Style Biting: A philosophical discussion, after a rant

[Mecha]

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!

[Ronin]

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

[Jestr]

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.

[Jestr]

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.

[Master Yoda]

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

[Jestr]

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

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

[ITIS]

interesting article kind of on the same line of thought.

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

[Ronin]

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

[Din]

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.

[Jestr]

^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.

[Icarus]

[HomegrownGlassStudio]

There are no originals everythings a remix peep

[hashmasta-kut]

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

[J Howard]

There are no originals everythings a remix peep

"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?

[Jestr]

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.

[Slow]

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!

;-)

[J Howard]

lol, please do!

[doosight]

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.

[Jestr]

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...

[kage]