Just wondering about Judging Trajectories.

[ditfd]

As I said, it all goes back to intention and motivation. If you can ask yourself the question, "What was my inspiration for this bead?" and the answer is honestly something like, "Oh, I was inspired by a bikini somebody was wearing on the beach in Indialantic, Florida," then your intention is pure. If you are inspired by another bead you saw some where, then not. Can two or more artists, working from completely different places, points of view, intentions, motivations come up with a similar conceptual idea? Yes. Is that derivative? No. And you can bet it was a momentary meeting of the minds, and each will be off on their own pathway.

I believe people on a jury should be well versed in the world and work they are jurying to be able to make a judgement in this matter. The only time I ever feel bad about being rejected is if the jury was not qualified. To me, it's a very big deal to be on a jury, and you'd better know a lot about the stuff you're going to be looking at.

But to shrug your shoulders and call the idea of coming up with something unique--or looking at it the opposite way-- to consider that everything good and great has already been thought of or done by now sounds rather hopeless. I don't agree, and I hope to discover something new and different on my journey. So we can agree to disagree then.

My vote for the jury thing remains the same: that is that the names be known at the end before the final decision, but not at the beginning for the initial cuts.

Not that any of us have a say in it anyway, since whoever puts on a show can make their own rules. This is a hypothetical discussion really...

BTW, thanks Sharon! I might just go make a fish right now!

Best,
Patti

[TheGlassCove]

Yes please make a fish. I'd love to see it and I will guarantee you someone,somewhere will say you stole their idea. If it has 3 fins, instead of four (like I heard about a certain cats whiskers) someone will say it's their fish with 3 fins!

Funny how that works.

The only advanatge I can see to showing an artists name before the final choice, but after the initial cut - is to make sure some 'newby' didn't outstage someone who thinks they are 'original' to the glass world - it enhances political correctness.

I realize every show is different and it is up to the organizers how they want it run. It would be interesting to have someone who knew nobody - doing the judging. No pressure to be politically correct, no pressure to be the knock off patrol, or the copy police - just which bead do you think is best. Now that's original

[PamDugger]

Actually, Nancy, I believe many jurors are the way you described. I've seen some interesting work by jurors who, A, carried someone's work in their own gallery who they did not jury into a show. B, decided a piece of really unique work couldn't be glass and therefore did not jury it into a show, C, called someone's work derivative because they put a silver core in their bead, D, juried in someone who made an exact copy of another's bead to enter the contest. Jurors vary and it usually has nothing to do with anything but the juror's own knowledge or lack thereof of the beadmaking world, not the names.

I'd really like to know why you believe jurors would jury someone in because of their name, as opposed to inspite of it. If I was a juror, I would be drawn to innovation, something unique, something different, a famous name may even be a drawback. I personally for the most part believe most jurors are totally unfamiliar with our names and judge the work on their own aesthetics, alongside the guidelines of the contest or show.

Have you perhaps ever thought that those who have "famous names" have those names for a reason, because they represent the ultimate in craftsmanship and original artistic interpretation? I have seen beads sent in for jurying that have the side photographed beautifully rendered and the other side cracked, devitrified, bead release trapped inside. Craftsmanship is at least half what one looks at when judging a bead, I would think, and I doubt someone who has been making beads a year would have the same abilities of someone who has been making beads for 10 or 12 years. Their artistic abilities may surpass their technical abilities and when a piece is juried into a show both have to be represented.

[ditfd]

Well, I'm just about done with the thread. I had a look at your web site Nancy and I understand exactly where you're coming from. I'll tell you this: if I make a fish, it won't look like Pam's, I promise -- it'll look like mine. And if I decide to make a fish, it'll be for a reason that is internal to my own creative process. And then if I decide to enter it into a show, I'll take the best photo I'm capable of and cross my fingers. And I'll be thankful for knowledgeable jurors such as Jim, who have really studied the work of our group over a long period of time, and who probably has one of the best grasps of our craft of anyone out there, and who is also generous in nature and spirit and time, and who enjoys sharing his thought process with us all.

You do as you wish -- copy every bead you like until you can make it better than the person's whose bead you studied, or the artist/teacher who was kind enough to share his or her knowledge, or the book you looked at, the web site, ebay, magazines, videos, and so on. I have more ideas rattling around in my head than I have time to execute, so if you take that tack, you'll always be playing catchup. BTW, there are no "self-taught" artists, something you might agree with.

The easiest aspect of any artform is mastering the technique and tools. The far more difficult part is the artistic side -- that requires some internal work and some honest answering of hard questions asked and answered only to yourself.

Have at it,
Patti

[TheGlassCove]

Well, I'm just about done with the thread. I had a look at your web site Nancy and I understand exactly where you're coming from. I'll tell you this: if I make a fish, it won't look like Pam's, I promise -- it'll look like mine. And if I decide to make a fish, it'll be for a reason that is internal to my own creative process. And then if I decide to enter it into a show, I'll take the best photo I'm capable of and cross my fingers. And I'll be thankful for knowledgeable jurors such as Jim, who have really studied the work of our group over a long period of time, and who probably has one of the best grasps of our craft of anyone out there, and who is also generous in nature and spirit and time, and who enjoys sharing his thought process with us all.

You do as you wish -- copy every bead you like until you can make it better than the person's whose bead you studied, or the artist/teacher who was kind enough to share his or her knowledge, or the book you looked at, the web site, ebay, magazines, videos, and so on. I have more ideas rattling around in my head than I have time to execute, so if you take that tack, you'll always be playing catchup. BTW, there are no "self-taught" artists, something you might agree with.

The easiest aspect of any artform is mastering the technique and tools. The far more difficult part is the artistic side -- that requires some internal work and some honest answering of hard questions asked and answered only to yourself.

Have at it,
Patti

I can only assume you are accusing me of copying a Pam's fish bead. I have never met Pam, seen her work, or taken a class form her etc. But I assume her fish must be beautiful then! I made all the fish on my web site about 6 years ago. I made them because at the time I was into aquarium fish because I had a huge aquarium. That's where I 'derived' my inspiration from!!

This is exactly what I am talking about. Someone sees a fish whether its a puffer fish, or a clown fish, etc and right away there are a SELECT FEW that have it in their minds that someone else who does one is copying. Someone like you, that accuses people of copying, just like you just did and yet you have NO idea of how long I have been making fish, what my inspirations were etc. I read piles and piles of fish books studyied them, raised them, in order to get them as real as I could. Those pictures are the old ones - you should see my new stuff!

This is EXACTLY folks why the Dreaded 'C- Word' is dreaded!! Falsely accusing someone is tacky!


'Have at it' - too funny!

[TheGlassCove]

[QUOTE=PamDugger]I'd really like to know why you believe jurors would jury someone in because of their name, as opposed to inspite of it. If I was a juror, I would be drawn to innovation, something unique, something different, a famous name may even be a drawback. I personally for the most part believe most jurors are totally unfamiliar with our names and judge the work on their own aesthetics, alongside the guidelines of the contest or show[QUOTE]




All the more reason an artists name should not be mentioned until after. I'd hate to see anyone be at an advantage, or as you suggested, a possible disadvantage because of their name.

No names - eliminates all of that.

My original question was why did the names have to be mentioned. I think the post about the orchestra behind the closed curtains says it all. That was an excellent post.

[SharonPeters]

*never mind* got too involved in this discussion, am backing out... *s*

[TheGlassCove]

I looked at your website too. *sharon*

I took a class from you. I also had the book on your sculptural beads. Did the cat. Not my style. Made one and only one.

[PamDugger]

Nancy, please understand that I am not accusing you of copying my beads. God made those fish and anyone who wants may make a copy of his work. I haven't seen your website, but please enjoy making your fish. I certainly enjoy making mine and I would never accuse anyone of copying them - except maybe the time I made up one and labeled it with a pretend name and found that another person made a copy and labeled it with that same pretend name. I personally thought it was hysterical!!

You know, I can certainly understand Patti's concern over derivative work. I think when an artist takes the time to come up with a unique bead, then share their techniques and possibly color patterns with their fellow beadmakers, that effort and that sharing should be respected, and entering into a contest a bead that has been copied from the work of that artist is somewhat like cheating and also disrespectful.

Let's look at the work of some well-known beadmakers. Kristina Logan uses dots. So does Larry Scott, Tom Holland, Larry Brickman. I wouldn't consider any of their work derivative of the others. Even though they are basing their work on dots, each artist's work is unique. They each have found their own voice. That's what we all need to do.

[TheGlassCove]

Nancy, please understand that I am not accusing you of copying my beads. God made those fish and anyone who wants may make a copy of his work. I haven't seen your website, but please enjoy making your fish. I certainly enjoy making mine and I would never accuse anyone of copying them - except maybe the time I made up one and labeled it with a pretend name and found that another person made a copy and labeled it with that same pretend name. I personally thought it was hysterical!!

You know, I can certainly understand Patti's concern over derivative work. I think when an artist takes the time to come up with a unique bead, then share their techniques and possibly color patterns with their fellow beadmakers, that effort and that sharing should be respected, and entering into a contest a bead that has been copied from the work of that artist is somewhat like cheating and also disrespectful.

Let's look at the work of some well-known beadmakers. Kristina Logan uses dots. So does Larry Scott, Tom Holland, Larry Brickman. I wouldn't consider any of their work derivative of the others. Even though they are basing their work on dots, each artist's work is unique. They each have found their own voice. That's what we all need to do.

Hi Pam

I am assuming you are the Pam that Patti was referring to. Sorry, I have never met you, seen your work, etc. The only Pam I know that flameworks makes pipes - so I knew it wasn't that Pam! Like I mentioned in my response to Patti I have been making fish for several years as I got into them in a big way with my aquarium. I have mounted them on various things such as driftwood,marble,soda rock,dried starfish, mirror etc. I did driftwood for a period because we live near the Rocky Mountains and hubby and I picked driftwood one day till we looked like driftwood. I figured it would look good as a fish base. Good God I hope you don't mount yours on driftwood, starfish, mirror, or soda rock as well! I am not sure which fish (heck maybe all of them) Patti was referring to that I copied off of you but if it wasn't so funny it'd be sad.

It is ironic how because of this people can see how easily it is to falsely accuse someone of copying someones work they have never seen or met etc.

As an aside, I made my Alberta Bead as a gift to our Provincial Premier, as it was Alberta's 100th Anniversary. Even though I came up with this image of what I wanted this bead to incorporate, and designed it in glass, how arrogant it would be for me to assume any bead that looks like this one has copied my idea. I made my breast bead with the simple intention of making it for a friend who survived breast cancer. I even put the mastecomy on the correct breast! No doubt someone will now copy me!

Thank you so much for your response. I can understand the paranoia about copying - and it is accusations like Patti made that incorrectly feed it. Sad. How many other artists gain inspiration on their own, like my fish, only to be accused over 6 years later that they copied someone?

I agree with Patti when she said she has a lot of ideas of things to make. I am like that also - I just get ticked, and offended, when I come up with an idea - only to be accused of copying someone years later. Things that make me go hmmmmm.


My website is www.glasscove.com.