Style Biting: A philosophical discussion, after a rant

Obviously, a very loaded topic. I see a lot of people having comments about style biting although it doesn't seem like everyone has the same definition or idea of what it means to bite a style. So in the interest of a truly philosophical discussion, we begin with our Terms and Definitions, as brought by Dictionary.com using the definitions most applicable to glass.

Style- N. a particular kind, sort, or type, as with reference to form, appearance, or character.

Concept- N. an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct.

Technique- N. 1. the manner and ability with which an artist, writer, dancer, athlete, or the like employs the technical skills of a particular art or field of endeavor.
2. the body of specialized procedures and methods used in any specific field, especially in an area of applied science.

Design- N. organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.

Normally I would include Principle as well, but I'll omit that one for brevity's sake. Ironic, huh? Style is an incredible thing. As artists, one's style essentially defines our professional identity. I believe art is an inherently introspective thing, so when we create something, we literally put a piece of ourselves into that thing. But once a piece of art exists outside ourselves, it is it's own object, having it's own identity and therefore affects it's creator in turn. Being introspective, I take this as an opportunity to reflect on how this new object affects my person, my experience; I made this thing, what is this thing, what does it mean, how does it affect the world? This applies to glass because we take pride in our work and in our creations. Every piece that we create is a piece of ourselves and, as we all know, wholly unique. So if we see another person trying to make the same thing, and make money off it, this takes a toll on our ego. Not only does it raise questions of personal worth, but it also suggests that the creator of a piece is not as important as the piece itself. That perhaps by this other person making the same thing, we are diminished and made less important for someone else being able to do the same. And God damn it, they're making MY money while doing it! So the natural reaction is irritation, anger, rage, what-have-you, and eventually... creativity.

I believe imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. That said, I haven't been in glass terribly long. I only have a handful of techniques under my belt, which don't take a lot of thought to find interesting ways to combine. I have one piece I consider my "signature," a bonsai sculpted on the side of a spoon with a blow-out carb. Sometimes I blow the carb out of the rock below the tree instead of the trunk. Whatever. I make this piece because I've never seen anyone else doing it. I pride myself on my creative ability, as we all should, but where does this start and end? This is where our Terms and Definitions come into play! As artists, we all have all four parts of the above-defined terms: In order, we start with Concept, execute with Technique, which ends in a Design or salable product, and the composite of our body of work (all designs) results in our "Style."

If you notice, these are all abstracts. And not everything falls into just one category. But I think we can all agree on at least a few things. Wrap & Rake, frit application, wig-wags, tube pulls, coil-potting, honeycombs... these are examples of a Technique. You can't call someone a "style biter" anymore for having a wig-wag or frit-rolling on something. But that wasn't always the case. It starts with one freakin genius who did something so awesome that the next step was for everyone who could wrap their mind around it to try and make a wig-wag. There was a "first person to do a wrap & rake" who has been so bitten that now it's a BEGINNER TECHNIQUE; odds are that wig-wags will follow suit. This is how art progresses. Sometimes ideas are just so badass that people can't NOT copy them. How many people bite off of, say, Salt? Bearclaw? Eusheen? Kobuki? Carver B? But where does it end? When is it okay to say "It doesn't matter how much Eusheen did it, multiple rods pulled into a horn looks awesome and there needs to be more of it."? Is everyone who makes a flower-implosion marble biting off of Kobuki? Because I'm pretty sure he wasn't the first. And hell, even I've had some amazing ideas that I would have loved to make. But Salt beat me to the punch. Now, I don't think that precludes me from being able to make a skin-tone piece with all sorts of mutation-looking elements on it. But I can't do it nearly as well as Salt can, and if I tried, I would fail and everyone would call me a biter regardless of when I had the idea or heard of Salt. And then there's the electroforming. Damnit.

And so we start getting to the point. Inspiration is one thing. We can all take inspiration from nature and be safe from being called a biter because let's face it: we ALL take a bite out of Mother Nature, I don't care who you are. We all have to learn Techniques. Which are then combined using Concepts to create a Design. A concept can have a million ways to approach it. A technique can have any level of skill in it's execution. There is only ONE execution for ONE design and I think that's where "style biting" becomes a problem. Copy a technique, you're not a biter, you're learning. Copy a concept, you're not a biter, you're thinking. Copy a specific design that one person thought up on their own steam, you're a biter and you need to try harder. And of course there's the old story from Smoked Volume II of that guy trying to sign Salt's name on his own work. There are so many things wrong with that I don't even know where to begin. Beatings. Beatings upon beatings are deserved for those who sign another's name to their work to leech off other's creativity. If you must bite, at least give credit where it's due. That's the least you could do.

One last thing and I'll be done. My first boss had a honeycomb design for a prodo piece that I eventually learned how to do by osmosis more than anything. She stole this design from an ex-boyfriend who had actually put the time in to determine this was the best approach to the piece versus time involved. It was his design. She stole it. I learned it and she made money off me for it. One day she looked at me with total jealousy and said "Isn't it about time you stopped making MY honeycomb?" which I just found to be hilarious. So I got off the bench, spent all of 10 minutes coming up with a new design for a production piece, and that's how I learned to make my Easter Island Head hitters. Everyone loves them and they sit on a shelf with none being the wiser except for a small hole in the top for the mouthpiece. I still make those, because I came up with the design. I still make that same honeycomb as well. Because I wasn't biting the design. And even if I'm accused of biting that honeycomb, it doesn't matter too much because she tried to rip off every original idea I had in that shop. Even her boyfriend started doing mock-ups of my bonsai. If they hadn't sucked so hard as people I would have showed him my process and made it way easier for him. Thems the breaks. Okay, I have to cut myself off here, or I'll go on for days.

Bottom line: I think style biting is relative. Is it okay? No, it's our personal responsibility to be as creative as possible and continue pushing the envelope. But how does a kid learn to paint? By copying other paintings. Or learn to draw by copying other drawings. Style biting will always occur as long as there are people more willing to copy others than think for themselves and we all know how popular that is. But if we all share our techniques equally, then there shall never be a style that needs biting because we will have all the necessary tools to properly express ourselves. Even if that expression is just a mock-up of someone else's work, then the content of the artist's mind is made known, and everyone knows what a punter this guy is. If anyone ever copies my bonsai design, then I'll know I've gotten good enough to bite. And I'll happily give them a few tips. But if style biting must be done as a means to an end, then may that end be creativity and no other purpose. Work, learn, create, put your damn time in on the torch, and focus. Sing your song, the rest of the world be damned. I now leave the floor open for discussion. Friends and world, keep on spinning!

Ouch, I just realized what I did there. Sorry, everyone. I could have made that way shorter. Not trying to write a novel or anything, I just felt these things needed saying.

I like the part where it says " One last thing and i'll be done. " followed by two paragraphs.

tl;dr

^^ sorry... but... what he said..

good artists copy great artists steal ;)

Im always surprised how many people wont read more than 3 sentances, or have some issue with long posts..some concepts take entire books to express.

Im glad to hear you got out of indiana? Is that the land of honeycomb from whence you came?

" Copy a specific design that one person thought up on their own steam, you're a biter and you need to try harder."

I like they way you break apart the elements in creating a piece, and I think this sentence is the most true.

The best way to not get biten is to do something too complex and well for anyone else to figure out, never tell anyone how its done, and the n die with the secret.. heh

--seth

I don't have much to add at the moment, except this: seven paragraphs is not "TL." Remember when people used to read books... like, entire books? With multiple pages and everything?

So what is it considered when people copy things like cartoon characters? Biting? Copyright infringement? Sure it takes a lot of work, but not really that creative. Just riding someones coattails if you ask me.

I like books. Long posts that I find interesting are cool too.

Not a big fan of long winded, boring (in my opinion) posts on topics that have been gone over forever in artist/craftperson circles.

Not that there is anything wrong with re examining old material, I just wasn't in the mood for a remedial review of a topic I find pretty tired in the first place.

Most creative people have a gut feeling as to what is out right copying and what is using certain elements from your peers to make a piece your own. Not too sure what trying to specifically quantify these definitions does for the greater general understanding of the topic, but for all of you that wish to re visit this and offer your specific, personal interpretations of what is "biting", have at it.

I am sure there are plenty of discussions that I have been a part of that many, if not all of you, would find painfully boring, so no hard feelings.

I wonder how many people did not read this entire post?

S'cool Mecha, I agree with basically everything you said. But the fact is, not everyone has beat this topic into the ground yet (btw, if ya'll wanna revive the art v. craft debate again, I'll be in the next room - not listening), and a string of "tl;dr" variations (honestly - a pet peeve of mine) isn't adding anything to the discussion these folks are trying to have. So, without trying to sound like a dick, if you can't be bothered to read the OP, then you don't get to be part of the discussion.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowly Worm

S'cool Mecha, I agree with basically everything you said. But the fact is, not everyone has beat this topic into the ground yet (btw, if ya'll wanna revive the art v. craft debate again, I'll be in the next room - not listening), and a string of "tl;dr" variations (honestly - a pet peeve of mine) isn't adding anything to the discussion these folks are trying to have. So, without trying to sound like a dick, if you can't be bothered to read the OP, then you don't get to be part of the discussion.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

---

I hear you. I was trying to make a joke, as I actually did read the OP and just wanted to have a little fun with it.

I hope this turns into an art vs craft/biting/why china and india suck thread. Throw in some complaints about the wait time from GTT and you have the makings of a truly epic thread.

Oh, a joke... I get jokes!

I was honestly just having a knee-jerk reaction to my least favorite 4-letter "word."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mecha

I hear you. I was trying to make a joke, as I actually did read the OP and just wanted to have a little fun with it.

I hope this turns into an art vs craft/biting/why china and india suck thread. Throw in some complaints about the wait time from GTT and you have the makings of a truly epic thread.

---

crafts people do not make art, artists are not crafty, it took two weeks to get to a thread about how prodo from india and china suck.

Oh well. I kinda had a feeling that TL;DR would have been the general reaction. I don't mean to beat any dead horses, but the whole issue of style biting is, in fact, new to me. At least so far as glass goes. I've never actually had a useful conversation with anyone in glass on the topic and I just had a few thoughts I figured might be helpful for others starting out like myself. Thanks for the response from those who actually read the whole thing. Mecha, sorry it was boring and tired. This is probably why Philosophy Club was poorly attended. Next time I'll make some jokes about Space-monkeys and Erector sets, we all like those. Firekist, I'm actually in Illinois, never been located in Indiana. Lowly Worm, tanks for coming to bat for literature's sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jestr

.....Space-monkeys and Erector sets...

---

Tell me more of these space faring simians and their fabled interchangeable component based construction kits.....

I think people need to decide whether this is a glass "industry" or glass/art "movement"? That seems to be where most of these discussions come from. I agree whole heartedly with your post! Every aspect of what u said are things I have said in different discussions over the last year or two! Thanks!

Thanks, Lawnmower. I think personally that the art movement of glass is more a symptom of the presence of industry. If you have an artistic medium that is beautiful as well as practical, creating an industry out of it is the natural American leap, but the artistry of it is so undeniable that there can't NOT be an artists movement that grows from such a very fertile ground. Glad to see you're in Spokane, that's my favorite part of the country so far. The trees out there just have such a sense of style...

Mecha...
In the dawn of the Great Awakening, there was a Chimp named Rofl who came across a few simple tools, and perceiving their function, utilized them on a simple kit in order to follow his dreams. He became an instant legend, creating out of base aluminum parts a massive rocket of such beauty that all the simians present could do little but screech and beat the ground. Captain Rofl sought the stars! He was the first monkey to venture out into the Great Beyond and was quickly burnt up in the atmosphere. But he was an inspiration to other monkeys who did go to space. Thus was the beginning of the PIRATE MONKEYS IN SPAAAACE!!!!! Long way to go for a Robot Chicken reference.

You're a fan of sizable spherical conifers?

Jestr, I totally agree! It's hard not to take advantage of a financial opportunity that encompasses your artistic inspirations! Why would I not take advantage of making money, doing what I LOVE, creating! And what better medium then borosilicate! The only problem is when money starts to control your sense of art! I still struggle with that! It's hard to support a family if all u think about is your art! Also, its hard to be an artist when all u think about is money. So, there must be a balance for those of us that have taken this career path. I do a lot of production, because its a solid market, and regardless of others perception, its still art to me. I think, once your established as an "artist" in this "industry" it enables u to explore more of the artistic side while enjoying the financial stability of this industry! One day I hope to make only what my artistic desires require, until then I am LOVING my job!
P.S.
You will never here me complain about others "biting" my ideas. My reason for art is to allow u to see through my eyes for a moment, and what better way than recreating my art! That's a compliment!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jestr

Mecha...
In the dawn of the Great Awakening, there was a Chimp named Rofl who came across a few simple tools, and perceiving their function, utilized them on a simple kit in order to follow his dreams. He became an instant legend, creating out of base aluminum parts a massive rocket of such beauty that all the simians present could do little but screech and beat the ground. Captain Rofl sought the stars! He was the first monkey to venture out into the Great Beyond and was quickly burnt up in the atmosphere. But he was an inspiration to other monkeys who did go to space. Thus was the beginning of the PIRATE MONKEYS IN SPAAAACE!!!!! Long way to go for a Robot Chicken reference.

---

Good story.

The big question is; do you have pamphlets?

If you are going to sucker idiots, er, um, I mean, get people to see the truth of your story, nothing says legit more than a pamphlet. Not full color either, you need to have that grass roots feel of shitty xerox on solid color paper. Hand out a few of those and watch the cash donations roll in. Cha-Ching!

Personally I like to think of it the same way as I think of music. It's all relative. Bands cover other bands' songs all the time, some making epic changes, others not. Tony Iommi lost three fingers and as a result created heavy metal out of necessity. Look where that went. The first PCs, The Altair and the IBM 5100 were purposely not patented, to foster innovation. Look how far that went.

Maybe someday I will be good enough that people steal my ideas. The guy signing Salt's name to his pieces is a fucktard and deserves a serious beating. Other than situations like that, catch as catch can. In fact I think I'm going to head to Hostel Pipes and troll for new ideas.

"Bad artists copy. Great artists steal." - Pablo Picaso

Quote:

---

Good story.

The big question is; do you have pamphlets?

If you are going to sucker idiots, er, um, I mean, get people to see the truth of your story, nothing says legit more than a pamphlet. Not full color either, you need to have that grass roots feel of shitty xerox on solid color paper. Hand out a few of those and watch the cash donations roll in. Cha-Ching!

---

Good call. I've been thinking, maybe I can peddle my "Truth" of the Simian Savior at festies to supplement my glass income. I could be a boro-head AND a mystical guru full of hot air, right? Seems like a natural pairing. If random New-Agey chicks can convince themselves the Egyptians were pillars of Enlightenment, then I can probably sell them a Monkey Space-God. Maybe I'll hook up with the Church of the Sub-Genius. All praise Bob.

Quote:

---

Jestr, I totally agree! It's hard not to take advantage of a financial opportunity that encompasses your artistic inspirations! Why would I not take advantage of making money, doing what I LOVE, creating! And what better medium then borosilicate! The only problem is when money starts to control your sense of art! I still struggle with that! It's hard to support a family if all u think about is your art! Also, its hard to be an artist when all u think about is money. So, there must be a balance for those of us that have taken this career path. I do a lot of production, because its a solid market, and regardless of others perception, its still art to me. I think, once your established as an "artist" in this "industry" it enables u to explore more of the artistic side while enjoying the financial stability of this industry! One day I hope to make only what my artistic desires require, until then I am LOVING my job!
P.S.
You will never here me complain about others "biting" my ideas. My reason for art is to allow u to see through my eyes for a moment, and what better way than recreating my art! That's a compliment!

---

Sounds like we could rap about this for quite a while. It's a tricksy spot to be in, especially for members of our line of work, to let the need for money override our sense of creation. But truly, money doesn't control how we view Art itself, it really more affects WHAT we create rather than the how or why. I still need to make prodo work with heavy regularity. So I find some way to improve my skills, even if the artistic side of things may only be pushed so far. An Inside-out will only end up being so many things, but I can still experiment with stringer control and color placement. At least that's the idea. But I agree, it's hard to be an artist when all you think about is money, and it's hard to make money if you only think about art. So we must find a middle ground. And I'll be doing what I love, melting glass, for the rest of my life and I hope one day people will be asking for my pieces by name. If that never happens, oh well, I'll still be making the world more beautiful, one hard glass creation at a time.

I hope to god your out of oxy ....

Quote:

---

I hope to god your out of oxy ....

---

Why is that, Master Yoda? I got a lot of work to do yet.

interesting article kind of on the same line of thought.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-original-idea

+1 for that itis, that's exactly what I mean. Bonus points for a credible source.

Quote:

---

tanks for coming to bat for literature's sake.

---

See, here is where you step over the line. Rather than indulge the already long winded nature of this discussion, I'll say this; if your forum post is literature, then I've recently composed a symphony, with my ass.
To change the subject only slightly, (as a slight search reveals quite a bit of writing on this subject over the years on this board) this issue dissolves slightly when we cease to argue about what is or is not origional, or what is or is not art, when we start to address what art does.
Somewhere in this interview with Alan Moore he describes the goal of the artist as being "to create a change in the conciousness of the viewer" (although I believe that's a slight paraphrase). In short; to move or creatue a sense of awe in the viewer, and then to use that moment to communicate a message. Considering the medium of pipes, this should be fairly easily, but most often isn't reached. Therefor, a considerable amount of work falls into the craft folder.
Consider This piece by Stanislaw Szikalski (long one of my favorites), where he uses detail to "suspend the conciousness" (if you'll permit such a pompous term), and then content (the screaming, blind fingers trying to cut themselves off from the terrified thumb by destroying the hand) to communicate a message. In particular, I think Szukalski (and the Rodin "school") of sculptors show both halves of this idea.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: at this stage of the game, arguing about whether or not a piece, or all pieces, are or are not art. Or if we're dealing with biting or developing schools, if (in particular) the pipe world doesn't start to address what a piece needs to be, or do, to be considered art- then the decline into irreverence is inevitable.
Or maybe this makes no sense at all (certainly, I haven't proof read it). Perhaps more birthday messages are what this place needs.
Also, watch Alan's interview. He is brilliant.

^Din, I said "Thanks for coming to bat for literature's sake" not referring to my own writing, but about the idea of actually reading books. Pay a little more attention. Kind of impressive, though, composing a symphony with your ass? How classy. I bet tickets to a show of that at the Met is sold out already. You make me laugh. Your paraphrasing of your own paraphrasing of someone else's idea is, in fact, longer than the original idea. Kind of removes the purpose of saying "in short", doesn't it? Now, what I think Mr. Moore is saying about creating a change of consciousness in the viewer does apply to art, and pipes are art, but that change of consciousness does not apply to pipes. The reason: pipes are functional and the alteration in consciousness that comes hand in hand with them comes about from an interest in the consumable, not the tool of consumption. The art therefore takes a backseat and it is NOT THE ART that changes the person, therefore Mr. Moore's concept does not apply.

Really, I think you're mistaking this thread for the Art v. Craft debates, which is not what I started. This thread is about originality in reference to professionalism in the glass industry. So... thanks for Alan Moore and Szukalski. Sorry I stepped over a completely arbitrary line. Glad you could be just as long-winded as the rest of us.

http://theyoufactor.com/wp-content/u...dead-horse.jpg

There are no originals everythings a remix peep https://vimeo.com/14912890

my curve with ti is original. just one example. swiss perc is another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HomegrownGlassStudio

There are no originals everythings a remix peep https://vimeo.com/14912890

---

"remix: to combine or edit existing materials to produce something new"


the problem with biters is that they rarely come up with something new. what people are bitching about, is BLATANT PLAGIARISM. when you straight up copy some one's work and offer it as your own, you're not adding anything to the conversation, you're riding on someone's coat tails. if you change things, or actually perform some sort of remix, that's different:

when you take someones technique or are inspired by their style, and you internalize it and use that to produce your OWN work that's fine. that's called piggybacking. it's the simplest form of creativity, and it's fine when you ADD something else, possibly improving on it. see also REMIX again. rarely is anything completely new, and it's really difficult to come up with anything that is truly and entirely new. most things are inspired by something else, and that's totally fine.

so it comes down to this:

what do you add to the conversation?

if we're in a group chatting about something, i say something profound while you just repeat exactly what i just said, you look like a total idiot. art is like a giant conversation. don't look like an idiot. but, if you like what i said, and have your own take on it, think it needs a little correcting, or inspires you to share your own experience about it, by all means, do tell! that's what makes for an interesting conversation- it's all about the give and take.

the same goes with glass. if you directly copy some one, you're a biter. you're doing it because it you don't have the balls to come up with something on your own, and you need to make a cheap buck. if only you had something intelligent to add, or different way of seeing something, we wouldn't be tearing you a new asshole. in other words, look back at the definition of remix: did you actually make something new, or is it just a lousy knock off?

Precisely, J Howard. Exactly what I'm driving at. It's okay to take inspiration from something, everything that is made is building on pre-existing ideas. I like to think of creativity as a stochastic process, which is totally the word of the day. As brought by Wikipedia, whose definition is way better than Dictionary.com's:

"Stochastic (from the Greek στόχος for aim or guess) refers to systems whose behavior is intrinsically non-deterministic. A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic, in that a system's subsequent state is determined both by the process's predictable actions and by a random element."

Basically Stochastic is what lies between order and chaos. Ordered systems are completely logical and therefore deterministic while a chaotic environment is inherently unpredictable. The creative process is both. One person may have an idea that is based upon what they've seen in the past and an ordered plan of approach, but by applying a creative process to it, there is a non-deterministic factor which is responsible for NEW things to develop. Thus, the creative process may be described as stochastic. Provided there is, in fact, creativity being applied. Style biting is not creative, not stochastic, and not cool because it provides no help in furthering our creative endeavors or capabilities.

I'd actually recommend reading the whole Wiki entry on Stochastic, because it is a very cool concept with a surprisingly large number of applications, both to natural sciences as well as theoretical physics, mathematics, and all sorts of good stuff.

Quote:

---

if we're in a group chatting about something, i say something profound while you just repeat exactly what i just said, you look like a total idiot. art is like a giant conversation. don't look like an idiot. but, if you like what i said, and have your own take on it, think it needs a little correcting, or inspires you to share your own experience about it, by all means, do tell! that's what makes for an interesting conversation- it's all about the give and take.

---

That analogy is effective and original; I'm totally stealing it!

;-)

lol, please do!

Hey guys i just started in glass and i don't want to be a style biter. Has anyone ever done a wrap and rake spoon with cobalt blue and clear? I hope i'm not copying anyone else's work.

If that's been done i guess ill just have to do i/o spoons.

Well, doosight, if you have to. But you can't fume on the outside, or you're biting my style. Or the inside. In fact, just wrap & rake clear glass over cobalt tubing or you're biting my style. I'm pretty sure I've never done that before...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_E5tv7Vm0fs.../s1600/fdh.jpg