Who Me!

[Henry Halem]

Try Jeau Bishop on for size. He wrote a letter to the Editor of the GAS Newsletter defending himself from the letter that Dante M. wrote in the latest issue of the Newsletter. The letter was critical of GAS featuring and auctioning work that, shall we say, was a rip off of someone else's work. Similar to what Pete said some time ago. Mr. Bishop's response letter states that, and I paraphrase, calling my work a Chihuly rip off would have a "chilling effect on creativity and would be inimical to the advancement and development of hand blown glass as a fine art". Yeah, right. He has established a blog at, http://originalartglass.blog.com

[Ben Rosenfield]

Henry, interesting timing given the part of our chat yesterday that drifted to discussing emulation of a style while learning vs. ripping off someone and making his/her product with the intent to deceive.

[Wes Hunting]

check it out, " the museum collection"

http://jeaubishop.bigstep.com/generic635.html

just had to see for myself.
I needed a smilies with a gun shooting its self in the head, they dont have one so this will have to do.
.:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

[Steve Stadelman]

Collectors often compare his high quality work and exciting desings to that of the Dale Chihuly Inc.

Well no shit.

That was lifted right off of the website, the spelling is theirs.

[David Patchen]

Maybe he could get a job working for Rubino and that other knucklehead Kaindl.

His 'creativity' as a ripoff artist is really amazing--Dale should shut his ass down.

I'm not following the GAS issue--did they actually promote this guy's work without mocking him to death?

[Brian Gingras]

Originally posted by Alexander Adams

The board members aren't in it for the organization but are there to further their career.

-Alex

And people ask me why I'm not in GAS instead of the ISGB....hmmm let's see, it's stuff like that!

[Pete VanderLaan]

Originally posted by Alexander Adams
my growing list of reasons why I no longer belong to GAS.



The board members aren't in it for the organization but are there to further their career.

-Alex

***************
Amen Alex. I was so discouraged after joining GAS as a board member and had such high hopes for delivering pertinent quality material to its members. It is as you described. One prominent board member told me that he "enjoyed the prepaid travel opportunites that being on the executive committee offered him" as a primary motivater.

That in itself really offended me.

The troube with Dante's critique is that it shouldn't take Dante saying that to make people take a hard look. It should be a no-brainer.This was an issue at the auction in Seattle and the board would not really look at removing the offending crap. In the same breath, they whined that they could not raise the same kind of money that the Pilchuck auction brings in. Gosh, I wonder why?Only two members of the board had the work they donated go for its retail value. Otherwise it was about 20 percent of value.We had people in the tech display section clearly just using the display to sell their own artwork. That was clearly a violation of the regulations yet board members did not want "to take action against their friends." It was a great example of how power corrupts. There were some that I respected, but not many Dinah Hewlett and Wayne Strattman were very good but the rest just had no vision at all. I have not sensed any improvement . This plagaristic cover and the inability of the executive director from seeing problems with it instantly just reconfirms my beliefs that there is no ethical vision to be found at GAS but rather a group interested in how many people become dues paying members..

Sad.

[Lisa Zodrow]

Charles Seliger once said, "So many U.S. painters were so overpowered by Picasso that they could never get out from under him and remained little Picassos all their lives."

Even Pollock owed a debt to the master. The problem with Picasso was that as soon as you started to imitate a new approach he had invented, he himself would have moved on to another. The only way to escape from this bind would be to find a type of expression that circumvented Picasso's fundamental idea of form. (taken from Art Lover, A bio on Peggy Guggenheim)

Replace Picasso with Chihuly, painters with glass blowers and think about it. I don't understand what all the hype is about. If you're copying some else's work, your never going to amount to anything great. So why does everyone seem so worried?

[Ben Rosenfield]

Ah, lovely Lisa. You're so right.

[Pete VanderLaan]

I'm not worried. I just flat out don"t like frauds.

[Henry Halem]

Worried? Who said anything about being worried. I'm only trying to hold up to ridicule those that pass themselves off as artists whan they're actually cloning someone else's work. What does, to some degree, worry me is that there are galleries that will market the work with the intent to deceive. An artist like Mr. Bishop produces the work with the intent to deceive, then convinces himself that the work is original, finds a gallery that collaborates with the deception and dupes the "collector" into thinking they're getting whatever it is they think they're getting.
I made a posting to Mr. Bishop's blog, taking issue with his letter to the GAS Newsletter among other criticism's, and it was promptly removed by Mr. Bishop. My second posting was also removed. It seems easy for Mr. Bishop to write critically about Dante M. but when confronted by criticism himself he can't take it. Shame on you Mr. Bishop.

[Ben Rosenfield]

Henry, he should call you and let you cuss at him over the phone.

[Henry Halem]

After my last two posting to his Blog I expect he would be sending me a (insert explosive device here)

[Lisa Zodrow]

Originally posted by Henry Halem
Worried? Who said anything about being worried.

I guess "worried" was the wrong word to use.

I feel that any gallery that is selling work that is a blatant copy doesn't have the type of cliental that has any influence on the art market. My point was long term (historically) the copiers will never have a name for themselves or find their voice as an artist because they don't have one.

Kind of the same thing as buying a fake Rolex. Does the imitation Rolex that I can buy off some guy on the street corner for $50.00 affect the Rolex company in any way? All it does is make the person wearing the fake watch look desperate to feel wealthy.

I see cheap imitations everywhere these days. Fake watches, bootlegged DVD's, fake designer everything. It's sad, but it seems to be the American way.

Bottom line-The people who understand, buy the real deal. The ones who don't get it are aspiring to be like the ones who do.

None of this affects the original artists integrety in any way.

[Scott Hegan]

I think fakes do have an impact on all segments of the market and you ignore them at your peril. There will always be Chihuly rip off artists who make greater and lesser sucessful careers out of their chicanery. If you cant beat them, join them.

This post is really about how GAS is out of touch with the ethics of the legitimate artists that presumably constitute their membership. They haven't gotten any dues from me yet because I am not a legitimate artist ;-)

What can GAS do for me? Put my work next to this guy?

I would have gone to Pittsburgh for a conference because contrary to popular sentiment, I find Pittsburgh wonderful. But I heard they moved it to Wisconsin or some bullrot. Forget them.

[R. Scott Johnson]

And next we will probably find reports of a Kaindl/Rubino suit against Bishop for copyright infringement.

[Brian Mazrim]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lisa Zodrow


I see cheap imitations everywhere these days. Fake watches, bootlegged DVD's, fake designer everything. It's sad, but it seems to be the American way.



American way? These things are made in China and sold in every country I've been to. Making a quick buck is the human way.

[Peter Bowles]

It’s so easy to bash an organisation like GAS.

I've only been a member of GAS since the conference was held in Adelaide, so perhaps I'm missing some of the history but I cant see how the organisation can be held accountable for the actions of one of its members. Especially since there is an open membership policy.

Okay, so the work is blatant, congrats to Dante M for taking the time to offer his opinions on the matter and help spur the dialogue around the issue. I would be far more concerned if the committee took it upon themselves to determine what constituted originality in the works they present in their events. It would be a political disaster and far more open to abuse and skulduggery than the open and transparent manner as it is now.

There are plenty of other platforms within the current and historic development of studio glass that can deal with the significance and value of a particular artists work- those sorts of assessments are not the role of membership organizations beyond any collective view that the membership my hold or form.

[Peter Bowles]

Funny, just received the latest newsletter after my last post.

Now I'm certainly not supporting of this guys efforts, but Henry you are well off the mark with your initial comments in this thread. Its not that ''calling my work a Chihuly rip off'' (and I paraphrase) would have a the chilling effect, but that ''GAS should establish itself as the arbiter of what is original'' is what Mr Bishop is commenting on.

There is little point in spinning this out of context surely?

Pete

[Pete VanderLaan]

At this point I think the last thing that GAS should do is to try to establish itself as an authority on anything. Dante is still correct.

[Robert Mickelsen]

Pete - It seems to me that, by publishing both Dante and then Bishop's letters in their newsletter, GAS is doing exactly what you so fervently demanded that it do... provide a public forum for controversial issues. There are not many more controversial issues than the one demonstrated by Mr. Bishop's obviously derivitive work.

As far as board members using the board as a means to further their careers, I challenge you to point to a single example of a board member whose career was in any way advanced by being on the board. This is not to say that there has not been a small minority that have joined the board with that as one of their hoped for goals only to find that nothing of the kind was in store for them. Those types are the ones who quit early or last only one term. To place such a blanket indictment on every board member is nothing but childish vindictiveness. The vast majority work hard and selflessly for purposes that have nothing whatsoever to do with personal advancement. This sort of tripe is indeed sad coming from such an otherwise intelligent and respected person as yourself.

[Pete VanderLaan]

well, you are the one who told me you enjoyed the free travel that being on the executive committee offered.

[Greg Frankhouser]

Please, no, please . No GAS is NOT coming to Wisconsin (or at least Madison) As far as I can tell. While I think we might have critical mass of shops right now, now is not the time.

Don't scare me like that ;-)

Greg

[Robert Mickelsen]

I also told you during that same coversation that the best part about being on the board was the people I had met and the things I had learned that I never would have met or learned any other way. The comment about travel perks, as I have stated many times before, was meant light-heartedly... an attempt at humor. As I remember it, you even laughed.

Let's see... distorting the facts, cherry-picking the evidence... I think Dick Cheney would have been proud of you, Pete.

But we have been all over this before and I am certain no one wants to hear it all rehashed again. Let's stick to the topic.

The work in question is clearly exploitative and deliberately derivative. There is no excuse. As a supreme court justice once said of pornography... "I know it when I see it".

A more prickly question is what to do about it. Condemnation in the community may well be the only recourse since all other approaches run into free speech issues. The nature of the work prevents if from being copyrighted in an effective manner. But we all know it when we see it, right?

[Steve Stadelman]

Originally posted by Greg Frankhouser
Please, no, please . No GAS is NOT coming to Wisconsin (or at least Madison) As far as I can tell. While I think we might have critical mass of shops right now, now is not the time.

Don't scare me like that ;-)

Greg

Pittsburgh in 07 Portland Ore in 08

[Dave Hilty]

Henry & Robert,

I do believe that you two owe it to the members of GAS to cut through the cloak of "legitimate" argument put forth in Mr. Bishop's letter. Why not author a short rebuttal so that the membership can see that the emporer has no clothes. Calling a spade a spade would have more legitimacy coming from guys with your stature in the community than coming from one of us.

I don't think we should assume that the entire membership sees it as clearly as you and we do.

Shane Fero's letter is carefully framed to grant Bishop some credibility out of principled fairness. Please let a little fresh air into the room.

[Chris Juedemann]

"So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark---the place where the wave finally broke and rolled back."

Broken record. I agree with Lisa- there will always be the kid with the purple drumsticks.

Chris

[David Patchen]

Wow, good stuff here today! (And all without Henry trying to make someone cry :)

I haven't read GAS's mission statement, but I do think it's good that they are giving airtime to this issue through Dante's letter. However, I think it's worth a board member stepping up to address the issue in an editorial. It seems like they're letting Dante do the heavy lifting by calling bullshit on a really blatant ripoff. If GAS is truly interested in furthering glass art, serving collectors and artists alike (or either!) they should have a strong statement against this kind of thing, and some thoughtful commentary on creativity, inspiration and derivation.

Additionally, if GAS claims to serve artists, I'd love to see more support for issues that matter to us. For example, Steven Maslach's work around holding color manufacturers accountable for their product's performance affects almost all of us. There are so many other issues GAS could address as advocates for artists that just don't seem to make the priority list.

dsp

[Peter Bowles]

Originally posted by David Patchen
[

If GAS is truly interested in furthering glass art, serving collectors and artists alike (or either!) they should have a strong statement against this kind of thing, and some thoughtful commentary on creativity, inspiration and derivation.

dsp [/B]


Just precisely which kind of thing David. GAS as an organisation simply, logistically, ethically and hopefully rightfully could never make a clear enough 'policy' on how to deal with issues like this.

Its to the organizations advantage to be inclusive rather than exclusive, and as I've said before, there are many other platforms within studio glass that can address the real value of somebodies contribution to the overall picture.

Though I agree that a commentary on creativity, inspiration and derivation has merit, GAS can't be the Nanny.

[David Patchen]

I was unclear.

By 'statement' I didn't mean policy.

I just meant that I'd like to see an editorial that achnowldges that while some people blatently copy work of others, it's obviously not doing anything to further glass as a medium for artists, expanding the body of legitimate artwork that exists and is ethically problematic. I'm not proposing GAS become a policeman; I am proposing that they state (among other things) that highly derivative work is less valueable, less interesting and of less importance than wholly original work.

[Pete VanderLaan]

I go well beyond that. While GAS is clearly not a court of Law, anyone in the arts actually breaking any new ground at all knows the difference between derivative and original work. While it may hang around in the second thru fifth tier, derivative work should not be promoted in any way by an organization that purports to represent the best of Glass. The problem is that no one really wants to say that. GAS desperately wants upper level artists yet it drives them away with its banal approach.

GAS will never get quality work in it's auctions as long as it auctions knock offs. This issue was discussed five years ago and it was roundly agreed that GAS would never ever put this stuff on display again. No one on the board disputed what the stuff was, yet there it was on the pedestal.

I think that the very fact that five years later Dante is now taking GAS to task on the identical subject again, speaks volumes about the organization and its pertinence in the glass community. It's an organization that holds an annual party, nothing more. The auction raises money to hold the party to raise money for the next party. At least there is a recycling effort.

[Robert Mickelsen]

GAS juries its auction now. No more knock-offs on pedestals. Everyone agreed it was poor form for that thing in Seattle to be in the auction and so now there are no more of them. Continuing to hold that error against the organization long after it has dealt with the problem is silly.

The GAS newsletter is providing a forum for the community to debate this issue. The messages in this thread on this tiny forum would reach a *far* greater audience if they were published in the GAS newsletter. This sort of debate and commentary are exactly what GAS hopes to be able to print in its letters section of the newsletter. For this to happen would be far more valuable to the community and a much more direct adherance to its mission statement than for the ED or President to express their opinions. That said, I too would like to see Shane comment more personally about this and will tell him so the next time I talk to him.

GAS exists entirely in service to its membership. The board does its best to understand and provide precisely what the membership asks that they provide. It is much more than a "party" and I think anyone who goes to the conferences regularly knows this. If it were doing such a horrible job as Pete insists, why are there 3000 members from 46 countries? Why do thousands show up at conferences every year? They must be doing *something* right.

If you really want to be heard... do what Dante did. Write a letter to the editor of the newsletter!

[Robert Mickelsen]

Originally posted by David Patchen
I do think it's good that they are giving airtime to this issue through Dante's letter. However, I think it's worth a board member stepping up to address the issue in an editorial.
You would not say that if the editorial did not agree with your viewpoint.;) GAS should provide the means for a discussion to occur, but should be very careful when it comes to taking sides.

[Pete VanderLaan]

I simply think that GAS continually has tried to be all things to all people, always trying to grow rather than serving an existing clientelle.

Originally GAS served the hot art/ and teaching community. It was a very successful grassroots organization and had a journal that was great at putting out great technical material. The last one I looked at looked more like a photo shoot of a party.

When GAS saw the success of boards like craftweb, it promptly tried to start an info board and simply put it failed to draw any interest whatsoever.

GAS has tried to draw in the bigger studios and they never have shown any serious interest in it.

GAS has tried to draw in the bigger names in the Glass field and for the most part they have shied away.

It has tried continually to draw in different disciplines in glass and keeps trying to get bigger and as Robbin states has over 3000 members. I actually thought it had more and I feel it has tried to serve too many masters. It was good serving Hotglass. Now it serves a big student population, lampworkers, beadmakers etc and apparantly the makers of bongs. It serves some of the casting community .
God knows who else. That leaves a big group to try to make happy with quality material. I would prefer to see specialization of smaller groups. I would prefer specialty conferences that were regional.

I don't really see much point in discussing plagarism with people who have never been knocked off, particularly in limited page publications that only publish six times a year.. It's too etherial until you have been mugged. Once you have, you get testy.

If as Robbin suggests that this is an issue that is ancient History from the Seattle conference, why is Dante writing about it now, five years later?

The great advantage of boards like this is that you get instant feedback. When GAS tried it, it got no feedback at all and that makes me think that even if the membership is large, its not really involved. I think of it as a very passive group that llikes an annual party .

I think the conferences are done by people who want to be noticed and do want to get ahead so I do consider the show to be self serving. I do think that there have been really questionable payments for organization such as Amsterdam. I do think there has been excessive travel and I do think it has creatd environments which keep the management of GAS in close hands. It certainly doesn't serve any needs that I have and doesn't expose me to people I want or need to consult with. Most of us with technical experience all know each other and we all communicate totally on our own. With some exceptions, GAS is made up of much less seasoned people and I'm not sure if they really do expect more than a party. Parties aren't so bad. I'm just not a party person I guess. It does supply a venue for occasionally selling crucibles but I don't depend on it. I can't see What GAS offers that I would find attractive.

[Wes Hunting]

I totally agree with Peter on this. GAS to me has nothing that serves my particular needs. I believe it is a great organization that serves certain sectors, of the world of glass art, well, mostly students and collectors and a few gallery owners. I read the list of lectures every year and there just is not enough that I feel I could benefit from to justify taking the time to attend.

[Robert Mickelsen]

Originally posted by Wes Hunting
I totally agree with Peter on this. GAS to me has nothing that serves my particular needs. I believe it is a great organization that serves certain sectors, of the world of glass art, well, mostly students and collectors and a few gallery owners. I read the list of lectures every year and there just is not enough that I feel I could benefit from to justify taking the time to attend.
No argument, Wes. But I would submit that what you get out of GAS may depend largely upon what you are willing to put into it. If you approach the conferences and other benefits offered by GAS with a "what are they going to do for me?" attitude, you may well never find anything that will compell you to attend a conference or join the organization. But if you approach it from a "how can I join in and participate?" attitude, you may find that there is not a more pertinent or information-rich program anywhere on the planet than at a GAS conference. What you get out of it all depends almost entirely upon you.

If any of you reading this thinks GAS lacks the programming at its conferences to be of any interest to glass artists and tech-heads such as yourselves, here is a suggestion: submit a proposal for a presentation that contains the content you are interested in! Maybe even give that presentation yourselves! Wes, with your reputation, any proposal submitted by you would certainly be given very serious consideration.

[Kraig Richard]

Yea Gas is not much use these days.

IMHO The old transcribed technical discussions, were the greatest thing they had.

This information is present, its here in these forums now.

There is still room for face to face technical conferences for folks who enjoy or need to make their own stuff.

And stll a need for transcripts of those meetings.

My trying to instigate a restart of technical reports happening :headbang: wasn't very fun and didn't get anything to happen.

During a time when I used the phrase "self serving" in refernce to GAS board members I got slammed good.

Now that there seems to be a concensous about this matter does that make me a trully forward thinking.

Dont everybody call me Kreshkin all at once.

Mud sticks the same then as it does now.

When I bitch about something, I think its important for me to invest time in offfering avenues torward soloutions.

Is GAS worth saving now it's so "HYDRA" ?

Ethical questions are often directed torward boards of many if not most organizations. Profit and non-profit both.

There are whole industries that have grown up to fill the niche of teaching and explaining sometimes complex issues involved in being a good ethical board member.

Perhaps the board members could forgo some other expense and authorize work ethics training into their expenditures. (In House, Not some Tahoe resort getaway package )

[Pete VanderLaan]

I do think that internet information exchange has totally changed politics and I think it has totally changed information transfer thru boards like this one. In the early days information transfer was tough. Now you can throw a question out there and pretty much have your answers, or opinions very quickly and that makes things like GAS less relevant. For lesser known people in glass when I was on the board they did not get much attention. I doubt that has changed much. I simply don't think that Robbin's observation about being involved with GAS by making proposals doesn't really do much for the individual seeking relevance but does do something for GAS. These days I have to wonder why one would do that when information transfer is not really a priority of GAS. I think if it was, those tapes of lectures would be available and the money to make them would come from not holding expensive parties. I genuinely do believe that a vast part of the membership that attends conferences regularly really do expect a big party and it makes the pickings pretty thin for the other 50 percent of the membership which either can't or won't attend. So, boards like this just keep getting more important. From my vantage point having tried to make tech stuff into a focal point for the board, I clearly failed. Even though we were filling the auditorium with people hungry for information, the tech stuff was really dismissed by too many people with influence. It's easier now to focus on this board and to not have to deal with the political nature of the board of GAS. Here, I don't worry much about image. On the board image was everything. When I wrote about Chinese bong makers tunneling under the streets of Canada here to tap electric lines , it was wonderfully funny and ballsey. On the news letter, it was scandalous that I would defame the chinese and I needed to recognize that I was glorifying common criminals. I could not and would not function with that silly pretentiousness always around and I cannot in good conscience recommend the organization to anyone now based on my experience.

Students seem to like it.

[R. Scott Johnson]

I looked forward to the technical talks and the tech display part of the conference. Though I found that the demos were generally done by people who seem to like to get their backs patted. And the student demos were usually a competition as to who can make the most bizare and 'stupid' stuff you can with glass. Makes me wonder about their 'educators'.

This is just the experience from the St.Louis conference BTW.

[Wes Hunting]

I did enjoy the party at GAS 1979 in Corning. Pat Olesko, a performance artist, came driving into the armory,while the party was in full swing, sitting on top of an old pickup truck dressed in a winged costume, at the same time there were a bunch of guys, sitting in the back, shooting marshmellows at the crowd with toy air guns. That was worth every penny.
I was standing next to some military captain in full uniform. I will never forget the look on his face.

Robert,
I just saw your new work at SOFA. Great stuff!!!!!!!
Some of the most interesting work at the show.

[Robert Mickelsen]

Originally posted by Wes Hunting
Robert, I just saw your new work at SOFA. Great stuff!!!!!!!
Some of the most interesting work at the show.
Thanks, Wes! I am waiting to hear how I did. How did you make out? SOFA can be a very tough market... one of the reasons I did not attend myself.

[Ben Rosenfield]

Originally posted by R. Scott Johnson
This is just the experience from the St.Louis conference BTW. For what it's worth, I really enjoyed meeting CraftWeb people and spending more than I could imagine on tools and stuff. The drive to St. Louis was only five hours, give or take, so I could justify showing up just to socialize (and spend more than I could imagine on tools and stuff).

[Henry Halem]

The St. Louis GAS Conference was excellent. It had a good mix of presentations in rooms that were more than adequate for all to see what was going on and it was my experience that those that attended the demos were very satisfied and happy with that aspect of the meeting. The product display area was very convenient as well. St. Louis was perfect for the conference as there were excellent sites to visit and terrific restaurants. The only waste of time for me was the party but then again I do value my hearing. There are many things that GAS can get involved with and sponser beyond the meetings and I have made my suggestions to that end to the board. Time will tell if what any of us have to say will be taken to the board and if GAS can grow and in a sense re-invent itself. I would suggest that if any of you have a serious interest in GAS beyond just complaining to submit those suggestions to the organization. I'm not suggesting that your suggestions will be implemented but I do believe the more input they get the better chance there is for constructive change.

[Brian Gingras]

or...if you really want to change something, run for office.

[David Patchen]

I was just in Scottsdale and wandered around to a few galleries and came upon some Jeau Bishop work. I couldn't believe that galleries will show that stuff--it couldn't be a more blatent copy. And single small wavy bowls for $4k? Holy shit, that's nuts! I wonder how this guy sleeps at night?

[Scott Novota]

At 4k a bowl, in 1000 point sheets.



Scott.
.

[Alexander Adams]

Scottsdale is just about the shallowish city I have ever visited.

[Greg Vriethoff]

Originally posted by Wes Hunting
check it out, " the museum collection"

http://jeaubishop.bigstep.com/generic635.html

just had to see for myself.


The thing that jumped out at me right away is the excessive use of the word "original"

Go figure :rolleyes:

[David Paterson]

In my opinion, the issues presented by Jeau Bishop, Robert Kaindl, Bryan Rubino and the Chihuly lawsuits are marginally connected to originality.


The real issue is ownership, not originality.


.