class although I have worked with the rich and famous. I'm out here in the boonies just following where my experiments take me. I rarely even look at other art glass. Luckily we've had enough success we can make a decent living at it. Hey I know I'm getting tedious with this, but I maintain that if you say everything has been done (with process, technique), logically that statement MUST be built on the premise that the possibilities are finite. Look at glass. Its not like anything else that exists (I know I'm preaching to the converted) you can work it cold warm hot, it can have a virtually infinate range of colors, why the possibilities for just the composition of glass are infinate. Recall the "space glass" article. IMHO There is no physical law that makes the possibilities for technique finite. And if there were, we certainly wouldn't have depleted the possibilities in 5,000 years of civilization. It reminds me of an I.Q. test we all took as kids. The main question as I recall was in 60 seconds "name all the things you can do with a box". I believed then as I do now that the possibilities are infinate.

Hugo Gavarini · Post by **Hugo Gavarini** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 3:06 pm

Is it that important to tell whether a particular technique or style was done in the past?. I believe that a particular person is really new, despite the fact that he/she has parents and education he/she is still unique.

Renovation, is'n it the Easter spirit?. A new soul out of an old and tired one. Why not a new art out of tradition?. I think that renovation is one of the mankind blessings.

Examples?. Painting evolution, material science, and why not compatible glasses?

David Williams · Post by **David Williams** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 5:17 pm

To me, the relevance stems from the original question of whether it is ethical to use or teach proprietary techniques developed by others. Because, if you say everything has been done, you are also saying its perfectly ethical to use anybodys hard-won technique, since it doesn't belong to anyone in particular--anything and everything has already been done and is part of the'public domain'. This is the typical argument by people accused of pirating work, and I can think of a half dozen times I've heard it in real life situations. Again I have to say I strongly disagree. The techniques people deveop in glass studios can be lucrative, but for every succesful innovation you'll go down dozens of paths that don't bear fruit, but which carry a big cost in time and materials, equipment, etc. Now, if the person who has put in that hard work chooses to trade in on it by teaching rather than producing the work, that's a choice. But if the technique is somehow traded in on by someone who hasn't the permission or hasn't compensated the innovator, thats wrong IMHO. Of course, sometimes a person has a legitimate argument that something has been done before. In fact that's probably more often the case. But if you pick someone's brain and then start doing what they do, and especially don't even give them a passing nod, like I said that sucks.

Hugo Gavarini wrote:Is it that important to tell whether a particular technique or style was done in the past?. I believe that a particular person is really new, despite the fact that he/she has parents and education he/she is still unique.

Renovation, is'n it the Easter spirit?. A new soul out of an old and tired one. Why not a new art out of tradition?. I think that renovation is one of the mankind blessings.

Examples?. Painting evolution, material science, and why not compatible glasses?

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 7:20 pm

Carol wrote:
Bob wrote:I keep on thinking of a comparison between glass and a guitar. Anybody that buys a guitar gets the exact same thing... six stings attached to a resonating box.

Hmm, Bob anybody who buys a guitar does NOT get the exact same thing...you can buy a $200 mass produced guitar or you can pay tens of thousands for one handcrafted by a master luthier or for a vintage Gibson. The difference in tonal quality is tremendous.

True in part Carol... but we all start with the same six strings. I had a Martin D-28 ( an incredibly beautiful guitar) that I could not play very well. I sold it to buy my first kiln. It is now (hopefully) in the hands of a musician who can make it sing. I remember seeing a professional musician make a "Stella" guitar ( a clunker cheap guitar that could be bought in a Sears catalogue) absolutely shine. All the old blues masters from the deep south played with an emotion that has become the standard on the only instruments that were available. I somehow don't think they were top of the line instruments. I guess I am looking for the emotion rather than the technique (or tools/instruments).

The analogy to glass? Look at the work that Brian and Bert do with the "common" or "ugly duckling" called float glass. Look at what Ana Skribska (sp?) does with a butane lighter and glass shards.

Cheers,

Bob

Phil Hoppes · Post by **Phil Hoppes** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 10:19 pm

Bob wrote:All the old blues masters from the deep south played with an emotion that has become the standard on the only instruments that were available. I somehow don't think they were top of the line instruments. I guess I am looking for the emotion rather than the technique (or tools/instruments).

Could not agree with you more. Like say maybe BB King or Stevie (why did you get in that helicoptor?) Ray Vaughn.

..........

Phil

Cynthia · Post by **Cynthia** » Sat Apr 19, 2003 12:03 am

Bob wrote:I keep on thinking of a comparison between glass and a guitar. Anybody that buys a guitar gets the exact same thing... six stings attached to a resonating box...we all start with the same six strings. I had a Martin D-28 ( an incredibly beautiful guitar) that I could not play very well. I sold it to buy my first kiln. It is now (hopefully) in the hands of a musician who can make it sing. I remember seeing a professional musician make a "Stella" guitar ( a clunker cheap guitar that could be bought in a Sears catalogue) absolutely shine. All the old blues masters from the deep south played with an emotion that has become the standard on the only instruments that were available. I somehow don't think they were top of the line instruments. I guess I am looking for the emotion rather than the technique (or tools/instruments).

The analogy to glass? Look at the work that Brian and Bert do with the "common" or "ugly duckling" called float glass. Look at what Ana Skribska (sp?) does with a butane lighter and glass shards.

Cheers,

Bob

Bless you Bob. I think you just expressed with sublime purity the difference between technique and artistry.

Technique survives without aristry, but artistry stands alone. Can one copy artistry? Doubtful. That is why I find this debate, like the art and craft debate intersting but perhaps moot ( I am willing to be wrong here).
Again, technique is common (it's all been done before), what you do with it in terms or your atristry is not.

We all can teach techniques, but to foster artistry in a student is the hallmark of a true teacher. Once we embrace this concept we quit worrying about propriety.

If you want to teach, teach. If you have a newfangled and unique technique, don't teach it if you don't want it absorbed into the nework. It seems simple enough.

WarmGlass.com

Technique Ownership - A Question of Ethics

Re: Technique Ownership - A Question of Ethics