jkroehn said:
Ifound little help in the spring issue article.Cutsie stories and kissingup to our"tresured teachers/artists'is of no help when we decide to sell a piece... ...can our top turners have it both ways? teach and publish and then expect no one will sell a piece that looks like his? Its confusing.
Oh you iconoclast! Oh you troublemaker! How dare you say the emperor has no clothes! This discussion/debate erupted on usenet a number of years ago. I wrote some very strongly worded posts then, and I am happy to say that my opinion has not changed one iota. If people are going to write books, film videos, and teach classes on how they do things, they should not be surprised when others copy their work. I wrote that (or words to that effect) over five years ago on usenet as a relatively unknown turner. Now I am a little more known, but certainly not in the same league as the "big hats" (I really like that expression), and I do not care to aspire to that level.
Most of what passes for art in the turning world is there because of people shouting at the top of their lungs, "Hey everybody, watch me!" [insert Jeff Foxworthy's voice here]. People make it and people buy it. So what? The art market is a closed community of people who arbitrarily assign a value to a piece. It is worth what it is worth because they say so.
It is sort of like an alpaca farm. These cute little animals sell for tens of thousands of dollars because people say they should. Their wool is worth a lot, but the individual animal will never live long enough to recoup its value through wool production (and neither will the owner). There is not enough meat on these things to make them worth eating. So why are they so expensive? They are because a group of people decided they are, and subsequently convinced others to follow suit. The only way to make money raising alpacas is to get other people to raise alpacas. Period.
The only way to make any sort of money on art is to convince others that there is a value in the piece itself, and a huge part of that value is the name on the bottom. That has already been established in numerous discussions. So even if Larry Learner knocks off Alan Artist in every degree, he STILL isn't putting Al's name on the bottom. By the way, you can call me Bill Barfer. I do not mean to offend anyone, but this article was a syrupy as they come with regard to our collective attitude towards those who have blah blah blah. Respect? By all means. Reverence? I don't think so. Artists are hucksters of a different sort, selling people a snake oil which appeals to their vanity. How do I know this? I do it myself. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why anyone would want one of my wooden bowls over a metal or plastic bowl beyond vanity. They are harder to care for, they are not as flexible in use, and they cost many times more what a similar bowl made by a machine in a factory costs.
I am sure some of you reading this may attribute this to cynicism, but I prefer to call it reality. Sure, there is a certain "quality of life" issue here. We like to have nice things around us, even if they require more effort on our part. But the simple truth of the matter is that they are not a necessity for living, and once we get beyond necessary, it is all subjective. But back to the issue at hand.
Once we get beyond the value assigned to the name on the piece, there is the issue of copyright or trademark. Mark the lawyer has already elaborated on that far more eloquently than I could ever do. However, part of that "signature series" is the signature! If it ain't there, then the whole thing becomes very subjective. There are all sorts of artists and wannabe artists out there trying to find something that no one else has done before (or at least something that no one else remembers or has seen) so they can make their mark. There is a lot of that going on in the AAW today. But the truth of the matter is, there is NOTHING out there which has not been done before by someone else somewhere else. You want a proverb? There is nothing new under the sun. So how does someone gain ownership of a shape?
When it comes to exact copies of someone else's work, I think it diminishes the copier, but how can it diminish the copied? Remember, these things have arbitrary value based on the name of the artist. If that name ain't there, then neither is the value. The "art community" already knows that, and the rest of us aren't buying. But wait. So what if we do? What if we really like that shape, but can't afford the original, or what if the original is not available? I have several art prints that are copies of originals. Now, you might say they were made under license, and you would be right, but the issue is the same. They do not have the value of the original, and everyone involved in the transaction knows that. However, if someone tried to palm them off as original, then there is a true crime involved.
I think a person can be known for a style, or even for developing a technique. Does that mean that that stlye or technique is off limits for the rest of us? Maybe it does for the hoity toity galleries and the community of artists, but guess what? The rest of the world does not recognize that, at least not to the degree that some would like. If you want to make your mark, fine. If you want to keep people from knocking you off, you have some decisions to make. You can either run around putting out fires, you can keep your secrets to yourself, or you can continue to develop your style and stay ahead of the curve. Of those three options, the first is the worst in that it consumes energy and time that could be better directed elsewhere. You aren't going to win this one, even if you win. It is what you call a phyrric victory. Please note, I am not talking about patent infringment for a manufacturing process, I am talking about people making round wooden things one at a time in their own shops. I don't even like the word studio. I think it is pretentious. But that is just my opinion. Use it if you like.
I could go on and on, but I have already gone on as far as I have time for right now. For my parting shot, I think there is way too much focus on "art", and I do not care for most of it. I am a craftsman, and while some of my craft might get a little artsy, I intend to stay a craftsman. You will never see me complain about other people taking my style or copying my work. Of course, there are those who would assert there is nothing there worth taking!
When you see something of mine posted, or you watch my video, or you see my stuff in real life, feel free to copy anything you like. Then tell me about it, because I am always honored by those who think enough of what little I have done that they emulate (or even copy) my stuff.
Bill