Plagiarism Article

[Steve Worcester]

It is interesting how this has raised the temperature in the forum so quickly. I think this is the quickest developing thread ever.

Since David Ellsworth wrote a sidebar to the article, I asked for his opinion on the subject.

Here is what he had to say after reading the posts here


"I've always encouraged serious students to copy my work as closely as they can. It gives them a true sense of the difficulties and the pleasures of making these objects, the level of craftsmanship I ascribe to, and one's own personal engagement in the making process. The reason I don't worry about them copying my work is that I know by the time they get to a point where they have developed a superb skill level, they will have tired of my forms and move on to developing their own shapes, their own voice within their work. That said, also notice that in my demonstrations, my classes and my video tapes, I teach people "how to make hollow forms"...not how to make my hollow forms. Why, because I don't want them to be dependent on my shapes as they progress as students. This is a huge difference from most other tutorial videos today. My intent is to offer solid, usable information, not projects." - David Ellsworth

 

[Wilford Bickel]

Question request

Steve,

It appears David Ellsworth explains my disagreement with you from yesterday in that the books/videos I have seen were project oriented. I will have to check out one of his in the near future to see the difference in his approach.

I would like to hear his response to a hypothetical situation. As he encourages his students to copy his work, how does he feel if a student is able to sell a copy of his work thereby enabling said student to recoup the cost of lessons, wood, and tools? While this is a hypothetical question, I feel certain it has ocurred and would appreciate him answering as this seems to be the crux of the issue.

Thanks

Wilford

 

[Bill Grumbine]

It is interesting how this has raised the temperature in the forum so quickly. I think this is the quickest developing thread ever.

Hi Steve

I think there are several reasons for the development of this thread. First, it is a whole lot different than the endless progression of "which chuck should I buy" threads. There is absolutely nothing wrong with those threads, but it is hard to generate much passion over them.

Second, there is definitely a real undercurrent here from people who do not care to have terms dictated to them by the art crowd. This article definitely resonated that way with at least a few people, me being one of them. Along with that were the swipes taken at the craftsman crowd. There are a lot of us out here who consider it an honor to be a craftsman, who find our fulfilment in making practical items and making them well. To have that callously denigrated (and it was) is insulting.

Looking back over the thread, I do not see anyone endorsing plagiarism. I do see people angry at the tone of the article. It insults a large group of people in the AAW, implying that we are just waiting and biding our time until we can find the right thing to copy. I do not know that that was the author's intent, but it sure was the result.

Finally, I know David personally, and I will say that he used pretty much the same words in a conversation he and I had years ago as he wrote here - not that he needs an endorsement from me on anything! But for the record, I would not disagree with anything he wrote here, or for that matter in the article.

Bill

 

[PapaDoc]

What an excellent thread. I am pumped to have so many people contributing to this topic. I am planning on taking it to John C. Campbell next week as students will be learning from my teacher, Nick Cook, and allow our dialogue to get them thinking. Nick will be teaching them to make a series of spindle objects that has been literally his bread and butter. If they can do it as well as Nick, then they will be making money selling the forms. I'm betting on Nick, even though he is the most gracious teacher I know. I truly think he would be awed by anyone who could better his design and technique.
Thanks for the good and fair dialogue about an important topic in AAW. This seems to be what this forum could be about.
Thanks for the different perspectives.
David Galloway

 

[jkroehn]

iconoclast

Hey bill
It looks like I will have to change my usual title of nerd to one more sophisticated.But it was more than gratifying to find that many others found fault in the article also. I am amazed at your depth of knowledge, background, and feeling for the subject.

I did not see the word derivative in any of the comments. Where does that fitin? As second level copying?

I would also like to see an answer to your hypothetical question.

 

[Bill Grumbine]

Wilford, I did not get a chance to reply to your steak invitation before I had to run out the door last night. I would be honored to spend some time with you, and eat one of your homegrown steaks, although it will have to be in the winter. I heard about how hot it is down there in AL!

Bill

 

[Wilford Bickel]

Free Sauna

Bill,

Our 95oF with 98% humidity is just a free Sauna!!! At least our wood does not check, it just stays green forever!!!

I do appreciate your calm eloquence in explaining why this article was so offensive to those of us that love woodturning as craftsmen. I have really had to hold back on what I wanted to say. My wife (who oil paints) read the article last night and took offense from it and she does not even turn. I had to hold her back from going to the computer and posting some things that are better left unsaid!!

I do hope our Officers and Editors have been following this thread and will look into an article that is non biased and gives the FACTS on Copyrights and Patents.

I would love to hear your opinion on when an item quits being a turning due to surface treatments, carvings etc. that are performed to the point of not being recognizable as turned wood. That is a discussion we can take up in another post!

Wilford

 

[Jamie Donaldson]

Too many thongs in a knot!

I have loosely followed this recent thread and found too many comments made by too many individuals with too little actual knowledge of the various mentioned subjects.I am somewhat knowledgable about intellectual property and copyrights since I prevailed in Federal Courts vs. 3 publishers during my recently ended photography career. Visiting the copyright site doesn't give one a working base for the understanding of the convolutions of law, and several publically misunderstood statements have been floated here by individuals whom I do not need identify. Copyrights are not attached to objects bought and sold- they exist separate from the protected object.Copyrights do not have to be registered to sue for infringement- only for statutory damages.I have been active in the AAW for 16 yrs. and have never heard the first mention of a "big hat" vs. "little guy" discussion- the exact opposite is true. I have been involved in organizations where trade secrets and other info have been very closely held rather than openly shared as among woodturners, and it is a very welcoming and friendly atmosphere by comparison! Opinions expressed are worth exactly what you paid them- very little! The market place determines value in the long run, so cool it! Ethics come from other sources and are harder to quantify, and it's not up to a court to think for the individual. Big Brother ain't here-yet!

 

[Ruth Niles]

Whew!

comic sans msdarkslategray

Great Thread, I agree, disagree, am disappointed and am impressed. Quick thoughts:

The "artist" went to college and got a BS (literally).
The "craftsman" learned from older craftsman, apprentiship and working. As Grumbine said, the craftsman is more diversified in his ability than the artist.

A "signature" piece is merely the form/style they obsessively did over and over after they saw something they liked (yes, something that already existed like Andi's maple leaves or Ellsworth inverted hornet's nest for example)

Demonstrators should NOT demo their "signature" piece. Example: Wolfe should burn/color squirrels; Fennell should demo thin platters with pierced geese; Drozda could do birdhouses w/tall finials. Then they are REALLY doing what they say they are, i.e. demoing technique only.

There are people who are "beginner" turners who have the natural ability to become "expert" turners in (possibly) far less time than it took Ellsworth. (again, using him as example because his name fills this thread). These are naturally "artistic" people, excel no matter what they attempt.

Story on rcw (ng);at a show an Ellsworth copy $100, next to Ellsworth original $900, this is wrong because it hindered sale for Ellsworth. HOG WASH! You dream of owning an "Ellsworth", see a no-name, save $$, put it in your collection and feel satisfied??? I don't think so!

For those impressed with friendliness (vs monetary intentions) of pro turners demoing, I can't help but think about politicians shaking hands....."he was so nice". What's he going to do? Tell you to go away?

Finally, I must say I love the AAW Symposium, I love any and all wood shows, I love all woodturners, I love turning and I'm loving the passion in this thread.

Ruth Niles

 

[C Edward Moore]

Easy there

Ruth,

I really liked your paragraph where you suggested that the big hats should demo their technique rather than their signature pieces.

But I have a problem where you discuss the friendliness of the big hats. You have a point, that is not unlike a man selling fish. He isn't likely to go down the street hollering "Rotten fish for sale." A demonstrator won't thrive if he/she is rude and unkind and denigrates the turnings in the club's instant gallery. But for me this is about percentages. What? I find that there are a remarkable number (high percentage) of big hats who are great people and are sincere and want to give of themselves.

Smith Mountain Lake Woodturners is now one year old and has had three name turners come to demo. They are Bob Rosand, Alan Lacer, and Binh Pho. These are great people! Anyone is lucky to be able to call them friends. Each of them would help anyone if it was within their power to do so. Bob and Susan have stayed in our home several times and we look forward to their next visit. Alan bought some of my wife's towels that she weaves. After Binh's demo I drove him down to Arrowmont (588 miles round trip, eleven hours) and I was really impressed by this fine man. I am richer for that experience. In fact, I am richer for the time I spent with them all, and this is NOT about money. As Program Director for SMLW I look forward to future name turners who come to teach us.

At a conference I asked a name turner about his recommendation for a lathe, promising not to reveal what he told me. He and another big hat that walked up during this brief chat willingly shared their opinions. They didn't owe me squat.

As a mathematician I have dealt with individuals who should see a proctologist for psychiatric care. There is a large number in that group who are socially dysfunctional. That is a long way from the friendly group of turners I have encountered.

So Ruth, I think you spoke too quickly because I believe that a remarkably high percentage of our name turners, big hats, or stars are exceptionally friendly and are great people.

 

[DWFII]

I haven't seen a great deal of animosity or even bally-hooing about copyright in this thread. For the most part opinions have been thoughtful and well-reasoned.

I was particularly impressed by the response of David Ellsworth (as quoted by Steve Worcester). I found it reassuring and remarkably level-headed and rational. Particularly in the way that he acknowledges the lineage and the obligation of teacher to student.

Ideally, the best teachers strive...with *every* student...to "input" enough wisdom, insight, and knowledge that ultimately the student can, or will, go beyond the teacher. That's very nearly the definition of a teacher. Of course, this doesn't mean it's always going to happen--even good seed can fall on fallow ground--but the potential should always be there.

In order for a teacher to fulfill his obligation to a student (and his obligation to his own mentor/teachers) he must give away a part of himself. Anyone not willing to do that shouldn't be teaching. And that part that he gives away is not just dry knowledge. It is passion and perspective. The teacher expects...desires...that the student embrace the same techniques, the same sensibilities, as he himself holds dear...at least in the short run. Every good teacher expects...indeed, encourages...a student to "copy." At least in the short run.

That, in fact, is the way human beings--we all-- learn....from infancy to greybeard. Even "learning the hard way" is simply modeling or "copying" behaviours that work when it has become clear that other...previously learned, or maybe even random...behaviour are not working.

Anyway, that's starting to get a little too metaphysical, but I've been teaching students for nearly 20 years now and know certainties about teaching and those who teach...

First, "the teacher learns twice."

And second, anyone who cannot be a student is not qualified to be a teacher.

Those who set themselves up to teach (or instruct) others should keep both of those maxims in mind.

that must be six cents now...looks like I might have to break the piggy bank

DW
In the High Desert of Central Oregon

 

[Ruth Niles]

Ed,

Please forgive me, but I am guilty of not expanding on my thought with trying to keep my post from being too lengthy.

I, too, have met many, many wonderful professional turners.....in fact, I really haven't met one that even came close to being unfriendly. My point was more to one of the posters in this thread who sounded (to me) like they were overly impressed with how friendly a demonstrator was and couldn't possibly be motivated by money......or something to that effect. Again it was the way I read what they said and I may be way off course. It's quite difficult to read words, not hearing voice infliction and know how a writer means what he's saying.

Ruth

 

[C Edward Moore]

I accept for them

Ruth,

Since I am the one who waved the red flag on their behalf, and it wouldn't be real cool for one of "them" to accept, I do hereby accept your apology and your explanation on their behalf.

In my post I spoke of percentages. Absolutes are a waste of time when dealing with human behavior. Several of the posts may have overdone it a bit when praising the altruism of the big hats and some were possibly dealing with excessive cynicism. In truth I feel confident that there have been negative incidents occur.

At a demo involving a boring bar, the demonstrator said that the bar should be horizontal. I could see that the bar was not level, so I indicated politely that the bar was not level in this case. He was a little smart-alecky in his response, denying that that was the case, so I said that I was sorry, but it was not level. He made a big show out of getting out a ruler to measure, and then looked like a cow standing on one teat, when he convincingly confirmed my assertion. He corrected the height and we proceeded with a little better attitude. I learned later that he had offended his hosts by suggesting that she was not a serious turner. Needless to say, his name is not on my short list of demonstrators for SMLW. And NO, I will not reveal his name. And I am sure that we have all heard of one or two turners who seem to be the personification of the equine paradox: Why are there more horse's arses than there are horses?

But as a percentage, we have a great group of big hat demonstrators who serve us well and deserve our considerable appreciation. And after all, they didn't write the offending article, someone else did.

 

[Steve Worcester]

The article was written by Glenn McMurray and I asked him for his thoughts on this thread. Here is what he had to say.....

"My primary intent in writing the recent AAW article on "plagiarism" was to encourage thought and discussion on the subject. Mission accomplished. My secondary intent was to express my opinion that each of us must deal with this issue in our own way, based on our own ethical/moral code and level of education regarding the subject. My tertiary intent was to express my opinion that we should respect and honor those who are willing to share their techniques, ideas and visions with us. Whether these opinions came across to each individual reader as intended, I will never know.

To those who found my article failing in any way, please submit a letter to the editor of the AAW Journal, or better yet, submit an article to give the readers a different perspective on this sensitive issue. However, to anyone who found the article discouraging to their own turning, I offer this: You are the only one who can decide how to deal with the issue, so don't let me or anyone else tell you how it "should" be handled. Make up your own mind and run with it!

- Glenn McMurray, gmcmurray@nortonmcmurray.com"

 

[Angelo]

Copy it!

I was always taught to copy from artists that I admired. So I did. Never sold those drawings, paintings or turnings. Still have many of 'em. They were just to learn technique, and really, if you try hard enuf to copy every nuance of every brush stroke or the shape of every curve and if you listen carefully to the little voice in your head, not only do you gain an understanding of HOW they put paint to canvas or tool to spinning wood, you begin to understand WHY. You will understand why there is a slight hollow in a very sinuous curve in an Ellsworth piece, or a ruffled feather in a Vessery vessel. You will also know the brilliance of the intellect who thought to put it there. For this they derserve respect. In my world that respect is defined by not selling "knock offs" of those pieces. Why? because through hundreds of trys and hundreds of failures they have worked it out. In my world it is irrreprehensible to try to copy it and pass it off as your own.

When you have copied to learn the technique, then you take those parts that have inspired you and you make them your own. You twist them and tweak them. Hammer and mold them and call those skills your own. You have earned that right. Make them just a little differntly and lo and behold! You begin to develop a vocabulary and then a voice. So speak in your own voice!

If you buy all of the tools and all of the equipment to copy John Jordan. Just save yourself the time and trouble and buy one of John's pieces!

my 2 cents

Angelo

 

[Russ Fairfield]

The other side of plagiarism

There are a couple other things that have been forgotten in this discussion of "plagiarism".

My dictionary gives the abbreviated definition of "plagiarism" as: "to willfully steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as one's own : use another's production without crediting the source."

What about the "famous artist" who has someone else doing all or a part of their work for them because they are too busy being famous. That gives the term "signature work" a whole new meaning. Isn't this stealing and passing off another's work and claiming it as their own??

Then there is the famous woodturning carver or decorator who is not turning their own bowls or whatever form they are doing their carving and decorating on. They justify their not turning the basic form with gibberish about art and artists, and that painters don't make their own canvas. We don't see them giving the woodturner any credit for their part of the art. Isn't this also willfully stealing anothers work and claiming it as their own??

But of course, there are no woodturners who would do this.
It is only those other artforms, the painters, potters, etc., who would stoop to such tactics.

 

[Dtoggs]

Copy cats?

Mark, you are exactly right, and there is no disconnect between what I wrote and how I would react if someone were bootlegging my DVD. That is clearly defined as copyright infringement, and while people should not do it from a legal point as well as ethical, that doesn't stop them. Now, if they were concerned that I might show up on their front porch at 5:00 AM... Besides, I do not think anyone is going to classify my DVD as art any time soon. Since you bring up the DVD, my DVD is mine with me in it - my voice, my face, etc. A copy of that is hard to dispute. But if you want to take notes and make your own, even if it has the same segments, then it is your DVD, not mine. My complaint is against those who attempt to claim ownership of something much more ephemeral.

Ed, I understand you completely. When I read big hat, my first thought was, hmmm, a big hat must mean that person has a big head! And we all know that there are some mighty big heads in this crowd. Well, I know it, and I don't mind saying so either!

Bill

I waz gonna reply, but this is getting to wordy fer mir. Big hats,big heads,big yo know whats leaves me out!I do like to see the emotion,lets me know youse is genwine .

 

[Fog Tanner]

Forgetting the Egyptions

Like everyone else in this thread, I read the AAW article. At first impulse I had some of the same reactions as those expressed in earlier posts, but the more I read I found a source of amusment. The statement about unintentional plagarism was especially amusing. There was much expressed about the plagarizing of another's work, mainly in the use of a given form. At the end of the article I had to wonder if the author's really beleived what they had written.

I went to the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibt over the Christmas Holidays. In the exhibit were a number of bowls from the area that they were written and the time. Among these were several turned wooden bowls from that time and place. There was also a turned stone urn produced on a lathe. The shapes one all the bowls (pottery and wooden ) were very similar to ones produced today. In looking at other museum displays of Egyptian and Babalonian pottery, I found the same. Shapes which are produced today by people that have never seen displays.

If you look back at all the civilzations for the last 5000 years, from the Middle East, Africa, the Orient, North and South America, that produced turned vessels of some material (clay, wood, or stone), there are some millions of bowls, vases, and urns. As today, various people produced different shapes. Some utilitarian and some artistic (i.e non functional). The same shapes and curves that we find pleasing today are the same ones that could be found in Thebes, or Roma, or Babalon.

Over the thousands of years, the ancient artisans have produced like the current ones - the good, the bad, and the ugly. They explored the shapes that pleased and in doing so found the ones that didn't. They also produced those same shapes which are being rediscovered today. So when I read about some signiture shape or someone taking a form as their own, I wonder what that ancient Egyptian would have to say about their plagarism. Even though it is purely unintentional plagarism (must be another politically correct term), they are still guilty of what they are preaching about. Something about stones and glass outhouses.

I found the remark that Bill made about the artist being the modern snake oil peddelers, while most empassioned, most amusing and in a lot of cases correct. I was reminded of a movie that really puts a lot of the plagarism "stuff" in the proper light. The movie is Wheeler Dealers with James Garner. There is a segment on modern day art and artist that is right on target with what Bill said. It would be well worth watching just for that segment and putting the proper light on the amusing little AAW fairy tale - and it is a fairy tale asl it does deal in an illusion and something which is not real........

 

[Fred in NC]

Glass outhouses ???

A couple of my OWN TOTALLY ORIGINAL proverbs:

"He who lives in a glass house should not look into the gift horse's mouth"

"The plagiarism stops here . . ."

mmm

 

[Anthony Yakonick]

Fog, I was just thinking the same thing good shape is good shape. I read a quote by a well known turner whose name I forget "the Greeks have been ripping us off for 2000 years"

Another favorite "You can't polish a turd", I don't care how much augmentation you use if it doesn't have good form I don't like it.


Anthony

 

[Fog Tanner]

Anthony,
Well put, although I would have probably used someone else besides the Greeks. The Romans addmittedly copied from the Greeks up to a point. But, if you look at Grecian pottery and paintings, they tended to lean more to the robust forms. You can find this in their paintings, the women all tend to have a classic full figured form, much like a column - 36,36,36. I make some boxes which would fall under the classic Grecian influence.

The Egyptians had a differernt view of what was pleasing to the eye, leaning more to the more delicate flowing lines. Functional, yet pleasing to the eye. Going back five thousand years, the various crafts have been dominated by males who have sought to emulate those pleasing lines that they found in the human form. Look at the Egyptian paintings and pottery and the same with ancient Greeks. Each reflected what they perceived as beauty. If anyone should become incensed over the idea of plagarism, it should be that unknown Egyptian princess strolling along the Nile whose flowing lines found their way into a piece of pottery four thousand years ago and into turned bowls today. Or that Grecian beauty whose full robust figure has influenced so many box turners over the years.